Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 2000

Vol. 528 No. 3

Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2000 [ Seanad ] : Report and Final Stages.

Mr. Connaughton

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, before line 1, to insert the following:

"3.–The Minister may, after consultation with the National Salmon Commission, make regulations to provide for a scheme for the tagging of farmed salmon within 2 years if a distortion arises as a result of farmed salmon not being tagged. Such scheme would be administered in a similar manner to the scheme which is in place for the tagging of wild salmon.".

We had a good discussion on this Bill on Second and Committee Stages. I accept a number of the Minister's assertions during those discussions. I am now more happy with this Bill than when I read it initially. The Minister clarified a number of matters for me and for Deputy Bell.

It is a good idea to tag the carcasses of salmon. This issue has been talked about for many years. I recall it being discussed ten years ago. We have now come to the stage where it is about to happen. It was not intended to discuss this issue in both Houses of the Oireachtas, but the measure will be stronger as a result. It would be better if the many regulations passed in the House were passed following a debate. A number of issues were raised by both sides of the House as a result of this debate and that will strengthen the Bill. The Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Byrne, knows we are here because the Attorney General said it was not possible to introduce on-the-spot fines without legislation being passed in both Houses.

I accept the Minister's belief that the tagging of wild salmon will increase the price. It is a type of quality assurance. The public, people in the restaurant and hotel business and tourists will know the product they are getting is wild salmon and not anything else. We had a long discussion about what would happen with farmed salmon. It is possible there could be a breakout at salmon farms and the wrong salmon could be tagged. I tabled one amendment because I wanted to raise public awareness of this issue.

I want a two-year trial period so that if there are problems with farmed salmon, something could be done to address them. I appreciate that could be difficult, given the huge volume of farmed salmon. However, anglers and others involved in catching wild salmon must ensure the product they are allowed to tag is wild salmon. The Minister agreed to look at this issue and that is included in the report of the committee. I do not know what the committee had in mind.

I went to great lengths to get an assurance from the Minister, which he readily gave and I am sure the Minister of State will give it tonight as well, that anglers would not be asked to pay for the tag or the log book in the future under any set of circumstances. The Minister of State knows exactly the comparison I will make. Many years ago both of us were told that farmers would not have to pay for cattle tags, although most of them must now be paid for. When that happens once, it could happen a second time. If someone was daft enough to introduce it, the fishing fraternity would show its true colours because it would undermine a potentially good scheme. No one knows how successful this scheme will be.

One would know Deputy Bell had experience in this area because he said that much of the sal mon caught are not identified. They are sold and taken away in the back of a car.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Byrne)

The Deputy is not suggesting they are poached.

Mr. Connaughton

No. The person was more than sensible about it. We have seen some of that as well, although perhaps not to any great extent. It is difficult to know how to get people in those circumstances to tag the carcass. This is related to protection.

As regards tagging, it is extremely important to state that anyone who decides to damage or circumvent this scheme is less than patriotic. It will be a hard sell. When most of us were young boys, there was no problem poaching salmon out of a river.

Mr. Byrne

It would not happen in Wexford.

Mr. Connaughton

The boys in Wexford were the leaders at that pastime.

It is important to ensure our stocks of salmon are preserved and increased. A person cannot catch salmon if there is none in the river. There would be no reason for this Bill if we had large stocks of salmon in our rivers. I know there are many reason for the lack of salmon, but the fact that we are taking a decision to allow salmon tagging does not mean the rivers will be full of them in two years time; it does not work that way. However, tagging will, at least, give us some indication of the locations at which salmon are caught.

As stated on Committee Stage, the Bill is not concerned with the micro-tagging of smolts. Live salmon are tagged only when they are caught. Tagging will place a premium on wild salmon and should lead to stocks being increased in all rivers, including those in which salmon have not been seen for many years.

We must also take action in respect of many other matters which we do not have time to discuss today. If we do not do something about pollution there will be no salmon to tag because, as the Minister of State knows, they cannot live in polluted rivers.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the fact that salmon are being intercepted on their way to Greenland. I am no expert on this matter but I am informed that this leads to huge difficulties in terms of what is called the "salmon in-flow". I do not know how one might deal with this problem but it must be addressed.

There has also been much discussion about drift net fishing and draft net fishing. As Deputy Bell stated on Committee Stage, the use of drift nets in the west has led to a decrease in salmon numbers in rivers in other areas of the country. Many people made their living from drift net fishing in the past and what is now required is the introduction of controls, rather than a total ban, on those who use this method.

