Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000

Vol. 528 No. 1

Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2000 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey): I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The primary purpose of this Bill is to give full technical effect to the provisions of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999, relating to the national salmon resource. The 1999 Act, which was enacted in December of last year, provided for a complete overhaul of the management, organis ation and service delivery of the inland fisheries sector. In the period of almost one year since the commencement of the Act, the new boards are in place and full roll-out of the new framework is under way.
One of the other principal innovations of the 1999 Act was to provide for the establishment of the National Salmon Commission on a statutory basis. The establishment of the commission was one of the key recommendations of the salmon management task force which reported in June 1996. The task force created a blueprint for consensus on salmon strategies by giving esteem to all players and acknowledging the roles and responsibilities of all. Under the 1999 Act, the salmon commission has the function of assisting and advising in relation to salmon conservation and management strategies. On coming into office, I moved immediately to put the commission in place. In March I signed the order establishing the commission and appointed the chairman and 20 ordinary members. These members are representative of all the stakeholders in salmon, that is, the commercial sector, the recreational angling sector, the aquaculture sector and processors. It also includes the fisheries boards, the Marine Institute and the ESB. The commission has a pivotal role to play in advising on and shaping salmon strategies, on a consensus basis, into the future.
The salmon management task force also recommended a system of carcase tagging for wild salmon which was to form part of a management model for the equitable sharing of the resource between all legitimate interests. This management model was to be implemented on catchment scale and envisaged the setting of a total allowable catch and quotas for the taking of salmon. These wide ranging recommendations of the task force were the subject of a further technical report by the Marine Institute which advised on the technical aspects of implementation. Subsequently, a detailed practical assessment of the implementation strategy for salmon tagging was carried out by the salmon management working group which represented the fisheries boards, the Marine Institute and my Department. Taken together, all these reports created a framework to progress the implementation of tagging.
The 1999 Act enabled the making of regulations, following consultation with the salmon commission, for a national scheme of tagging for wild salmon. When I established the commission, I requested immediate priority to be given to progressing tagging as the next practical step forward in quantifying and managing salmon stocks.
The objective of the salmon tagging scheme is to provide information on catches by the commercial and recreational fishing sectors. The real time management information provided by the tagging programme will help us to quantify salmon in a new way. The data provided by tagging and a radically upgraded national fish counter programme will critically inform future salmon conservation and management strategies.
Section 24 of the 1999 Act provided for the making of regulations to underpin the salmon tagging scheme following consultation with the National Salmon Commission and following a period of 30 days for public consultation.
At its inaugural meeting in April, the commission agreed the publication of the draft regulations. Following detailed consideration by the commission itself and the 30 day consultation period, the commission advised that I should sign the regulations with an effective date for implementation of 1 January 2001. In giving its advice, the commission also consulted the fisheries boards and the Marine Institute. On receipt of this advice and in light of the public consultative process, I was pleased to sign the regulations and move ahead with the preparations for the introduction of tagging from 1 January.
I would like to record my thanks to the chairman of the commission, Professor Noel Wilkins, and the commission as a whole for its timely and constructive advice to me in relation to the tagging scheme. The high level of consensus supporting the introduction of the scheme is in large part due to the vision of commission members. They chose to recognise the shared nature of the salmon resource and delivered on the opportunity presented by the comprehensive scoping and technical preparatory work which had gone before. I know that over a number of meetings the commission analysed the provisions of the draft regulations in detail and made many improvements which I was pleased to accept. This work will ensure the operation of the scheme is both effective and reasonable.
I have provided additional resources to the fisheries boards to undertake a public information campaign to ensure that fishermen, salmon dealers and members of the public are well informed regarding the main elements of the scheme, its objective and their responsibilities under the regulations. The measures include advertisements in newspapers and fishing publications, information booklets, mailshots to holders of fishing licences and posters. The fisheries boards have also put in place a comprehensive preparatory programme prior to the introduction of tagging on 1 January, including training programmes for staff in the regions.
Prior to final settlement of the tagging regulations in the summer, the Parliamentary Counsel advised me that it would be legally necessary for offences and penalties to be provided for in primary legislation rather than by regulations, which had been provided for in the 1999 Act. This advice was subsequently endorsed by the Attorney General. Accordingly, preparation of this Bill was put in hand immediately. As Deputies will appreciate, it is an essential adjunct to the tagging regulations themselves.
My immediate priority has been to secure the co-operation of all players in the tagging and counting of wild salmon as an essential management tool. The tagging scheme is simply a data collection scheme designed to provide a verifiable count of the national catch by all. Tags and logbooks will be available free of charge under the regulations and additional tags will be available to holders of licences subject only to compliance with the regulations. The data will critically inform conservation and management strategies in future years.
Tagging is not an end in itself – it is a means to the end. Decision making based on real and comprehensive information is the fundamental objective. My principal policy objective is to increase returns of salmon, thus enhancing the availability of stocks for tourism and domestic sport angling to the national benefit. However, it is without question that all sectors must play their part where catch and escapement data show that stocks are under threat. No sector will be relieved of the obligation to reduce their share of mortality on salmon in catchments at risk. I look to all salmon interests to recognise and accept that shared responsibility.
I emphasise that tagging is only one practical step on a new road to restore our fantastic wild salmon stocks. There is a great deal more to be done on a range of complex challenges facing the salmon resource. We also need to reflect developments in thinking since the Salmon Task Force reported four years ago and the commission itself will need to analyse all aspects of salmon conservation and management in the light of developments. Accordingly, I invited the salmon commission in early summer to develop advice and analysis on expanding and upgrading the national fish counter programme, enhanced spring salmon conservation strategies, catchment management strategies, the water quality challenge, incentivising reduction of commercial fishing effort and predation. I look forward to receiving the commission's advice on these and other issues in the near future.
We need to move ahead with this wide ranging agenda and other salmon conservation priorities informed over time by the accurate statistics which tagging and counters will provide. Deputies will be aware of recent reports regarding proposals for a buy-out of commercial salmon licences for six figure sums. These proposals have no official status. There is a long-standing body of opinion here and abroad which sees buyout of commercial licences as the key to restoration of stocks. The situation is far more complex in reality. Experience internationally is mixed. I am awaiting the consensus advice of the commission in the first instance but I stress that overall policy will be informed by all the factors at work. I would especially stress the tangible benefits to be gained through all stakeholders co-operating in the catchment management process. It must also reflect the legitimate entitlements of commercial fishermen as stakeholders in the resource. In that context, I would point out that significant restrictions have already been imposed on seasons and fishing days for drift and draft nets.
At present we are co-financing two pilot schemes at catchment level for voluntary set-aside of commercial fishing engines for salmon. Both of these schemes are based on matching contributions by other stakeholders and I have asked all the regional fisheries boards to encourage the development of similar projects based on consensus and local contribution. Funding is available for such schemes subject to value for money considerations, local stakeholder contributions and demonstrable benefits for salmon stocks.
I also commend to Deputies the long-standing salmon management model in place in the Foyle. Based on real time stock data and spawning targets, fishing effort by commercial and angling interests is managed and adjusted each season. The work of the Foyle Fisheries Commission over the last 40 years is a fine example of salmon management at its best.
Turning to the main provisions of the Bill, section 2 provides for a system of on-the-spot fines for offences in the area of inland fisheries. I take the opportunity presented by the Bill to provide for a comprehensive system of on-the-spot fines building on the provisions in the 1999 Act, which provided for such a system in relation to the tagging scheme. This system will operate in a similar fashion to the on-the-spot fine system for minor traffic offences and will be administered by the fisheries boards. It will result in more efficient use of resources and reduce the costs and administrative burdens associated with taking prosecutions for minor offences. The money collected by the boards from the payment of on-the-spot fines will be used by them in the delivery of services to the inland fisheries sector.
I endorse the importance of adding in this way to the operational options available to the boards in the performance of their duties. The staff of the boards often face difficult challenges in their everyday conservation and protection work. It is up to us as legislators to ensure they have the effective means to carry out their duties in an efficient and reasonable way.
Sections 3 and 4 provide for the necessary technical amendments to the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999, and the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, to create offences and penalties in relation to the salmon tagging scheme. The more serious offences which attract higher maximum penalties are provided for in four new subsections. Necessary consequential amendments are provided for in relation to on-the-spot fines and consequential disqualification orders.
Section 5 provides that the next election year for elections of members to regional boards shall be 2005, which restores the standard five year period. It is intended that the elections in 2005 will be held in December, which has been the norm for practical administrative reasons since the establishment of the boards under the Fisheries Act, 1980.
Section 6 provides that the terms of office of the appointed members can be extended up to the time of the next election, thus providing for continuity of board membership. Section 7 is an amendment proposed by the Attorney General in relation to staff members of boards who are appointed board members. Under the 1959 Act, no member of the regional board shall be eligible for paid office with the board. The amendment clarifies the position of staff appointees in this regard. Section 8 provides for the restoration of several subsections of the 1980 Act which were inadvertently deleted by the 1999 Act.
This short Bill provides primarily for technical amendments to give effect to what was intended in the 1999 Act in relation to the salmon tagging scheme. I hope Deputies can agree that the tagging scheme, backed up by effective and reasonable sanctions, will deliver vital management information to inform conservation strategies from now on. The information on the catch of wild salmon will be used as input into the sustainable and equitable management of the salmon resource involving all the legitimate interests. I look forward, with the support of the House, to its successful implementation to the benefit of all and of the salmon resource itself. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Bill and the objectives it is trying to achieve. On reading the deliberations in the Seanad and having listened to what the Minister had to say, it appears on face value to be a simple Bill. As I understand it, we are here primarily to enable the Oireachtas affirm what the Minister will sign by regulation and, but for that, this Bill would not have been introduced. Against this background the Attorney General believed that the new on-the-spot fines could not be put in place by regulation and that this process would have to be gone through.

