Vol. 568 No. 2
60 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the projected timetable for the establishment of a buy-out of commercial driftnetting licences for salmon; and if he will introduce an individual non-transferable quota for the commercial salmon fishermen in conjunction with such a buy-out. [16105/03]
For some time, the Government has ruled out buy-out as an effective means of achieving the restoration of salmon stocks and instead promoted the application of quotas on commercial fishing and bag limits on angling to achieve catch reductions as the best instruments available to achieve this objective.
The issues inherent in a complete voluntary buy-out of the commercial salmon sector are very complex. The international experience is mixed. We need to caution against excessive raising of expectation about large amounts of compensation. It is not the case that all active commercial salmon fishermen are willing to be bought out. As has been said on many occasions, simplistic solutions will not work.
The Central Fisheries Board has recently published the Indecon report, An Economic/Socio-Economic Evaluation of Wild Salmon in Ireland, which provides, through the employment of extensive new survey research, an up-to-date estimation of the economic and socio-economic value of the commercial and recreational salmon fishing sectors. I have asked the Central Fisheries Board to obtain the views of the stake holders with a view to identifying areas of consensus and report to me on the completion of that process.
Pending the outcome of this report, I remain to be convinced about buy-outs as cost-efficient, workable instruments. I am advised that the sub-committee of the National Salmon Commission, which was set up to review the Control of Fishing for Salmon Order, presented its findings for the first time at yesterday's meeting of the commission. I understand it makes certain recommendations aimed at delivering significant rationalisation of categories and the numbers of commercial licences.
I have asked the National Salmon Commission, when considering its advice to me on these recommendations, to deliberate on the question of allocating non-transferable quotas to individual licences. I have also asked the national fisheries managers executive to examine the proposals and to report to me with its views on the changes recommended as quickly as possible. Subject to the emerging advice, it is my intention that any changes will be made for the 2004 fishing season.
One of the problems I have is that the report the Minister of State received from the Central Fisheries Board from Indecon was available prior to the final decision being made in this year's season. It is important that we stop talking about compensation and do something about it.
The central recommendation of the Indecon report refers not only to the need to have a compulsory buy-out of all commercial driftnetting licences for salmon, but of the need to bring about a major reduction in the commercial impact on the remaining salmon stocks, particularly in respect of the outer sea driftnetting fishermen, who are non-discriminatory in terms of which salmon they take. On that basis, I support the report's conclusion that we should introduce a voluntary programme of buy-outs of licences but this should include a non-transferrable quota. Any system involving voluntary buy-outs that does not have a non-transferrable quota will lead to circumstances in which the remaining licence holders will just increase their catches, thus not producing the desired reduction.
The Minister of State seems to be suggesting that we go to the industry to ask it what it thinks. Would it not be more appropriate for the Government to stand up and say it believes it to be of greater economic interest to reduce the commercial catch, establish non-transferrable quotas and provide for a buy-out system, even if there is compensation? It is quite clear from the Indecon report that the return to the State, in terms of economic development and angling, leisure and other industries, would far exceed the cost of the commercial buy-out.
The Minister of State should stop sitting on the fence and outline to the commercial fishermen what everyone knows will happen in the longer term because we cannot allow the continued depletion of the stocks. Internationally, we are regarded as the last country to address this issue and there is huge pressure on us to change the manner in which we blindly react to this severe problem.
When does the Minister believe he will reach a decision? Will he leave it until April or May next year or will he give fishermen sufficient advance notice to arrange their affairs?
It is certainly not a question of sitting on the fence. When I was allocated responsibility for inland fisheries, I asked the Central Fisheries Board to produce an independent consultant's report. This report, the Indecon report, is certainly wide-ranging and makes very good suggestions in respect of very good ideas. It would be wrong of me to make decisions based on a consultant's report without consulting the people involved in the fishing industry, whether it is in respect of commercial fishing, angling or angling tourism. We have asked the Central Fisheries Board, through the regional fisheries boards, to have discussions with the stake-holders and to report back as quickly as possible.
Northern Ireland and the north-east of England are considering a buy-out and the cost of buying out up to 56 licence holders is expected to be £3.2 million. Even if we were to go down this road, it would be difficult to find the money. I have dealt with trap net fishermen on the River Slaney for years. Deputy Keogh lives among them and will be aware that some would want a buy-out and others would not. It is important that we make a decision in the interests of the country, tourism, angling and the commercial fishermen. The decisions I make will be made early in 2004.
When I became Minister of State I found that many of the decisions on tagging and the issuing of licences were made without sufficient time being given to the people concerned. I hope any decisions made will be made early in 2004 before the fishing season begins.
The Deputy has exceeded the time allowed.
The Indecon report was not available before the 2003 season and therefore I could not implement any of its recommendations.
Does the Minister of State agree the key is to reduce the very distant offshore, non-discriminatory driftnetting given that fish caught off the coasts of Donegal or Kerry might be destined for other areas, such as the east coast?
