Vol. 436 No. 6
31 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for the Marine when he intends publishing his proposals on salmon drift net fishing; if he intends allowing the use of monofilament nets in his proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
55 Ms McManus asked the Minister for the Marine his policy in relation to commercial drift net fishing in view of the fact that Ireland is now the only country in the North Atlantic to allow this form of fishing; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
64 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for the Marine if he will reassure fishermen who are licensed to fish for salmon with drift nets that their livelihoods will be protected in the years ahead; and if he intends to implement the recommendation of the salmon review body with regard to the use of a limited number of monofilament nets under licence.
96 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for the Marine if he has any proposals regarding drift net fishing for salmon in Irish waters; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
97 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for the Marine his future policy as regards drift net fishing; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
103 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for the Marine if he will publish his proposals on salmon drift net fishing; if he will allow for the use of monafilament nets in his proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose taking Questions Nos. 31, 55, 64, 96, 97 and 103 together.
Let me say at the outset, to allay any fears that might exist amongst the legitimate salmon fishing community, that there are no proposals to introduce a compulsory ban on salmon drift netting. I recognise, however, that in the longer term the balance of advantage on conservation, environmental and economic grounds will lie increasingly with redirecting salmon stocks away from commercial towards recreational fishing.
Legal netting of salmon is a long established practice in many of the remote coastal areas in Ireland and the income from such fishing activity plays an important role in sustaining traditional fishing communities. The management of any change, therefore, from commercial towards recreational fishing must, because of its socio-economic consequences, be carried through with great sensitivity, on a gradual basis and by consensus.
To advance this a full review of drift netting policy is being carried out within the Department of the Marine. On receipt of this review I intend to engage in a full consultative process with all groups interested in the management and exploitation of this resource. The review will obviously consider the recommendations of all the various reports published, both nationally and internationally, including the salmon review group report published here in 1988.
Finally, I would like to refer to the point commonly made that Ireland is the only country in the North Atlantic to allow this form of fishing. In this regard it should be borne in mind that the United Kingdom still practices this form of netting in a number of locations along its coast with a substantial drift net fishery off the Northumberland coast. I recognise that the United Kingdom has indicated its intention to phase out this fishery, but over a substantial timeframe.
Negotiations on the cessation of fishing off the coasts of the Faroe Islands and Greenland were completed after considerable deliberations and are for a limited period of time — I understand five years. It should be noted that most of the salmon taken off the coasts of the Faroes and West Greenland belong to us, the Canadians and the Norwegians. They originated not in local rivers but in the rivers of countries like Ireland, the UK, Norway and Canada. The salmon heading for Irish rivers that are taken in the Irish drift net fishery are mostly of Irish origin. What we have, we hold.
Does the Minister intend implementing the recommendation of the review group to allow the use of monofilament nets? I understand that was one of its recommendations. If that is the case we will need to have strict controls in relation to, for instance, the number of days allowed, the period in which fishing would be allowed, the length of netting and so on. Will the Minister assure the House that certain rules and regulations will be put in place in this area and that whatever regulations are agreed upon will be enforced in the interest of the whole fishing industry and our tourism industry?
In relation to monofilament netting, I find it anathema to the whole concept of fair play. As long as I am Minister for the Marine I would like to assure this House and anyone else who cares to listen that monofilament net will not be part of my stock in trade.
On the question of regulation and enforcement, I give an undertaking to Deputy Barrett and the House that in the event of the recommendations of the review group being acceptable, I will certainly have the regulations enforced very thoroughly.
Is the Minister aware that in some areas, at least during last season, salmon drift net fishermen fared very poorly, principally, it is alleged, because of drift net fishing by foreign trawlers on the northern part of our coast? He did not indicate in his reply whether he intends taking any action in that regard and if he will improve the vigilance of the Naval Service with regard to salmon fishing. I know that in other cases vigilance has been stepped up somewhat but salmon fishing in particular suffered very badly last year. Will the Minister take any action in the future in this regard?
I do not wish to be confrontational but last year the salmon had a good run down the west coast. I understand the Naval Service has done a very good job in protecting the salmon run. There is a crossroads at the top north west of the island, at which salmon go in different directions and return to their native rivers. The Naval Service is doing an excellent job in protecting the return of salmon to their native rivers. I believe that is the reason we had such a good run of salmon this past year.