From studying the Bill in greater depth and from speaking to some of those involved in it, a few fundamental questions arise. Nobody in the industry, at every level, would disagree with the Minister's proposals. However, further clarification on some of the Bill's provisions will be required from him, both in this debate and on Committee Stage.

Not everybody is satisfied with the Bill, but that is to be expected. Some are unhappy with certain elements and the question of protection staff and the fisheries boards raises concern.

The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a salmon tagging scheme to provide information on the fish caught by the commercial and recreational fish sectors. This should help management to quantify the salmon in a new way. It will now be possible to know where salmon are landed, how many have been caught, their size, etc. This data, together with the radically upgraded national fish counter programme which counts fish on the river, will form the future basis of whatever conservation and management strategies will be needed. I understand a plethora of organisations are involved in consultation with the National Salmon Commission. I understand public consideration was given to all over 30 days.

This is an entirely different tagging procedure from the micro tagging system used for the movement of live fish, smolts and so on. Some people seem to have difficulty understanding that we are talking about carcase tagging. This is a more scientific tagging system which occurs when fish are caught. Another distinction is that we are talking about wild, not farmed salmon.

I understand the tags and log book will be available free of charge under the legislation. Many people want to know how long that will last. I remember it was not long after the introduction of ear tags for cattle that farmers had to pay for them. I have tabled an amendment on Committee Stage which will give the Minister an opportunity to state his position in this regard.

There is no intention to charge for tagging at any time.

The Minister has now put that on the record. I am concerned that at some stage, long after the Minister and I are gone, someone will charge for the tags once the system is in operation.

It is difficult to identify where the stocks of salmon are, in the same way as it is difficult to identify where the herring shoals and other types of fish are all over the world. It is almost impossible to get a scientific formula which stands up in all circumstances. Many fishermen have told me during the past year that, irrespective of the scientific knowledge available, certain types of fish will turn up in certain areas out of the blue. For that reason, it is extraordinarily difficult to know what is happening in the sea. I presume it is the same for salmon and that is what the Department and the fisheries boards are trying to deal with. Sometimes fish will disappear from a river, even when pollution is not a factor, and then come back again several years later. This tagging system will ensure we know where they are when they are caught.

I am not sure if the tagging of fish will oblige the various sectors to reduce the share of salmon mortality in their catchment areas. The Minister referred to that in his speech. I am not aware of the logical connection between caught salmon which is tagged and any malpractices which would allow fish to die unnecessarily. I understand the National Salmon Commission, under Professor Wilkins of the National University of Ireland, Galway, made a huge effort in this regard.

The composition of the commission is drawn from all walks of life and the fishing industry. It has tried to come up with a reasonable list of initiatives to give a better return of fish, which will help everyone concerned. I understand it looked at the upgrading of the national fish counter programme. Perhaps the Minister might outline the position in that regard. It also looked at the enhancement of the spring salmon conser vation strategies, the catchment management strategies, the water quality problem, incentives to reduce the commercial fishing effort and other such matters. Fish tagging is the first step on a long ladder.

On the proposals to buy out commercial salmon licences, any change in this area must reflect the entitlements of legitimate commercial fishermen who have spent a lifetime as stakeholders in this resource. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the position in this regard.

Will the Minister outline the basis of the voluntary set aside scheme for the commercial fishing engines used in salmon fishing. I am not sure what is involved in this area. I assume there is a curtailment on engine power. Perhaps the Minister could clarify if there are time or capacity constraints. Who will pay for the loss of earnings? The farming community is well used to set aside. While some people have problems with the principle of it, it has been useful for different reasons.

Everyone in the fishing industry, particularly those involved in farmed salmon, is not happy with the tagging of salmon. They are afraid that wild salmon could be sold as farmed salmon under certain conditions. That would be difficult to identify and it would require extra vigilance by the protection staff. I know this is a pilot project but if there is a distortion in the next couple of years, the Department and the fisheries board must look at ways of dealing with it. This will be a problem, although I do not know if it will be a big one.