That case is being made to me very strongly in the southeast but the fishermen in the west and in Donegal take the opposite view, suggesting that, because the two Ministers in the Department are from the east coast, they are biased in favour of that coast. I take on board what the Deputy is saying. We will make decisions and will do so in the best interests of everyone concerned.
61 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the strategy being adopted by him to secure the continuation of existing restrictions within the Irish box fish conservation area. [16104/03]
While the Irish box issue is a highly contentious and complex one, an overriding conservation dimension must be considered. The continuing need for conservation of fish stocks is, accordingly, the primary factor underpinning our strategy.
The Deputy will be aware that intensive discussions have been held in recent months with both the Greek Presidency and with Commissioner Fischler. In these discussions, we have consistently emphasised the biological sensitivity of fishing grounds around Ireland, on which Irish fishermen are highly dependent. We have also reiterated the importance of preventing an increase in fishing effort in our waters and particularly the need to prevent a northerly migration of fishing effort into the Irish box.
We have backed up these core conservation messages with detailed scientific data from the Marine Institute. Further discussion will be held at tomorrow's Fisheries Council meetin in Luxembourg. The Commission's proposal of last December, which proposed the elimination of the Irish box, remains on the table. Ireland completely rejects it and will do so again tomorrow.
Tomorrow's Council meeting will also consider a Presidency proposal which provides for special conservation measures in a sensitive area to the south and west of Ireland. The extent to which this proposal is a move away from the Commission's approach represents a measure of progress and demonstrates that our strategy of keeping this issue focused on the need to protect stocks is working. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of tomorrow's discussions other than to assure the Deputy that the need to protect fish stocks around our coast will remain the guiding policy principle.
Does the Minister of State think it of benefit to the Minister that the European Parliament voted last week, at a rate of three to one, in favour of the retention of the Irish box? Has he been using that as a political tool to try to persuade the Commission to reconsider its proposals? What is the Minister's view on the compromise proposal now on the table in regard to the Irish Box, whereby it would be more than halved in size? What is being proposed is that the new box would only cover areas south and east of Wexford and south and west of Galway, the south-west coast to the south coast. Does this not leave the fishermen of the north-west coast, who have already been hammered under the common fisheries policy proposals, even more exposed? Will the Minister assure the House, and fishermen throughout the country, that he will not sell out the north-west and northern coasts in regard to ending the restrictions in place within the Irish Box to date?
Will the Minister of State publish the legal advice of the Attorney General in regard to the position Ireland has taken on the Irish Box? Will he confirm that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, gave an instruction last December to the Department of Defence to take "a cautious approach towards enforcement within the Irish Box"? Will he confirm that if more than the 40 Spanish fishing vessels, which are allowed on a restricted basis into the Irish Box, had come into the box, they would not have been detained or arrested because of the Minister's instruction? Can he confirm that this "softly, softly" approach towards the Irish Box, and enforcement within it over the past six months, has weakened our position from a negotiation point of view?
I am not aware of the Minister giving any instructions to the Naval Service to be cautious.
On a point of order, a memo within the Department of Defence, published in The Irish Times, clearly quotes the Minister from last December.
From Generalissimo Michael Smith.
The Deputy raised the issue of the EU Parliament vote. That is helpful to the Minister and he will use it but the problem is that while it is a strong recommendation, it is not binding.
I accept it is not binding.
I remind Deputy Broughan that I find it strange that Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, did not vote on that particular issue. I suppose that is his democratic right.
The socialists were there.
In regard to the other issues, the Minister has gone to Europe this afternoon. He is meeting members of the industry and officials and the Council meeting will be held tomorrow. The new proposal, or compromise proposal, on the table is coming under fire from Spain, Portugal and France. It does not have the total support of the Commission and in that event cannot be adopted by qualified majority. If the Commission maintains its opposition, adoption can only happen if there is unanimity between the member states. Obviously, there is no chance of that.
The main element of the suggested new approach is the concession of a sensitive zone on the southern and western coasts of Ireland where fishing effort would be restricted to current levels. While elements of the new proposal have moved significantly from the proposal presented at the December Council, it still falls far short of Ireland's demands on the issue. The Minister has not accepted the compromise proposals. He has met with the Greek Commissioner and has had meetings with the Italian Minister, whose country will take over the Presidency shortly. He has briefed the industry here and assured it that he will continue to argue its case. Discussions on Thursday for a new proposal are likely to be fraught and difficult.
Given the level and scale of opposition to what is on the table, there is no certainty whatsoever that the current proposal, or any proposal reasonably close to it, will travel. The discussion may well remain un-concluded tomorrow and could run into the Italian Presidency. The Minister is not happy with the new proposals and will argue that case tomorrow. I welcome the support of Deputies Coveney and Broughan and others who support the Minister and the Irish position.
Will the Department now publish that? Apparently, it has been a tactical decision not to publish until now but we have reached the end of that tactical period.
I will discuss that with the Minister and make known the Deputies' views to him.
Question No. 62 lapsed.
