I am John Winter, Company Secretary and Finance Director of Bishop Auckland District Angling Club Ltd, Migratory Fish Officer—Salmon and Trout Association (Northumbria Region), Press Officer—Wear Valley Anglers Association, Founder Member—North Atlantic Salmon Fund, Founder Member—River Wear Environmental Trust.

  I have, in the past, been a member of the Fisheries Advisory Committee (Northumbria Region) and the National Migratory Fish Committee of the Salmon and Trout Association. I am currently a member of the local Fisheries Forum of the Environment Agency.

  Bishop Auckland District Angling Club Ltd own/control some 20 miles of fishing on the River Wear, and 3 miles on the River Tees, both situated in the North East of England. The Club also runs a 21 acre trout fishery and a 12 acre specimen carp fishery.

  We cater for all types of angling and our various fisheries fulfil a substantial angling need in the North East. Our river section has 400 members, the stillwater trout fishery has over 6,500 angler visits per year and the carp fishery has some 80 members.

  As a responsible organisation we work closely with the Environment Agency on all aspects of fishery management which includes restocking, habitat improvement, flood defence/river improvement work and the creation of new fisheries.

  For a number of years I, and my colleagues, have been concerned about the serious under-funding of the Environment Agency, and indeed their predecessors, The National Rivers Authority. We would therefore wish to make the following observations/comments to the Select Committee for consideration.

FUNDING OF FISHERIES WORK:

  MAFF have indicated that in 2001 their funding of fisheries work undertaken by the Environment Agency will be reduced by £1.5 million. This decision seems to have been taken without any reference to the Government's Fisheries Legislative Review Group who have yet to submit their final Report to Ministers. We are very concerned that important activities to protect and improve fisheries, which are a Statutory requirement of the Agency, will be put at risk.

  Over recent years, as funding has reduced, the Agency has promoted Working in "Partnership" with interested parties/beneficiaries of their work on a cost sharing basis. Until recently this has been of benefit to those involved, allowing more improvements to be carried out. However, as the Agency's funding is reduced they are unable to work in "Partnership" as they do not have sufficient funds to meet even 50 per cent of the costs.

  I realise the Select Committee's work is most closely linked with DETR functions but I believe that you should take into account that a lot of the Agency's work is for the good of the environment and the general public and should examine how funding for this important work can be maintained at full and proper levels.

  It has been suggested that the proposed reduction of £1.5 million from MAFF is to enable the Government to recoup some of the £30 million plus spent on the BSE crisis. The work of the Agency should not be threatened to "balance the books", those reductions should be made from agriculture.

FUNDING OF NEW LEGISLATION/DUTIES:

  I understand that the Environment Agency has been required to adopt a range of new duties in accordance with new legislation from Europe and Parliament. Examples that I have heard of include work for the Habitats Directive, Groundwater Regulations, Packaging Regulations etc. I am concerned that the Agency is being asked to cope with these added workloads without sufficient additional resources being provided. This will result in none of these being properly undertaken.

EFFECTIVE REGULATION

  The major role of the Environmental Agency is as regulator and enforcer of environmental laws. With my interest in rivers and fisheries it has always been important to me that the Agency, and the NRA previously, should be able to properly respond to pollution incidents and to take action against polluters. I am worried that this type of work will suffer due to the pressures on reducing resources and added duties. I would like to be reassured that the Agency is to be properly resourced and that decisions about the use of resources are made sensibly.

INTEGRATION

  I have appreciated the value of integration of different functions in the NRA and now the Environment Agency. It seems sensible and beneficial to have access to advice on decisions from the one body that can account for, say, fisheries, conservation and water quality issues together.

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

  I have used information and data collected by the Agency for Reports to Ministers and others. I feel that monitoring work is very important. However, I question whether sufficient value is given to ecological monitoring (eg of fish stocks and invertebrates) as compared to the chemical monitoring that the Agency carries out. It seems to me that what we need to know is if the environment is fit for wildlife and people and that measuring the quality of animal and plant life should give the most relevant answers. They are also more likely to give a longer term measure of the quality of the environment than chemical sampling. I feel that the Agency should actively review it's monitoring programmes with this in mind.

October 1999