Some anglers who fish as a pastime find it repugnant that they must tag the carcase as they land it and tell everyone about it. I accept the Department's view that they may not have the privilege of catching fish unless there are fish to be caught. The people with an interest in fishing for recreation and in getting fresh air believe they should be allowed to catch fish without telling anyone. It is not too long ago since we had a row about the freedom to fish. It is against that background that I ask the Minister to reply to this point.

We are talking about salmon conservation and about management strategies to ensure we build up the salmon stocks. There is no spy in the sky, so to speak. This is a matter entirely between fishermen, the Department and the fishery boards. This is the way to go about their legitimate business and, once they stick to the rules, that will be an end to it.

What I regard as the most important part of the Bill relates to fisheries boards which always appear to be strapped for cash. This is not a personal criticism of the Minister because this was going on long before he took up office. As fisheries boards have developed, many worthwhile projects have been implemented and the fisheries boards, by and large, are doing an excellent job. My discussions with them have always revolved around the fact that they have many plans but not much money. What appears to have been lacking over the years is fishery protection staff. I do not wish to have a police State, because we do not have the mentality for that sort of thing, but it is very important to be able to enforce the laws enacted in this House. In the three fisheries boards with which I am familiar – I am sure the same applies in all of them – unless the Minister is prepared to provide greater staffing, particularly protection staff, there will be very few on-the-spot fines. This is a good scheme and I am sure most people will agree that the Minister did a good day's work in introducing this legislation. However, many genuinely interested people believe it will not work unless something is done about employing more protection staff.

The report of the salmon management working committee refers to the fact that one protection officer per area is employed on a temporary basis. My understanding is that the fishery business is totally uncontrolled. I hope the Minister can refute what I am saying but it is a generally held belief that there are no controls in this area. I do not expect to see a protection officer, formerly known as a water bailiff, hanging out of every bridge on every river, but if the regional fishery authorities are not funded to the degree necessary to implement this legislation, people with an interest in the salmon industry in all its glory believe we are wasting our time here today. We are not at the races in this regard because the industry is so under-manned and under-funded. I do not object in principle to on-the-spot fines which work reasonably well for traffic offences but, I do not have to point out to the House that if we want a scheme to work, we must put the staff in place to police it. On our inland waterways, one could currently walk from Dingle to Connemara and not meet two protection officers.

The legislation should be stronger with regard to fishery protection and I hope the Minister will indicate this in his reply. The explanatory memorandum reads, "There are no exchequer costs or staffing implications associated with the Bill. The enabling provisions for on-the-spot fines in relation to fisheries offences will result in more efficient use of the resources of the fisheries boards and will reduce the State's legal costs associated with taking prosecutions, etc.". This seems to indicate that money will not be provided, even though it is expected there will have to be one officer in each fishery area. Obviously, this is a contradiction. If we do not get the protection aspect right, the legislation will mean nothing and I would not like that to be the case.

There is a concerted effort throughout the country to reduce the level of pollution in our rivers. Whether we tag fish, including salmon, will mean nothing if we poison the rivers. The farming community receives a very bad press with regard to river pollution. Over the years Governments have made available substantial funding to control farmyard pollution. The REP scheme was introduced to help farmers reduce the fertiliser levels being applied and new slatted houses are being built throughout the country. Tests now being carried out in many rivers show that farm pollution is not increasing; in fact, it is decreasing in many instances. The same should apply to other types of pollution. It is very important to have adequate supervision of our rivers so that staff can monitor pollution and so on.

I have no doubt the Minister will sign this legislation into law for 1 January. It appears that tagging was a fundamental first step in Canada and in Maine in the United States. I note that the United Kingdom did not introduce this provision, which I find unusual because they have been considering it for ten or 15 years. I wonder why? I mentioned wild salmon being sold. As far as Bord Bia's quality assurance scheme for farm salmon is concerned, it is very important that it is able to sell a food product which is not tainted, and I believe it is doing a good job.

I note a national administrator is being proposed to oversee this scheme. I assume he or she will be appointed from the Central Fisheries Board. Given that there will be no Exchequer costs, who will pay him or her? Will this come from the Central Fisheries Board's funding? It seems to me that we are enacting legislation to give the regional fisheries boards more responsibility but we are not giving them the money to carry out their rightful duties.

I welcome the Bill and I will table amendments tomorrow to which I hope the Minister will have satisfactory answers.

The Labour Party supports the Bill. During the debate on the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999, I pointed out the need to introduce measures such as those contained in the Bill, which is technical in nature. I welcome the general thrust of the Bill, but I wish to make a number of comments about the question of tagging.

I agree that the provisions of the Bill relating to salmon tagging can be implemented and applied in the catchment areas. I refer here to salmon of which account is taken in the official system. I do not know what is the position in Galway, but I am aware of that which applies on the east coast because I am a keen angler and my family is involved in the draft net fishing industry. The Minister should take note of the fact that 40% or more of the salmon caught on rivers on the east coast are sold by those who caught them out of the backs of their cars.

On rivers in my constituency one will often see signs which state "For sale – salmon". A person will drive up and approach the person selling the salmon and inquire how many salmon he has for sale. They will haggle with each other over the price and usually £10, £20, £40 or some other amount will change hands. On many occasions I have seen the total catch from the River Boyne being sold to tourists and others wanting to obtain fresh salmon.

Will the Minister indicate how the tagging system will apply to this trade in salmon? In the context of the set-aside or buy-out system which will eventually emerge, how does one quantify the number of salmon caught and sold in the way to which I refer? The figures supplied to me by the Minister and his predecessor, Deputy Woods, in reply to many Dáil questions indicate that the salmon catch for the past five years reached a certain level. However, those figures are completely false because between 40% and 50% of the salmon caught are not recorded. The Minister will be obliged to address this matter.

I agree with Deputy Connaughton who referred to the policing and supervision of the provisions relating to tagging. In light of the number of staff currently employed by the fisheries boards, it would not be possible to supervise every river on the east and west coasts. If we were to insist on such supervision, full-time staff would have to be on duty on a 24 hour basis during the various fishing seasons.

I served as chairman of the salmon task force for a year. In discussing this matter with the various fishing interests from throughout the country, I discovered that people from the east, south and west had completely different points of view. It was virtually impossible to reach a consensus in terms of dealing with the issue of the control and conservation of salmon stocks. However, one matter in particular came to the fore during the task force's discussions, namely, that it would not be possible for the fisheries boards to take action in respect of illegal salmon fishing.

