§ Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many cormorants were estimated to exist at each of the locations for which applications were made for licences to kill them in 1984; and how many were permitted to be killed in each location where permission to kill was granted;
(2) on what grounds the six applications to kill cormorants were refused in 1984; and to which parts of the United Kingdom they related;
(3) to which parts of the United Kingdom each of the applications to kill cormorants granted in 1984 related;
(4) why a licence to kill cormorants was issued against the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council;
(5) what was the cost in 1984 of administering the scheme to determine whether or not a licence to kill cormorants will be issued; and what was the cost to public funds per licence;
(6) how long each of the licences issued to kill cormorants lasts;
(7) what was the nature and extent of the damage alleged to have been caused by cormorants in each of the applications for licences to kill the birds;
(8) what definition he uses of (i) serious damage and (ii) serious economic loss in the context of the granting of an application to kill cormorants;
(9) why it is necessary to protect the identity of those who apply for licences to kill cormorants.
§ Mrs. FennerLicences applied for and issued under section 16(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the killing of cormorants causing serious damage in England and Wales during 1984 are set out in the table.
Agriculture Departments in England and Wales have agreed with the Nature Conservancy Council that "serious damage" should mean convincing evidence of actual or potential significant economic loss. The degree of economic loss will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.
Details of each licence application are passed to the Nature Conservancy Council for its views, but it is for Agriculture Ministers to decide on the issue of a licence, taking account of all the circumstances.
Licence applications are treated in confidence, but the Nature Conservancy Council is free to pass details of any case to any responsible body with an interest. Licence applicants are so informed.
The cost of administering the issue of all licences under section 16(1) of the 1981 Act is borne within the general administrative and ADAS Votes of the Department concerned. To obtain information specifically about cormorant licensing at this stage could only incur disproportionate cost.
271W
Location Nature and extent of damage Estimated number of cormorants at damage site Maximum number permitted to be killed under licence Duration of licence Number killed 2. Withington Pools Wilmslow Cheshire (2 licences) Serious damage to trout stocks 26 (i) 10 (1984) (ii) 5 (1985) (i) 5 weeks (1984) (ii) 6 months (1985) (i)4 (ii) Nil to date (licence expires April 1985) 3. Maiden Essex Serious damage to trout stocks 15–20 10 1 year Nil to date (licence expires October 1985) 4. Cefni Reservoir Anglesey Serious damage to trout stocks 1–7 6 2½ months Nil to date (licence expires April 1985)
II—Licenses Refused Location Nature and extent of damage Estimated number of cormorants at damage site Grounds for refusal of licence 1. Queen Mother Reservoir, Berkshire. Damage to trout stocks. 20 to 30 Alternative deterrent measures recommended. 2. Langstone Harbour, Hayling Island. Damage to oyster stocks Numerous, no estimate made. Insufficient evidence of serious damage. 3. Langstone Harbour, Hayling Island. Damage to fisheries. Numerous, no estimate made. Insufficient evidence of serious damage. 4. Halesworth, Suffolk. Damage to trout stocks 22 Insufficient evidence of serious damage. 5. River Tees, Yarn, Cleveland. Damage to sporting fish stocks. 40 Shooting unlikely to reduce damage. 6. Llyn Traws Fynydd, Gwynedd. Damage to trout stocks. 16 Deterrent methods not yet tried. 7. Horton, Slough. Damage to trout stocks. 17 Results of alternative deterrent measures awaited. 8. Lake Vyrnwy, Powys. Damage to trout stocks. 1 to 5 Application under consideration