Deputy Roger Garland has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the serious situation outlined by the sea trout action group report on the disappearance of sea trout from Connemara and south Mayo and the failure of the Minister for the Marine to respond to that report. Deputy Garland has a maximum of five minuties.
Adjournment Debate. - Sea Trout Stocks.
I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to raise this very important matter in the House. The sea trout action group was set up in 1988 with a brief to investigate the very serious decline in the sea trout population in Galway and Mayo. The group comprise a wide spectrum of interest in this area, including the chief executive of the Central Fisheries Board and representatives of fishery owners and fish farms.
Their findings were unanimous, that the situation is serious and, indeed, critical for the survival of this wonderful species, is evidenced by the figures from the various fisheries in this area. In the Kylemore fisheries the catch declined from 2,411 in 1985 to 1989 and in the Ballinahinch Lower area from 2,300 to 20 in the same period.
Conditions deteriorated further last year when the Minister ordered the complete shut down of the sea trout fisheries in many areas in Galway and Mayo to conserve the dwindling stocks. This catastrophic reduction in sea trout stocks was not mirrored by fisheries in Donegal, Cork, Waterford and many other parts of the coast. It is clearly a problem particular to this area.
The committee examined many possible reasons for the virtual disappearance of the sea trout. The general feeling was that a number of factors were at work but the report highlighted the plague of sea lice which clearly had a detrimental effect on sea trout stocks. If we examine the sea lice problem the report states that there is definite connection between salmon farming, which is very extensive in this area, and the plague of sea lice. The committee, in a number of recommendations, calls for the relocation of many fish farm cages and also recommends that no further licences or tonnage increases be granted for salmon farms in locations which might impact on wild fisheries.
The year 1991 is a crucial one for the future of the sea trout. Unless the recommendations of this report are implemented immediately the probability is that this wonderful gift of nature will be lost forever which would be a major tragedy for Ireland and Europe. I am not surprised at the findings of this committee as the writing has been on the wall for the last two years. I would remind the House that since my election to the Dáil in 1989 I have called repeatedly for a moratorium in issuing fresh licences for fish farms. I have attended the Department of the Marine with delegations of extremely worried people from Connemara, representing shell fish farmers, tourist interests, conservationists and so forth. The Minister, and the Department of the Marine, have been unwilling to listen to reason in this matter. They behaved in a most irresponsible fashion and have denied any connection between the decline of the sea trout and the fish farming industry.
There are other aspects of fish farming which cause considerable disquiet. The use of the deadly chemical nuvan, which is used to control sea lice, is very much feared by the shellfish operators who are carrying out an environment friendly industry in the area. Another factor is the very dubious quality of much of the farmed salmon to the extent that there is now considerable consumer resistance to eating salmon in restaurants. This is a major disaster for the tourist trade as salmon has always been a prized dish for tourists. They are afraid to eat salmon now because God only knows what they are getting.
I accept that salmon farming creates jobs which are badly needed in the west but more jobs will be lost due to the absence of our fishing tourists who have gone elsewhere due to the virtual disappearance of the sea trout. I call on the Minister to treat this matter with extreme urgency and give an undertaking in the House to implement immediately the main recommendations in this report and put an end to this affair which is now approaching the proportions of a national scandal.
I have indicated on many occasions my concern at the serious decline in sea trout stocks in certain parts of the west of Ireland. I am well aware of the economic consequences of this decline and the fears that exist that the continued existence of certain stocks could be in jeopardy. I have supported financially the work which has been undertaken over the last 18 months to identify the causes of the decline in stocks and remedial measures to be taken to arrest the decline. The support, through the scientific staff of my Department and through the salmon research agency — which is under the aegis of my Department — has been appreciated.
Early in 1990 I was requested by the sea trout action group to introduce an emergency by-law for the areas concerned banning the taking of sea trout. I moved immediately on the request and the sea trout action group have kindly acknowledged that fact in their latest report. I received this latest report on 4 February. In a statement issued on that date, I welcomed its publication and immediately directed my Department to examine urgently the possible management steps which might be proposed on precautionary grounds. I also asked that consultations be held with the relevant State agencies: An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Central Fisheries Board, Údarás na Gaeltachta, the Industrial Development Authority and the Irish aquaculture industry. I also indicated that I proposed to meet the sea trout action group at an early date and that I fully intended to support the further research work which, I understand, would be necessary to undertake in relation to the primary causes of the problem.
The consultation and assessment process I have initiated is well in hand. It entails urgent examination of the research work undertaken to date and the conclusions which may be correctly drawn from it. It involves focusing on the further research work required to tease out properly all the issues and how that might best be organised. It also involves a technical assessment of the relationship between the research results to date and the various management measures advocated by the action group as well as the technical, legal and other implications of those measures. My aim is to reach my own conclusions on this subject within weeks and take whatever steps are justified on the basis of — and I emphasise — scientifically proven conclusions.
I reject totally any suggestion that I have failed to respond to this report. I must also reject the idea that anybody has a monopoly of concern about our environment. This issue is a most serious one. It has received serious consideration over an 18 month period from the sea trout action group, supported by me as I have already indicated. I am giving the report equally serious consideration and will not be pressurised into making responses which have not been fully and properly considered.
The Deputy should be aware that the report contains some 17 management recommendations. These relate to the control of sea lice, sea trout protection measures, including widespread bans on netting and changes in netting arrangements. Some of these measures would require legislative action of either a secondary or primary nature. Consultation procedures must be followed in the consideration of such measures. I can assure the House, however, that the matter is being given the highest priority. I will not hesitate to take any measures which are properly supported by scientific advice.
That reply is a disgrace.
I am not going to listen to public house scientists.
Deputy Garland should appreciate the rules and regulations under which we operate and should not act in a disorderly fashion.