On a number of occasions I have stated that this matter is political in nature. In my opinion the decline in the number of salmon in our rivers is due to one thing, drift net fishing. Successive Governments, regardless of their political hue, have refused to bite the bullet on this issue because it would not be in their political interests to do so. They fear that they would offend too many of those involved in the salmon fishing industry on the west and north-west coasts. The number of salmon caught on the west coast is substantially greater than the number caught on the east coast. This is due to the fact that drift net fishing is killing the supply of salmon to rivers on the east coast. Successive Governments have refused to deal with this problem because they would lose too many votes in the west.

More salmon are caught through the use of drift nets than through all other means. Every country in the world except Ireland has eliminated the practice of drift net fishing. Successive Ministers have said that action will be taken in small stages. Even those operating in the drift net industry recognise that the level of their catch has substantially reduced the numbers of salmon entering our rivers.

The Minister can refer to tagging and pollution, but he will be wasting his time until he decides to take action in respect of drift net fishing. He can tag all the fish he wants but most of these are caught in drift nets, a development which is leading to the demise of wild salmon.

I have wanted to highlight this matter for a long period. If, in the future, I have a say in relation to the question of the conservation of sal mon stocks, I would completely eliminate drift net fishing and give those involved in the industry suitable compensation. The salmon stocks in rivers on both the east and west coasts would be restored over a ten or 15 year period as a result.

The other matter about which I am concerned is whether we should establish a set-aside or a buy-out system. This matter has been the subject of discussion for a long period. If there is to be a buy-out, it cannot be done on a piecemeal basis. The Department would have to buy out every draft net fishing interest in a particular catchment area for that system to work.

I discussed this matter with a number of fishermen who stated, "Of the 60 licences which apply to a particular location we will sell 40 back to the Department and keep the remainder". I am completely opposed to this practice. The Department must purchase every licence that applies to a particular catchment area because if the fishermen to whom I refer were allowed to retain 20 licences they would catch as many fish as they would if they retained all 60.

While there may be 60 licences in a catchment area, only ten or 15 boats may be fishing in the area. The Minister should address himself to this issue.

I pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Gilmore who, as Minister of State, initiated many of the programmes which are now in operation. He had a real grasp of the subject and this is recognised by rod and net fishermen and in every section of the industry. I also pay tribute to Dr. Whitaker, himself a fisherman, who helped to highlight the problems associated with wild salmon. The documents he and his committee produced contain the solutions to many of these problems.

I welcome the Bill, but only as a minor contribution to the conservation of wild salmon. Until a Government eliminates drift net fishing we will be wasting our time.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill which gives full technical effect to the provisions of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999. I am delighted that we still have a will to discuss the issue of salmon fishing. Some will ask if any salmon are left in our seas and rivers. This legislation will help to deal with the problem of the disappearance of an important resource. We must take seriously the question of conservation and the management of our salmon fisheries.

The Minister commended the Foyle fishery as one of the best examples of a long-standing salmon management model. The management of the Foyle fishery is based on real time stock data and spawning targets and fishing effort by commercial and angling interests and is managed and adjusted each season. I live on the Foyle and I agree that the fishery has been to the forefront in developing systems for counting and tagging although it has been criticised on the questions of closures, pricing and the availability of licences. However, any agency might expect such criticism from people who are so close to the industry.

The limitation of the length of the season and of fishing days will not be a big issue for people who fish on the Foyle. They have already fought that fight. Their season and fishing day is shorter than anywhere else in the country. The Foyle fishermen have often felt aggrieved at having to cease fishing when fishermen in other areas were allowed to continue. I hope they will not be unique for very much longer.

The Foyle fishermen live close to Lough Swilly. A licence to fish in Lough Foyle costs almost twice as much as a licence to fish in Lough Swilly yet Lough Foyle fishermen must buy a separate licence if they wish to fish in Lough Swilly. I hope new cross-Border co-operation measures will end the differences between lengths of fishing days, pricing and seasonal closures on Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly. The availability of licences has been a controversial matter in Lough Foyle. The Minister has met fishermen and has dealt with many of their problems as they have arisen. I hope his Department will take a close interest in the development of fishing on Lough Foyle.

A considerable amount of poaching is taking place. This is a huge problem which must be resolved. The poaching of a scarce resource damages commercial fishing, angling and tourism. Resources are needed for the policing of rivers and also for research and development by the various boards. Many fishermen ask what is the point of inspectors driving about in marked vans which can be seen for miles. Policing cannot be done effectively if a sufficient number of inspectors is not employed to do the work. I know the Minister understands the seriousness of this problem and I ask him to consider it carefully. Who will impose on-the-spot fines if we do not have sufficient personnel?

We must ensure that wild salmon are not sub-bred by escapees from fish farms. Wild salmon are a valuable resource and must be protected.

There was a reference to set-aside. There is considerable aquacultural development in Lough Foyle and those involved are dealing constructively with this issue. They are working together, leaving the stock and taking advice from experts as to when to harvest and which areas of the lough to cultivate. They are doing this without the support of legislation. It is scandalous that people have invested years of work in moving seed mussels into beds and worked with BIM to develop a management strategy yet any person could take their stocks without fear of any sanction. I ask the Minister to expedite the Foyle Fisheries (Amendment) Bill. The current legislation was passed in the early 1950s and needs to be updated. People involved in the aquaculture industry have acted very responsibly and have made a valuable contribution to the fishing industry. The least we can do is to give them legislative support.

All the activities on Lough Foyle must be man aged and co-ordinated. Never has there been so much activity on our waters. Activities include water ski-ing, jet ski-ing, swimming, fish farming, angling and commercial fishing and shipping. This is important. The CLAMS initiative has been very effective and should be expanded, particularly on the Foyle, as it is one of the better ways of moving forward. Nothing will work if imposed from above, but only if there is local agreement. As regards poaching, it may be naive to suggest that the initiative would be a way of bringing people acting outside the law into line.

It would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister and his predecessor, Deputy Woods, for the investment they secured for the fishing industry. This investment was badly needed and has been welcomed as it provided an unprecedented infrastructure in Donegal.

The Deputy should not forget Deputy Barrett's contribution as Minister.

I could mention Deputy Barrett's record. The last time he was in Greencastle the boys hardly went to see him. However, I do not want to go down the road of being political. There has been serious investment since this Government took office. This investment has been very welcome as it provided boats, piers and harbours. However, we are coming from such a low base that this process must continue and I congratulate the Minister on the increase in the Estimates.

A ferry service will soon begin on the Foyle and work has begun on the infrastructure for the project. However, as in the case of the salmon and agriculture industries, moneys will be badly spent if there is a lack of co-ordination. As regards the ferry service, there is a need for dredging to allow fishermen access to the harbour. Instead of bringing in the dredger twice, improved co-operation would result in economies of scale. Greencastle will have to put its harbour regulations in place. If fishermen are responsible enough to seek harbour regulations, I trust the Minister will be able to expedite the work which needs to be done to develop the breakwater at Greencastle.

