As Deputy Perry is not present, we will proceed to Question No. 2. When he returns, we will take his question.
Priority Questions.
Fisheries Protection.
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:2 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on recent strong criticism from anglers and the media that his Department is again failing to align the catches of commercial drift netting with the alarming reality of scientific advice on the decline of salmon fishery and that the total allowable catch for 2005 may be almost 40% higher than the precautionary advice of the scientific committee of the National Salmon Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8394/05]
Eamon Ryan
Question:5 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if, in setting the commercial catch for wild salmon in 2005, he will accept the clear scientific advice that the catch be limited to 95,000 fish to meet conservation limits; and if he instead intends allowing for a catch of 139,900, as recommended by a majority decision of the National Salmon Commission. [8460/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 5 together.
My Department relies upon the advice of the National Salmon Commission and the national fisheries managers executive — the regional fisheries boards' managers — in determining the terms of the wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme which, inter alia, sets out district quotas for the commercial wild salmon catch annually. The salmon commission is advised in its work by its standing scientific committee, which includes scientists from Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Central Fisheries Board, the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Loughs Agency and the Marine Institute.
The chairman of the salmon commission has advised that the standing scientific committee, in presenting its recommendations to the commission on the precautionary salmon catch advice for the 2005 fishing season, has recommended that the total number of salmon to be exploited by all fishing methods in 2005 should not exceed 124,571 fish. This advice was given for the first time in 2005 based on the adoption of a 75% probability of reaching the conservation limits. The scientific committee does not make any recommendation, however, as to how many of these fish should be allocated to the commercial fishing sector as opposed to the angling sector. Having considered this scientific advice from a fisheries management perspective, the fisheries managers have recommended that the total catch of wild salmon in 2005 should not exceed 173,854 fish, of which the national commercial total allowable catch for 2005 should not exceed 146,174 fish.
The National Salmon Commission met on 22 February 2005 to consider the scientific and management advice available with a view to finalising its recommendations on the management of the wild salmon fishery in 2005. In his letter of 1 March 2005 to my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, the chairman of the salmon commission advised that the commission was unable to reach a consensus on adoption of either the scientific or management quota proposals. He advised, however, that the salmon commission did endorse, by a majority decision, a compromise proposal that the national commercial catch of salmon for 2005 should not exceed 139,900 fish and that this recommendation was made on the basis that the commission would adopt the scientific committee's advice by the 2007 season at the latest.
We are carefully considering all the advice offered bearing in mind the necessity to balance the needs of all beneficiaries and users of the salmon resource and, in particular, the overriding requirement to ensure the resource is preserved and protected according to the best scientific data. My colleague the Minister of State will make a decision in this matter shortly. In approaching this decision, the implications for the health of the salmon resource of setting the national and district total allowable catches at levels higher than those recommended by the scientists will be carefully considered. In that context, the Minister of State will continue to be guided by the fundamental principle adopted and adhered to by previous Ministers over the last three years, that is, that the national total allowable catch should be progressively aligned over that period with the scientific advice. The Government remains fully committed to this principle as the only sustainable and defensible way forward for salmon management in Ireland.
I recognise the divergence of advice from the National Fisheries Managers Executive and the National Salmon Commission in respect of when full alignment on the scientific advice is to be achieved. While it is appreciated that the scientific advice for 2005 is based on a revision of the methodology used in previous years and therefore results in a much lower proposed total allowable catch than would otherwise have been the case, we are still strongly persuaded of the case to move to the national conservation limits sooner rather than later.
The Minister of State expects to publish draft wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme regulations setting a national total allowable commercial catch of salmon for 2005 shortly. Under the requirements of the Fisheries Acts, the draft regulations are available for a 30-day consultation period to allow interested parties an opportunity to submit any objections they may have. Following the receipt and consideration of these, the Minister of State will then make a final decision on the scheme.
We have spent more than two hours going back over a great scandal in our political and administrative history in the form of charges for patients in nursing homes. Is it possible that the Minister is presiding over another desperate scandal given that we have become an international pariah throughout Europe? Ireland is the only country that still allows drift netting. Only 14% of our major rivers, such as the Nore, Suir, Boyne and Shannon, have an adequate salmon ecosystem. Given that is the case, it is time the Minister said he was strongly persuaded of the case to move to the national conservation limits sooner rather than later. The Minister may not be in Government after 2007. The results of the by-elections this week might impinge slightly on that. Is it fair to say, therefore, that the Minister, his predecessor, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Browne, have failed to address the significant issue of wild salmon stocks and prevent a total disaster?
In his reply the Minister did not explain adequately why he has not accepted the advice of the standing scientific committee which was based on the precautionary principle in regard to the future of salmon stocks. Would it not be appropriate to embark on that in 2005? Should the Minister not still take the initiative in 2005 to protect salmon stocks for our anglers and major rivers? Will the Minister look again at the possibility of a buy-out of the drift net fishermen in the lifetime of this Administration? We heard on the previous day that parliamentary questions to his Department were taken that the Minister had set his face against such a buy-out. Reference was made to Mr. Joey Murrin. Why has the Minister opposed local buy-outs, such as on Erne river? Is it not time to address this issue in a significant way and estimate the costs that would ensue, given the experience of Scotland, Iceland and many other countries with important salmon fisheries? Ireland is the most important country in this area of the environment. The Minister has a key responsibility to ensure that in ten years' time we will not ask what on earth did the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, do and why did he not listen to the scientific advice of the day.