The Minister made a fair point when we discussed the possibility of introducing a set-aside mechanism for the fishing industry. If, from the point of view of conservation, the introduction of set-aside meant that fewer people would be fishing at particular times of the year and that fewer fish would be caught, which would give salmon an opportunity to grow and multiply, I would fully support it.

The Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources is attending an EU meeting today to discuss cod and hake quotas for next year. I understand that swingeing reductions in quotas are being proposed. We can only hope that the Minister does not let down the side and that the proposed quota reductions will have the same effect on cod and hake stocks as this measure before us will have on salmon stocks.

In a few minutes, when the Bill is hopefully passed, the Department will be able to set about the introduction of tagging, on-the-spot fines, etc. However, if we do not put in place a proper protection system it will not be possible to implement the provisions of the Bill. The protection staff employed by the fisheries boards do a good job in so far as is possible. However, they are overwhelmed because there are too few of them to cover every mile of river throughout the country.

People with whom I have discussed this matter have informed me that there are almost no controls in many areas because the fisheries boards have been starved of financial resources for many years by successive Governments. We are determined to invest taxpayers' money in this national resource. If we want members of bona fide angling clubs, ordinary anglers and tourists, to enjoy a day's fishing, we must ensure there are adequate stocks of salmon in our rivers. The Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources informed me yesterday that he is making a further tranche of £2 million available to the fisheries boards for this and other purposes. Will the Minister of State verify this will happen in 2001?

If we do not ensure salmon stocks are restored, all our work will be set at naught. I wish to ensure that my position on this matter is not misrepresented. I am not calling for the establishment of a police state and I do not want a water bailiff stationed on every bridge throughout the country. Such action is neither possible nor required. However, the introduction of on-the-spot fines would mean that we must have on-the-spot protection officers. At present, we do not have such officers.

I was alarmed when I read in the explanatory memorandum that the Bill would not add any cost to the Exchequer. I brought this matter to the notice of the Minister on Committee Stage but he informed me that I had inferred the wrong meaning. One of the reasons I do not intend to call a vote on this amendment is that the Minister convinced me the allocation of a further £2 million will put fisheries boards in a much better posi tion, particularly at certain times of the year. As the Minister of State is aware, controls are more necessary at certain times of the year. The Minister indicated that this £2 million, in addition to funding he made available last year, should make a dramatic difference. If I thought that was not the case, even though I would not like to do so on what is, essentially, a non-political matter, I would call for a division of the House. However, the Minister put forward a strong case and I assume the Minister of State will clarify the position when he replies. If that clarification is forthcoming, I will not call a vote.

This Bill is the first step on a very long road. I hope, from the point of view of fishermen – recreational and commercial – and tourists, that we have commenced a process that will restore salmon stocks to their former glory and ensure they are returned to small rivers and streams in which they have not been seen for many years. Unless we are able to take corrective action in that regard, the Bill will not have worked.

Mr. Bell

We obtained sufficient assurances from the Minister on Committee Stage and it should not be necessary to repeat what was said at that point. The amendments that have been tabled were dealt with adequately on Committee Stage. We will not have a return to the normal level of conservation until draft net fishing is eliminated, as it has been in most countries. Partial set-aside of draft net fishing would not be possible. If some licences in an area are bought out, the remaining boats will simply continue to catch the same amount of salmon as before.

Salmon traps should be put under the control of the fisheries boards and used for monitoring purposes. These traps were installed by planter landlords and they have continued to be used on many of our rivers. It is time they were taken into the control of the State and used by and on behalf of the people.

I am glad the Minister gave us an assurance that the £2 million extra funding for next year will be processed, as far as possible, through angling clubs. The money will be allocated to the fisheries boards but will find its way down to the clubs and will be used by them in the interest of the angling fraternity.

I welcome the Bill. I chaired the committee on the task force report and the Bill contains many of the committee's recommendations. As Labour Party spokesperson on the marine, I am happy to welcome the Bill. I hope it will contribute to the restoration of wild salmon to their former glory.

Mr. Byrne

I thank the Deputies who have taken part in the debate. I am grateful that the amendments are not being pressed and that Opposition Deputies are satisfied with the information and assurances they were given last evening. I repeat those assurances. Deputy Connaughton sought an assurance regarding extra finance for protection. The fisheries boards' annual budget is £13 million. The boards employ a staff of 400 and several other aspects of the scheme must be accounted for. Extra funding of £2 million will be provided for the fisheries board as well as extra funding for the tagging scheme. The tagging scheme will make it easier for fisheries boards to continue their protection programmes and the savings in this area will, in turn, create extra funding.