I wish to conclude on a matter of relevance to inshore and other fishermen. Many people now engaged in the fishing industry do not have a background in fishing. These people come into the industry because they have an interest in it or because a boat owner needs an extra pair of hands. As a result, some people working on boats do not have basic seamanship skills. It is essential that mandatory, basic safety requirements are introduced. This should not take six months or a year as it would not take up a lot of people's time. Three or four days of intensive, basic health and safety instruction is vital. This must also be provided for inshore fishermen. Accidents can happen in shallow waters and calm seas but fishermen will be in the same difficulty if they do not receive basic training.

I wish the Minister well with this legislation. I trust it will achieve what we hope it will achieve, namely, ensure the management and conservation of our salmon stocks which are an important resource. I hope we continue to hold salmon fishing rights well into the next century and that a future Government will update this legislation in a different way.

I do not envy any Minister in trying to deal with inland fisheries, particularly the salmon industry. There are so many competing groups, rivalries and jealousies, even with the different sectors, that it is a highly contentious area and the Minister has an unenviable job in trying to oversee this industry.

I am an advocate of what has become known as the buy-out system in the case of drift net licences. The restrictions placed on these licences in the past four or five years have been such that many fishermen find it difficult to make a living given the short season and the limited amount of netting they are allowed to use. It would be preferable if people were given the option of a buy-out or were allowed fish with a greater length and depth of monofilament net and the season was extended so they would have a chance of making a living.

There are competing arguments concerning the problems caused by drift net fishermen for draft net fishermen and, in particular, rod fishermen on rivers. In his statement the Minister said his principal national priority is to rod fishermen. Members who represent coastal constituencies and fishing communities would not necessarily share the Minister's view. We have all heard statistics concerning the value to the tourism industry of a salmon caught on a rod. However, many coastal communities have been obliterated in the past 20 years because of restrictions on their activities. There must be a balance in which there are a limited number of licences which operate under proper conditions of length and depth of net and length of season, and a buy-out system for those who wish to leave the industry. These people spend endless days and weeks fishing but cannot make a living because of the restrictions. A buy-out system would be desirable and well received.

The Minister would receive substantial EU funding for such a scheme. He stated that there are mixed views on the effectiveness of such schemes. However, it makes sense as there is nothing worse than the frustration experienced by fishermen who work for two months without any return to show for it. Many of these fishermen can barely pay for their equipment which has to be renewed every year – this is in addition to the expense of the licence. This proposal should be explored.

Will the Minister outline the objections to a buy-out system? The Blackwater is perhaps the primary salmon fishing river in this country, but in the past year or two a number of licences have been given up and compensation paid. A buy-out system, of which I was unaware, has been in operation. These licences were held by members of the landlord class who paid local crews to fish on their behalf but who kept the benefit of the catch. The Minister may not have experienced this activity. What are the terms of the buy-outs? These deals seem to have been done privately and in secret but I would like to know the terms. This does not only pertain to snap nets, which are primary type nets on rivers, but also to weirs. There were about 23 weirs on the Blackwater at one time but the figure is down to two. Some weirs were bought in recent years and are no longer operative. We are entitled to know what is happening. In asking that, I am trying only to be constructive.

Drift net fishermen are grossly libelled by a number of speakers in this House from time to time, by newspaper correspondents, people who write letters to the newspapers and some members of the public. Drift net fishermen are traditional fishermen. They have been drift net fishing all their lives. A traditional fisherman fishes, more often than not, from a open 30 foot boat, a half decker. His livelihood is anything but easy. It is difficult work and is very severe in bad weather, which we often get in May and June and used to get in March and April when fishing was in season in those months. Fishermen work extremely hard. That has been the way they, their fathers and their father before them have made a living and most of them did not break the rules, but in the 1970s and 1980s that may have changed considerably, as many more people entered that form of fishing activity and a difficulty arose.

Fishermen encountered many problems due to unfair treatment by bailiffs or fishery officers. In my part of the country I can recollect 14 people dying in the past 20 years because they went out fishing in small boats in weather conditions that were unsuitable, as it was the only time they felt they were safe from the clutches of the bailiffs. Some of the bailiffs in my part of the country were unscrupulous. There was racketeering involved and I am sure the Minister has heard about it. If not, his predecessors have heard about it. Major racketeering took place, but it did not involve the fishermen. It involved the game keepers, not the poachers. A total of 14 people died because they went out in small boats in foul weather to catch fish on the assumption there would be no bailiffs or fishery officers in the locality, as they would assume the weather conditions were so bad that no one would fish. Four of those 14 men were fishery officers who were forced to go out to sea and who drowned off Ballycotton in most peculiar circumstances. There were two inquiries held into that incident. The first was an internal Department inquiry, known as the Kirwan inquiry, the results of which were not published. The second was a total whitewash in that it was not supposed to arrive at the correct conclusions. It was a disgraceful scenario. If I was related to any of those four decent men who died, I would feel very sore about the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, but that is another day's story. There have been many misrepresentations of events and many drift net fishermen have suffered grievously.

A total of 40 men from the village of Ardmore in my constituency made a living from fishing 20 years ago, but only two currently make their living from it. Fishermen have been driven off the sea because of activities not within the law carried out by people who should uphold the law. One of the water keepers involved over the years was Michael Hickey from the Southern Regional Fisheries Board. He was severely injured in the course of his duty. He said in court that he did not blame the fishermen who hit him but his superiors who had been blackguarding the fishermen to such a degree they reacted. That man is virtually crippled now. He has been holding a protest outside the fisheries headquarters in Clonmel, County Tipperary, because he was not properly compensated for the injuries and suffering he sustained. It is a terrible black mark against the fisheries board in question and the Department. Such things should not happen. Very few people take into account the trials and tribulations of fishermen who go out to sea in small boats and risk their lives to make a living. As matters have tightened up so much under the new regulations, people should be given an option to buy out or hand up their licences and be compensated for doing that.

People ask what is the cause of the decline in salmon numbers and they immediately point the finger at drift net fishermen, but there is drift netting and drift netting. The drift netting that has caused the bulk of the damage is drift netting out at sea not by the traditional fishermen but by large trawlers that use three, four, five or six miles of monofilament net. They have been using it for years and their catching potential is dozens of times that of the ordinary licensed inshore fisherman. That is one of the reasons for the depletion of our stocks.

The other, which should be referred to but is not, is the amount of salmon killed by predators. The Minister referred to them. I refer particularly to seals. There must be an admission and a recognition that seals cause immense damage to salmon stocks around our coasts every year. It is a moot point as to who kills the most salmon off our coasts. Is it the fishermen or the seals? I would say it is the seals. The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the fisheries boards should organise culls of seals on a regular basis to ensure that untold damage is not done to our salmon stocks, as is currently the case.

Is that Fine Gael policy?

Animal rights groups scream blue murder once a cull is carried out. There is a need to curtail the number of predators or scavengers, whether on dry land or at sea, in every area. The damage caused by seals is grossly underestimated and is not recognised. People are not standing up to those who object to seal culls.

