Would You Support a Levy on the Rod Licence?

[Bob Bradford]

Waveney One wrote;

 

"I can assure you that more money is spent by the EA on fisheries than is ever recovered from licence sales."

 

Do you have the figures readily at hand please Richard?

[Waveney One]

No I don't Bob. What I do know is that as well as the rod licence money, which goes to fisheries, the Government put a proportion of that in. It used to be that the more licence sales the greater the income from the government. Last year this government changed it and reduced the proportion that fisheries got from them.

 

I will have a hunt for the figures and see what I can find out.

[Steve Walker]

Less than 10 million from government, about 18 million from anglers.

[Waveney One]

Where do you get your figures from Steve? All I can find is this on the EA website

 

"Financing our activities

 

We raise charges on those we regulate or those who benefit from particular aspects of our work:

• Our flood defence activities are financed primarily by grants from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) and levies on Local Authorities .

• Expenditure on water resources is funded entirely through charges made for licences to abstract water from rivers and other waterways.

• For our remaining functions, relating to environmental protection, fisheries, recreation, conservation and navigation, we receive our funding mainly from charges for licences, supplemented by Government grant-in-aid.

 

• Government and other grants £640m (65%)

• Charges and levies £309m (31%)

• Other income £37m (4%)"

 

Now, I believe that only 1.2m rod licences are sold - not sure if that is just coarse or if it includes migratory fish licences. If you assume that the numbers for concessionary licences and migratory fish licences balance each other out and the licence charge this year as we know is £24 then the income from anglers is roughly £29m.

 

It would be a lot clearer if the EA published figures.

 

Of course a lot of the EA's resources have an indirect affect on angling as well. Not all of them good of course. What I do know is that cuts have been made by fisheries departments because of the drop in the grant-in-aid reduction by the government that was pushed through with hardly a whimper from our governing bodies. As I said above, as far as I am aware, proportionately far more is spent on salmon fisheries than any other aspect of the sport.

[Steve Walker]

Where do you get your figures from Steve?

 

http://saauk.blogspot.com/

 

The numbers look similar to last time I looked into this, when I looked at this. There is a new annual report out now, here which appears to be lumping in some other figures. Receipts of 27.1m and grant in aid of 16.5m. It's not clear to me where those numbers are coming from, because direct grant in aid was around 6 million in 2005 (according to an answer in the House from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). I think they've changed the way they aggregate those figures. I think there's something else lumped into both the receipts and the grant aid.

 

In 1993 the Environment Agency received about £14 million Grant in Aid (GiA) from the Government, to support their responsibilities for fisheries work.

 

Today they receive less than £10 million to support that work and the workload and Agency responsibility has been increased in the intervening years by Government.

 

Coarse and game anglers contribute more than £18 million a year, through rod license fees, to the Agency and we see an annual increase in those dues. However Government feels that it can continue to cut GiA whilst charging anglers more and more.

 

This is not a plea to reduce licence fees. It is a demand that, having enjoyed headlines based around their commitment to angling, the present Government should demonstrate their commitment to healthy fisheries by bringing GiA back to the levels previously seen as necessary to fulfil the Environment Agency obligations to enhance and improve our fisheries and to meet our obligations under the Water Framework Directive.

 

Defra has, only this year, announced further cuts in GiA for fisheries work. The Agency is overstretched and presently incapable of policing our fisheries or their own bylaws because of lack of money from the Chancellor.

 

Anglers pay their bit. It is time this Government realised that all of society benefits from healthy waterways and started to fund the Agency adequately.

 

If the £14 million in 1993 was re-valued at today’s prices the Government would be giving the Agency nearly £19 million a year. Instead it delivers half of that!

 

Is this the mark of a Government which really cares for angling and fisheries?

[Waveney One]

Thanks for the info lads, I will study them in detail. As an accountant, at least I should be able to make some sendse of it.

 

Going back to the topic more directly. I feel that any increase/levy must be matched by at least an equal amount from the Government, whether that be directly or via sport england.

[Waveney One]

By the way, sea anglers would also need to purchase a licence and pay a levy. It has always seemed strange to me that they were exempt in the first place.

[Steve Walker]

Perhaps the state should subsidise my cinema going?

 

That would be silly. You should develop an interest in opera instead

[Waveney One]

Looking at the grant in aid situation. Looking at the analysis of receipts and payments in the EA's accounts, (page 113 if anyone is interested) it appears that there are some other grant in aid receipts for things other than fisheries. Thefigures are as follows:

 

Fisheries £16.5m

Recreation and conservation £10.7m

Navigation £13.9m

 

However, although 'other receipts' for fisheries including rod licences total £27.1m the receipts for R & C total only £0.9m and Navigation £5.2m which includes a mere £3.3m for navigation licence receipts. This compares with at least

 

It seems that we are, as usual, getting the muddy end of the quant pole when compared with boaters. We get less than we put in, boaters get considerably more.

 

Another interesting point is that there were only 34,062 migratory fish licences sold in the year ended 31/3/05. How much of the fishery budget goes towards salmon and sea trout I wonder?

[Waveney One]

Erm... Why exactly...?

 

Perhaps the state should subsidise my cinema going?

 

 

Quite simply, no pay no say as Keith Arthur has said. Apart from which, the EA are responsible for checking the outfalls into the sea just as much as they are for rivers. They are responsible for water quality of the inshore waters.

Edited October 30, 2006 by Waveney One