Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 2001

Vol. 533 No. 1

Priority Questions. - National Salmon Commission.

Paul Connaughton

Question:

22 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the reason the chairman of the National Salmon Commission resigned; his views on whether he has undermined the authority of the National Salmon Commission by intervening in localised disputes concerning logbooks; the reason sufficient notice was not taken concerning the opposition to aspects of this new legislation before it was introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8385/01]

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey)

It was with regret that I accepted the resignation recently of the chairman of the National Salmon Commission. I take this opportunity to inform the House of my decision to appoint Mr. Joey Murrin as chairman. Mr. Murrin has a distinguished record of service in the fisheries sector and has the experience to work with all interests on the commission to tackle the many issues affecting the salmon resource. I wish him and the commission well and I look forward to an early meeting of the commission to begin the process of collective engagement on the key issues.

On 8 February, I informed the House of my decision that the amount of information to be supplied by salmon anglers with their logbook returns will be reduced forthwith. I made this decision following discussions with the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers and others regarding their concerns relating to the wild salmon tagging scheme. I wrote to the chairman on 12 February advising the commission of my decision. I requested him to convene a meeting of the commission at the earliest opportunity to progress discussions on logbook requirements in light of my decision for 2001 and looking ahead to 2002, and to move ahead on priority salmon conservation issues.

In a letter to me dated 1 March 2000, the chairman advised that he was not in a position to call a meeting of the commission and asked me to accept his resignation, unless I felt that the commission need not be called on to advise further regarding the logbooks for 2001.

The legal framework for the wild salmon tagging scheme is provided for in regulations under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999. To put into legal effect my decision on logbook returns an amending regulation is required. The legislation also provides that before I may make this amending regulation I must consult the National Salmon Commission in addition to a public consultation period of 30 days. Apart from legal and procedural considerations, I am anxious to see the commission membership engaging constructively without further delay on all the priority salmon conservation issues as well as tagging and logbook requirements. In the circumstances I have accepted the chairman's resignation.

The tagging regulations were discussed at length by the commission in the spring and summer of 2000. On the recommendation of the commission itself, the draft regulations were amended to increase the amount of information relating to fishing effort to be recorded by anglers in the logbooks.

Additional informationThe regulations which I signed in August 2000 incorporated this and other recommendations made by the commission. FISSTA is represented on the commission and no objection was recorded regarding the logbooks. Concerns regarding certain aspects of the logbook effectively surfaced at the start of the year. To build confidence in the tagging scheme, which has been debated in this House and generally welcomed by all sides, I have moved quickly to take the necessary action to deal with these concerns.

I acknowledge the valuable contribution the former chairman made to progressing the salmon agenda in general and during his time as chairman of the commission. He chaired the salmon management task force which reported in 1996. The recommendations of this task force form the basis of the various salmon management strategies being progressed.

Mr. Connaughton

When the Minister introduced the legislation on salmon tagging, he went to great lengths to point out the independence of the salmon commission and we all agreed with the great tribute he paid to the commission. He said its independence meant that its proposals should be taken seriously and it was stated on several occasions during Committee Stage that they were the best available. It was stated that, in the overall context, the proposals corresponded to what should be happening in the industry.

Does the Minister agree his involvement undermined the commission's independence? He took it upon himself to take certain action and it is debatable whether that action was right or wrong. If some of the participants in the salmon tagging scheme had behaved like others, they would not have to do what they are doing now. Does the Minister agree his decision shattered the future independence of the salmon commission?

Mr. Fahey

I emphasised the commission's independence in the past and I will continue to do so. However, it is an advisory group to the Minister; that is its function. My view was that it was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown in a considerable section of the salmon angling community which had refused to tag salmon. Their case was that the amount of information required in the log book was onerous. On the basis of an understanding from them that they were prepared to tag all salmon, which is the most important requirement, it was decided the information in the log books for this year would be only a record of the salmon tagged. In the interest of trying to find agreement, I made a decision, which I put to the commission for its consideration, to reduce the amount of information required on the log book to a record of the salmon caught.

The chairman was not happy with that decision and informed me that he could not continue under such circumstances. It was with regret that I accepted his resignation. However, we had a fundamental disagreement. He felt the way to deal with the problem of anglers who were not prepared to tag was recourse to the law. My view was that this would not be an appropriate way forward. I did not want fisheries officers having to give out summonses in an effort to sort out the problem. I am satisfied the proposed way forward is the best option and that everybody is united. I am also satisfied the commission can deal with other important issues and that a significant problem has been overcome.

Mr. Connaughton

I take the Minister's comment that everybody is happy with a grain of salt. When the legislation was going through the House, I asked the Minister if all the participants were in favour of the system. He said it was the commission's proposal and it was the right thing to do. The Minister has undermined the commission and its good work to date. In the future, if some sectors of the fishing community decide the scheme does not suit them, they will go directly to the Minister and bypass the commission.

Mr. Fahey

I am satisfied I have not undermined the commission. Time will tell.

Mr. Connaughton

It does not look good.