The Minister used a wonderful series of words, "incentivising reduction of commercial fishing effort". It took a civil servant at least half a day to figure out that one. That means a buy out option. I wonder why that could not be stated in plain English. There is a need to make a fair offer to fishermen. Such an offer would probably satisfy many fishermen. It would enable other fishermen to increase their effort and more fish to get up river, thereby making the salmon fishermen and tourist sport fishermen much happier as they would be more likely to catch fish. That being said and all things being equal, by that I mean that the fish survive, we all know that from the end of July until Christmas time in normal years the amount of spawning salmon that go up river and are killed by poachers is huge. It is a moot point as to who causes the most damage, the drift net fishermen, the seals or the up river poachers. I would say up river poachers come top of the list, next the seals and next the drift net fishermen who are licensed to kill the fish and who in most cases act legitimately. We must get our priorities right and put them in order, as we cannot blame all our ills on the people who have been making a living out of this activity all their lives and who can no longer do it because of the restrictions imposed. They are entitled to increase their fishing effort or else to be bought out. Has the Minister asked the European Union if it will provide funding for a buy-out? If so, how much? This has been done in places like Newfoundland, Greenland, Denmark and America. Can the Minister give us examples of where it has been done, the amounts involved and the results? The European Union would back the Minister if we pursued this.

Drift net fishermen, as has been said, do not have great influence over the management of our salmon stocks. They have always been in a minority on fishery boards and are badly maligned as a result. They do not get fair treatment when the merits of policy are argued as they do not have sufficient voice.

Is it not true that many restaurants, both here and in Europe, are misleading the public about fish farm salmon? They are selling salmon under the name "wild salmon" when in fact those are farm salmon.

Hear, hear.

What Department oversees this illegal activity? It is probably not the Minister's Department but the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment given that competition is concerned. There is gross misrepresentation in that farm salmon are represented as wild salmon. In nine out of ten cases this is not the truth and those producing menus which misrepresent the truth should be duly prosecuted.

The Minister is doing a good job, as did two of his predecessors, Deputies Barrett and Gilmore. When Deputy Gilmore was a Minister of State he had particular responsibility for fisheries and in my 27 years in the Oireachtas he was the best equipped person to deal with that sector. He brought about changes, which some fishermen greeted with mixed feelings, but he tried and he was innovative. He deserves credit for that. I do not envy the Minister his job but I expect answers to some of the questions I raised, particularly about the merits of the buy-out system.

I preface my remarks by saying that I am not a salmon fisherman either by rod or deep sea but I have the distinction of being born under the fish's star, Pisces in Latin. I know how our salmon fishermen have to work to make a living in the short annual period they get. Every citizen deserves the right to make a living and I would not support any moves to deny any person in the country the right to make a living.

I know only too well the hardships endured by salmon fishing families from Courtmacsherry to Malin Head on the Cork coast. I know only too well the rigours they endure for their livelihoods. I compliment the Minister on his efforts so far in office. He may not have been born on the shores of Galway Bay or Connemara but he seems to have a human outlook regarding the marine industry. I defy any Member to deter anyone along the coastline from making a living from salmon fishing. I know how these people have tried to eke out a living for decades. They get a licence and go to sea in half deckers or boats with outboard engines. Their water beds are down on top of them and they are subject to every scrutiny but nobody takes their families into consideration, though they wait for the money that will put bread on the table.

Many Members have never gone through the rigours these fishermen have gone through. If they had they would not be seeking a ban on drift net fishing. Drift net fishing has no effect on wild salmon stocks. The greatest threat to future wild salmon production is not our half deckers or the outboard engine men but the huge fleet of continental trawlers which intercept our salmon stock. When those fish leave the rivers where they are born and bred to go to Greenland to feed, they are trapped, snared and annihilated en route by those continental trawlers. Nobody can tell me that the half decker or outboard engine man is endangering wild salmon. Let us have common sense.

I have seen stocks of salmon come back, year after year, to the Cork, Kerry and Donegal coasts. Those salmon have escaped being trapped by the continental trawlers on the way to the feeding grounds. It is not the local people with drift net salmon licences who are doing the harm. I will not tolerate anybody coming into this House and telling me that the salmon stock off our coasts should be preserved for our rivers and lakes. People who have been making a living for years out of the drift net salmon fishing industry must be protected but their season has been reduced by successive Ministers. I hope the Minister will not fall on that kind of slippery slope.

It cannot be reduced any further.

No, it could be eliminated altogether. I do not want that to happen because a fisherman is a fisherman from the day he is born to the day he dies.

The greatest threat to our salmon stock is from farmed salmon which may escape from their nets and mate with our free range stock. That would be a serious problem. I ask the Minister to be more vigilant and ensure that every salmon is tagged so that salmon can be traced if they escape from the nets. I have seen that happen in Castletownbere and in the Kenmare River estuary. If that problem is not addressed, it could decimate our wild salmon stock.

There is no need for widespread pollution of our rivers by agricultural enterprises or industries. Huge grants have been paid to farmers to ensure that effluent will not flow into any river or lake and it is up to the authorities to ensure that does not happen. If a company pours industrial waste into rivers in which our salmon are propagating, its licence should be revoked and it should not be allowed to continue in operation.

How will the Minister monitor the thousands of salmon which are netted by continental trawlers? There is no way he can do that. I have a great deal of time for my colleague, Deputy Bell, but I would say to him that the greatest predator of all is the continental trawler and our own huge trawlers, which scoop up these salmon when they go out. It is not the old half decker or the man with the outboard engine. Perhaps a different species of salmon is going up to Deputy Bell's constituency than those in mine.

None of them come to mine.

When our salmon are fed and fully flown, they come back down along the south-west coast. I do not think they go up the Irish Sea at all. Deputy Bell's salmon must come from the Orkney Islands, the Shetlands and the Pharaohs, a different area altogether.

They are all being caught up around Donegal.

The half decker fishermen are not responsible for the decimation of the salmon stock.

Salmon fishermen have a right to make a living. Legitimate drift net salmon fishermen do not break the law. They toe the line, but they are dealing with an industry which is making it almost impossible for them to catch the salmon. If a drift net is floating on top of the ocean, the chances of catching a large number of salmon are very slim.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Deasy, when he said there should be some kind of system whereby the drift net salmon fishermen who are operating under a tight schedule, probably four to five weeks, should get an opportunity of making a living. How can he make a living if he is being treated in such a fashion?

The Minister is a fair-minded man and I know he has the interests of the salmon fishing industry at heart. He would probably know if he was served a wild salmon or a farmed salmon if he went out for dinner. It is easy to know the difference, especially for people who have had an opportunity of discerning them, but the greatest threat will come from the salmon farms. If their boundary nets are breached, and if a large number of salmon escape, the Minister will be in trouble because he will not have the real product – a wild salmon from the north Atlantic ocean.