Tagging was introduced because of the importance of the wild salmon industry to the country. Wild salmon are an important benefit both to commercial fishermen and the tourism industry. We are told a single salmon caught by a tourist angler is worth £700 to the economy. Some say if Jack Charlton caught a salmon it would not be worth £700 because of his reluctance to spend money in public houses or elsewhere. Nevertheless, tourist anglers are, in general, wealthy people and it is difficult to calculate how much they spend while holidaying in Ireland. It is vital that we protect the wild salmon industry as well as we can. We are probably not doing enough in that regard. The proposed tagging system will benefit. An untagged fish will now be an illegal fish.

Deputy Connaughton mentioned the impracticality of tagging farmed salmon. Salmon farming is a wonderful and growing industry, run by a group of very professional people. I have worked closely with producers of farmed salmon. As Minister of State with responsibility for this area I am proud of this industry. Approximately 200,000 wild salmon are caught each year and it would be difficult to tag that many fish. There are probably 8 million salmon in cages. To tag all of them would be impractical and would impose a huge financial burden on an industry. I am pleased Deputy Connaughton accepts the difficulties such a scheme would present.

Deputy Connaughton mentioned escapes. It is in the commercial interest of salmon farmers to have as few escapes as possible and they are becoming less frequent every year.

Two pilot set-aside schemes are being co-financed by the Department, one on the River Laune in County Kerry and the other on the Munster Blackwater. The schemes are based on licence holders agreeing not to catch fish. They are paid compensation based on the value of the fish. The regional fisheries boards have been asked to develop schemes in consultation with the local fisheries interests based on local stakeholders' contributions to improving the escapement of salmon into the rivers to spawn. Set-aside is a measure to which we should pay more attention.

Deputy Connaughton mentioned the catching of salmon off the coast as they swim to and from Greenland. This matter is much spoken about in my home area of Wexford. People who fish in the three sister rivers of the Barrow, the Nore and the Suir as well as the Slaney say fishermen from Galway catch all their fish. Deputy Connaughton has raised an interesting issue which should be debated at greater length. Are fish being caught, either illegally by licence holders or as a by-catch? While hard information is difficult to come by, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation is concerned that there may be a problem of by-catch of post-smolt salmon at sea, by trawlers hunting pelagic fish such as herring and mackerel. These fears are based on the fact that these fishing operations coincide in time and place with the migration of salmon. It seems likely that the mackerel fishery has the greatest potential for by-catch of post-smolts. The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation is keeping the matter under review and fishermen lucky enough to catch a few salmon in their nets will be happy about that.

The wild salmon industry has tourism and commercial benefits for this country. We cannot stress this point enough because, without doubt, the tourism generated has significant spin-off effects. Drift net, draft net and snap net fishermen are prevalent in my area and the use of snap nets is probably confined to the south east. Many families depend on their nets and licences to pay education fees, build extensions and supplement their incomes, albeit modestly. This traditional income is very important.

Whether there will be a buy-out scheme is an issue for another day but, as someone who lives among draft net, drift net and snap net fishermen, there are benefits for them. However, there is a substantial difference in the money made on a salmon caught in the drift net and one caught by a tourist, but it will take much encouragement to get draft net, drift net and snap net fishermen to accept that fact. This is because the issue involves an income supplement and traditions which, by and large, have been handed down from generation to generation.

I thank Opposition Deputies for accepting the Bill in the spirit intended and commend them for their knowledge of the subject. The purpose of the Bill is to copperfasten the implementation of the wild salmon tagging scheme which will commence on 1 January 2001, and the sooner the better. The Minister signed the tagging scheme regulations in August following consultation with the widely-representative National Salmon Commission, which I commend for its input. The commission takes a commonsense approach to this issue.

The tagging scheme is an important management tool. The catch data generated by the scheme of tags and log books will critically inform the development of salmon management policies. Yesterday the Minister said there would be no charge for tags or log books and I reassure the House of that fact.

The national wild salmon resource is also very important as is the sustainable development of the species for the enjoyment of future generations, be they Irish or tourists from abroad. It is important to determine salmon management policy on the basis of respect for the legitimate com mercial and recreational stakeholders in the resource. I thank the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.