Will the Minister indicate when his Department's policy review will be completed and whether he proposes to publish its outcome? Will he confirm whether it is true that, as reported, that review does not include consideration of a ban, or even a partial ban, on commercial drift-net fishing even where such may be desirable to protect stocks?
In relation to the publication of the review I can tell the Deputy, yes, that will be published but, in advance of its publication, naturally there will be consultation with the people most concerned, the drift-net fishermen.
Is the question of a ban being considered by the Minister's Department?
No, a ban is too provocative. I do not like banning things, nor do I like preventing people doing things. I prefer to urge people to do things, through consultation or consensus, through the democratic process. There is no question of banning people. There may well be a number of issues considered in relation to existing licences, for example, licences which have not been taken up or used could be abolished. I understand that altogether there had been some 900 licences which are now down to some 600. The usage of those 600 licences could be examined within the context of the overall review but the question of banning or not banning does not arise in my vocabulary.
Even on a partial basis?
No, I would not use the word "ban". I would prefer to use the words "consensus", "consultation", or "discussion" with a view to achieving what we seek to the advantage of salmon generally.
Or incentives?
Yes, perhaps incentives but anything other than banning.
I am somewhat amused at the Minister saying, on the one hand, he would not ban anything while, on the other, saying he would not even legalise the use of monofilament nets. If the Minister has his ear to the ground he must be aware that, over the past ten years, the only type of net used by drift-net fishermen here has been monofilament, that indeed this State allows the importation of such monofilament net. I might remind him that the Minister for Finance collects value-added tax from such importation. In the interest of common sense so far as drift-net fishermen are concerned, would the Minister consider legalising the use of monofilament net provided that the season and the fishing week were shortened by the fishermen in question, which would be of greater advantage to the conservation of fish stocks than endeavouring to outlaw the use of monofilament nets which have been in use here for the past decade?
As the Deputy said, of course, the use of monofilament net is illegal. Therefore, the question of banning or not banning does not arise, except that I could introduce legislation in the House, make regulations or resort to whatever other legal methods would be required. I am afraid I do not agree with the Deputy; I consider the useage of monofilament net anathema to fair play and justice. Indeed, I owe it to this and future generations, to conserve salmon, that is salmo salar, which is like the white trout we are trying to conserve for our heritage. The usage of monofilament net is simply unjust.
I take the Deputy's point and have discussed this with the fishermen about whom he is speaking, people with small farms. I know that these fishermen come from communities who, to a large extent, rely on this activity for their livelihood. I have the greatest respect for them. This argument and case has been made by them and on their behalf but I am afraid I do not agree with it. If there was any other way I could help them I would be glad to do so. If the Deputy has an alternative suggestion to the usage of monofilament netting, I would be glad to look at it and at as many suggestions he might care to bring to my attention. I do not want to create pain among these peripheral communities. My political philosophy, and that of the party of which I am a member, supports them, wants to support them; in fact wants to encourage people from urban areas to move to those places, to repopulate rather than depopulate them.
One must respect the Minister's view. Without going into the agrument of whether it is a good or bad thing what bothers me is that, if their usage is illegal — and the Minister says there is no way he will render it legal as long as he is in office — the regulations and laws are not being enforced. Would he agree that there is no point in having laws if they are not enforced because it brings the overall sense of adherence to such rules, regulations and laws into disrepute, which is what bothers me about the fishing scene? We spoke earlier about the Spaniards not having respect for our laws. As the Minister rightly said, half of those who are intercepted break the laws every day of the week, yet they expect us to give them access to our waters as and from 1 January 1996. Since fishing is so important to these peripheral communities who have no other income, would the Minister agree that, whatever we do, the rules and regulations should be obeyed and respected, in the interests of tourism, fishing and of conservation? It makes me sad to read in the daily newspapers reports of one group having a go at another which all boils down to the fact that, whatever rules, regulations and laws obtain, they are being ignored because people do not accept them.
As the Deputy said, the laws are there but people would appear not to accept them. I do not intend to go down the road of political correctness or of political purity. We have our historic legacies and hang-ups about law, how it might apply to somebody else but not necessarily to mé féin. I accept the Deputy's general principle, that if there is a law, it should be applied even-handedly, should work and be seen to work and, if it does not, or is not seen to work, then it falls into disrepute. There is nothing more I can add.