Deputy Deasy spoke about seals. Seals are a problem. I have seen the frustration of salmon fishermen coming into harbour in the morning after hauling in their nets only to find 40 or 50 heads on the nets, and no salmon. That is the truth as far as the salmon fishing industry is concerned. I am amazed that we cannot cull seals, not in any major way because seals are lovely mammals and they serve their purpose, but they are great predators. They are lazy. They love to have the salmon caught for them. They like to have the salmon trapped and they eat the whole fish off the net, and leave the head.

There is much to be done as far as the salmon fishing industry is concerned. We have to make sure families who have made their living from salmon fishing for three and four generations can continue to do so. I am a firm believer in the need to maintain our natural resources and ensure that the laws are upheld. For the past two or three years I have not heard of a salmon fisherman violating the regulations on salmon fishing imposed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.

There is a move afoot by certain people to get the Minister and Department to ban the use of drift nets. This net has been in use since Adam was a boy. Our Lord recruited 12 fishermen as his apostles. They cast their nets on the shore and left with him. If the Minister holds his head and uses his judgment I guarantee that drift net fishermen will not decimate the salmon fishery stock and the stock will survive. The only danger posed to the wild salmon fishery stock is when the salmon migrate to the feeding grounds in Greenland and the Faros in Newfoundland for two years before they come back to their native rivers and waters.

Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo, Bille a d'fhéadfadh a bheith iontach tábhachtach.

I grew up in a community where salmon fishing was an important element of people's livelihood. There were two main fisheries in the community – salmon fishing during the summer and herring fishing during the winter. These fisheries sus tained many of the families in that part of County Donegal. As Deputy Deasy said, fishing was not an easy livelihood at that time. I have seen how salmon fishing has developed and changed over the years. Thirty or 40 years ago salmon fishing was a night-time activity and there was no such thing as daytime drift net fishing. I remember fishermen leaving my village of Bunbeg at 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. on 30 and 40 half-decker boats for the fishing grounds and coming back at 5 a.m. 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning. Many of these boats have engines but the preceding generation only had sails and they had to row their boats out to the fishing grounds. While this was hard work it was worthwhile and it kept at home many people who would otherwise have had to emigrate. These fishermen did not get huge catches but they got the average price. The second major fishery was herring fishing during winter. Fishermen only had to go out into the bay to catch the herring. At Bunbeg, Burtonport and other piers the fish was auctioned for £4, £5 or £6 per cran. This was good money and enough to keep families at home.

During the 1980s drift net salmon fishing became a daytime activity. This was probably due to the availability of monofilament net. This was a very difficult time as monofilament net was outlawed and it was illegal to use it for salmon fishing. There was continuous harassment between the Navy, the conservation board and fishermen. Deputy Bell referred to the report of the salmon task force, which was established by Paddy O'Toole when he was Minister. One of its recommendations was that a national salmon commission be established. It also recommended that monofilament net should be legalised. The man who grabbed this nettle and made the decision to legalise it was Deputy Gilmore during his term as Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. This removed the aggravation from salmon fishing in my area. However, there were definite limitations and restrictions imposed on the use of monofilament net, for example, the length is limited to 1,500 metres and fishermen are only allowed to fish for four days per week.

I have witnessed fundamental changes in drift net fishing since the 1960s. At one time there were between 30 and 40 half deckers in my village of Bunbeg while last year there were only four. Families on Aranmore Island depended on salmon fishing for their livelihood. Up until the 1980s there were approximately 20 boats on the island while today there are only two or three. One would expect families on Tory Island to depend on fishing for their livelihood but there are only one or two licences on the island. This industry was very important in days gone by but today it is barely surviving.

There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is the scarcity of wild salmon. Deputy Bell apportioned the blame for this to drift net fishermen, while Deputy Deasy referred to seals, which are a problem. I have met fishermen who have lost half their catch to marauding seals. More effort must be made to deal with poachers and to protect salmon in rivers. The Clady River in my area was one of the important fishing rivers in years gone by. It is now the responsibility of the ESB which could do more to protect it. If it was developed to the stage it was at 30 or 40 years ago it would be a wonderful natural resource. Deputy Sheehan referred to continental trawlers. I do not know if they catch the salmon when they are on their way to Greenland but I have heard that the feeding grounds in Greenland are no longer sacrosanct and that salmon are fished there. There is also a problem with pollution. There are four areas here – seals, poachers, continental trawlers and pollution. Under the present regime, I do not think drift net fishermen would have to carry a major part of the blame for the scarcity of the wild salmon. It is a very valuable resource and one that needs to be protected for future generations.

Something has to be done. When buying a salmon the customer should be told whether it is a wild Atlantic salmon or a farmed one. I have nothing against farmed salmon. We have them in Donegal and along the western seaboard. This industry provides important employment for many families who would otherwise be without an income and would probably have to emigrate. Some of the best farms are in my county of Donegal, such as Fanad Sea Fisheries. It produces hundreds if not thousands of tonnes. This industry adds to our export income and provides very valuable employment. Nevertheless, we should be able to differentiate between wild and farmed salmon. Perhaps the Minister and his officials might do something about that because most of us would like to be able to have wild salmon and that is not always what we get.

A buy out scheme was also mentioned. It is something that should be looked at. There are many fishermen who buy licences every year and it is hardly worthwhile. However, any buy out scheme should be on a voluntary basis, it should not be compulsory. If someone wants to sell his licence or his right to fish, it should be considered. We have it in farming in the form of set aside land and there is no reason we cannot have it as far as salmon fishing is concerned.

Salmon has been a valuable resource. It has been there for generations and I hope it will be there for future generations. The traditional fishermen I know in my part of the world are conservationists because they know that if their children and future generations are to avail of wild salmon, they have to make sure the species is conserved. I wish the Minister the best.

I thank the Deputies who contributed to this most interesting debate. It is great to see such a depth of knowledge on the part of everybody who spoke and to hear the quite varying views of Deputies. There is little doubt but that one of the most remarkable features of Irish life is the wild salmon. It is quite unbelievable that one can see salmon, as I did when I first took over this job, going up 20 foot leaps into the rivers – for instance, in Newport where we have the National Salmon Research Centre. For more than 50 or 60 years, all of those salmon have been tagged – by the Guinness family in the old days and by National Salmon Research Centre now – and recorded. They spawn, come down those rivers, go as far away as Greenland to feed and come back to those rivers to spawn. That is a remarkable story.

The wild salmon is without doubt the most prestigious food we have as well as being the source of that wonderful sport, salmon angling, which is so lucrative. Our wild salmon stocks have become precariously low. If we do not take action quickly and effectively, we will wipe out the wild salmon stock altogether. The idea behind this legislation is to conserve that wild salmon and grow the stock. In doing so, we want to bring about a balance in terms of the way that salmon is caught.

The whole thrust of the legislation is to try to be more effective in dealing with the illegal catching of wild salmon. I fully agree with the points made by the various speakers, particularly Deputy Connaughton, that there is quite an amount of illegal catching of wild salmon. My first objective is to try to deal more effectively with that. We are all aware that poaching and illegal catching of wild salmon is going on and that is not acceptable. It is my intention to deal with that as effectively as I possibly can. I will make extra resources available to the fisheries boards to employ extra staff, particularly during the spring salmon season. Extra temporary staff will be made available in this coming year to deal with poaching.

I take the point made that there is far too much poaching going on and that our ability to catch people breaking the law is limited. However, I would argue that there has been a vast improvement in recent years in respect of the efforts of the fisheries boards and I thank the boards and their staff for the very effective work they are doing. However, I take that point and I will invest further resources this year in strengthening the efforts of the boards and the fishery officers.

It is incumbent on everybody, particularly anglers, farmers and those who have an interest in preserving our salmon stocks, to be more vigilant in putting an end to poaching. We must make it clear that illegal catching of wild salmon is a very anti-social behaviour. I would like the message to go out that everybody has a responsibility to stop those greedy people who are involved in poaching wild salmon. No matter how much resources I make available and no matter how great an effort the fisheries boards and officers make, if people are determined to poach and catch salmon illegally, they will do so. If we can make people understand that it is a greedy and unsociable behaviour, that would certainly help.

The question of tagging was raised by Deputy Connaughton. It is not the intention now or at any time in the future as far as I and my party are concerned to charge for the tags and log books. In any event, any Minister wishing to bring in those charges would have to get the agreement of the Salmon Commission. It would be unlikely that any Minister would attempt to introduce such tagging charges without that agreement. This is not intended as a money collection exercise but as a management tool to provide that very significant information we require to be able to count salmon. Without being able to count salmon and have real information instead of anecdotal information, we will not be able to manage that salmon stock in the way we want.

We had varying views from Deputy Bell on one end of the spectrum to Deputy Sheehan on the other on the effect of drift netting and the question of a buy out. I have an open mind on how we reduce the commercial fishing but we have to reduce the level of commercial fishing in order to give the stocks a chance to regenerate. I have asked the commission to advise me on this. There is a question of a set aside or a buy out and there are advantages and disadvantages to both propositions.

To conserve stock, I am determined that we reduce the commercial fishing effort and compensate the commercial fishermen for doing so. I take Deputy Sheehan's point that there are those whose livelihoods depend on salmon. We have to be conscious not to destroy that livelihood and we have to compensate people. There is not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow as far as my Department is concerned. If there are people out there with licences who expect they will get major prices for a buy out they can take it that will not happen. There are many advantages in the set aside option. People would be compensated for setting aside their drift nets for several years. However, unless there is voluntary agreement on set aside from everybody, it makes no sense. There would be no point in setting aside or buying out some people if others catch the salmon in other ways. I await the advice of the commission and I am happy to act on it and to make resources available to it for either a set aside or a buy-out scheme.

I recognise the position of the commercial fishermen and the need to catch wild salmon on a commercial basis. The main objective is to ensure conservation and consequently a growth in stock and more salmon up the rivers. That is the whole policy thrust. There is little doubt that the salmon caught by rod is much more valuable to this economy than that caught in the sea or caught by the seal or the poacher. There are those who pay £7,000 and £8,000 per week to go to places such as Argentina, Chile, Iceland and so on to catch wild salmon. That is a significant tourism potential here.

Deputy Deasy referred to the Blackwater. There is a voluntary set aside scheme in the Blackwater which was agreed with the fishery owners. It works on the basis that the holder of the fishery licence is paid the full value of fish which are not being caught based on average catches over previous years. The arrangement is that the Exchequer pays 50% of the cost and the private fishery owners pay the other 50%. It is a good scheme and works well. It enables the salmon population in those rivers to grow. The scheme is operating in two rivers – the Blackwater and the Laune in County Kerry. I am anxious to expand the scheme. Negotiations are taking place with a number of other draft net fishermen with a view to extending the scheme to other rivers. If it works well in the rivers it will work well in the sea with the drift net fishermen. I am anxious to proceed down that path following the advice of the commission.

My Canadian counterpart informed me that Canada spent a huge sum in buying out all drift net fishermen five years ago but there is no increase in the salmon going up the river. That is a phenomenon the Canadian Government cannot understand. I am not aware of the practice in other countries but I shall get that information and make it available to the House.

The sale of farmed salmon, as wild salmon, is illegal. Where that is happening I will attempt to have it stopped. I will take up the matter further following this debate.

I am beefing up the fishery boards resources. A human resources review is being carried out throughout the boards by consultants. The intention is to respond positively to the review when completed. An extra £2 million is being provided this year for a series of catchment management initiatives such as set aside, pollution control and extra monitoring of illegal fishing.

I get numerous complaints from fishermen about a growth in the seal population. The House will be aware that the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and Islands would have to give permission for the culling of seals. We are in discussion with our Scottish counterparts on that issue and are attempting to carry out some research on the growth in the seal population. We all want to protect the seal and there is no question about it, but if there is a huge growth in population and if there is evidence of serious damage to salmon, that question will have to be looked at.

The fishery boards are 100% supportive of the on-the-spot fines. It will give the staff of the boards an additional option in dealing with offenders. The fine is set at £50 but I would have no hesitation in increasing it. I intend to make it a hot season in the spring for poachers. I have already addressed one community which has earned a reputation for poaching wild salmon. I have informed the community if it is not responsible and does not deal with those in the community who have been engaged in this greedy practice the full force of the law will be applied to them.

Deputy Sheehan referred to the legitimate interests of the drift net fishermen especially in coastal communities such as west Cork. I am fully aware of the livelihood of fishermen but, as Deputy McGinley said, their livelihood has been severely affected in the past due to the reduction in wild salmon and will be further reduced if action is not taken. The drift net sector is represented on the National Salmon Commission. In 1996 the salmon task force recognised that each sector has to be given esteem. The commercial drift net fishermen on the commission have acted responsibly in regard to the conservation policy.

The main objective is to increase escapes to the rivers with a view to improving spawning and, thereby increasing the fish stock. A great deal of work is being done by the fishery boards in the development of the spawning rivers by tackling water quality, pollution and providing a much better spawning environment for salmon. The key objective is to increase the number of salmon which get up the rivers to spawn.

Deputy Deasy referred to the Ballycotton tragedy. The report by Captain Kirwan was not ever intended to be published. Confidentiality guarantees were given to persons supplying information and there was no right of cross-examination.

I hope I have dealt with the various points made. It is a question of balance. We have to get the balance right between competing demands. I am satisfied this legislation will considerably enhance our ability to conserve our wild salmon stock and to grow it into the future.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share