The difficulty is that we have three different sets of advice, all of which are contradictory. If the Deputy is advocating that we take just one set of advice and act on it, I note his position. The clear policy decision of the Labour Party is that we take the advice of the standing scientific committee. However the Government must balance all the different interests, move as quickly as possible towards an agreed position and is trying to do so over the next two to three years.
In regard to the buy-out of drift net fishermen, my colleague, the Minister of State, made it clear on the last Question Time that if he had that amount of money available from taxpayers, he could think of better uses to which to put it in the context of angling, the development of the fisheries industry and tourism. I agree with that position. The figures vary from €80 million to a few hundred million euro. If that amount is available, it could be probably better spent. We are trying to balance the various interests such as the conservation interest and the interests of all the beneficiaries of the salmon resources. The resource is currently being preserved and this will be continued for the next number of years.
Will the Minister say why the Minister of State is not present in the House to answer this question? Who makes the decision? Does the Minister make the decision or is it left entirely to the Minister of State?
The Minister refers to balancing of interests. How can it be possibly in anyone's interests, fishermen, conservationists or anglers, for us to ignore the scientific advice? The Minister stated he has three pieces of advice. The only advice which is based on reasoning and rational preservation of a species which will be of benefit to the fishing community, those interested in conservation and anglers, is for the Minister to accept the advice of the scientists. How can he possibly believe that anyone's interests are served by ignoring scientific advice? I ask the Minister to explain.
Will the Minister agree that at present a small number of fishing communities are catching a multiple of their conservation limit but fishermen, drift net fishermen and draft net fishermen in other areas on the east and south-east coast have nothing left? This is not a precautionary principle but rather a crisis. A serious problem exists in rivers such as the Nore, the Liffey, the Corrib and the Shannon. How can the Minister say there is conflicting advice as if one holds the same sway as the other? The only advice which any rational Government can follow is the scientific advice which is based on scientific study of the numbers needed to repopulate those rivers. How can the Minister ignore that advice? In whose interests is such a disregard for the survival of this species?
Deputy Ryan is asking me to do precisely what he is accusing me of, namely ignoring advice. I have three different sets of advice and the adoption of one means I must ignore the others. The Minister of State is responsible for considering the advices available. He will make decisions based on all the advice at his disposal rather than on one piece of advice. He is out of the country and cannot be present in the House this afternoon.
We are well aware of the need for conservation and are trying to balance that need. We hope to reach a situation over the next few years whereby a balance will be found between the conservation interests and the needs of all other interests.
I refer to the debate which was held this afternoon for two and a half hours. The key point of that debate was reference to legal advice. As the Minister who could preside over the effective extinction of wild Irish salmon, an historic symbol of our nation for thousands of years, is it not incumbent on him to follow the scientific advice and to make that difficult decision? I commend the Minister for taking a number of initiatives since we last met in respect of broadband and other issues.
Is the Minister definitively stating that the precautionary catch level, what could have been achieved during 2005, will be achieved in 2007? Why is it not happening this year?
Anglers and others with an interest in the environment have repeatedly asked me about the local schemes such as local set-aside and local buy-out. Is the Minister prepared to support those schemes? The response of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to my colleague, Deputy Ryan, a few weeks ago seemed to suggest that the total cost of buy-outs was based on the north-east of England, which is an incredible choice on which to base the calculations of cost. Clearly, local interests are prepared to contribute.
Will the Minister agree that the long-term interests of fishermen depend on the fish being there to catch? Will he agree that science clearly shows that if we ignore the long-term sustainability issue and catch more than the scientists recommend, there will be no fish to catch? This would be lunacy on the part of the Government. It would be the worst policy for the fishing industry and for everyone else in this country. It is bringing shame on this country because this is the last country allowing this drift net fishing. We are permitting this fishing and managing the system above what the scientists say is sustainable. This is pure lunacy.
On the general question about the precautionary principle, this underpins policy in this area and it will continue to underpin it in future——
If the Minister accepts the scientific advice.
The policy in respect of moving towards the scientific levels in 2007 is still intact.
We now return to Question No. 1 in the name of Deputy Perry.
Alternative Energy Projects.
John Perry
Question:1 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his preferred policy options for the development of the alternative energy sector with particular reference to the need to promote wind generated electricity production and the encouragement of bio fuel, in view of the desirability to achieve Kyoto targets; if he has satisfied himself that adequate progress has been made or is likely to be made in this regard in the medium term; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8457/05]
The completion of the most recent round of competitive tendering to support renewable energy technologies, AER VI, is an appropriate opportunity to review the programme. Last May, a renewable energy development group was established to advise on future options on policies, targets, programmes and support measures to develop the increased use of renewable energy in the electricity market to 2010 and beyond. The group's report, which is due shortly, will form the basis of my future policy decisions on the increased penetration of renewable energy technologies in the electricity market.
Biofuels are addressed in the EU biofuels directive. An interdepartmental group has been set up, chaired by my Department, to consider policy options for the development of a biofuels sector.
As part of the ongoing work, a liquid biofuels strategy study was published by Sustainable Energy Ireland in December. In March 2004, my Department secured an amendment to the Finance Act 1999, which provides for the introduction of a scheme for excise tax relief for biofuels.
The European Commission has now given state aid clearance for the scheme. The scheme will be publicly advertised over the coming days and interested parties will be invited to apply for excise relief, through a competitive call for proposals process.
The targets in the directive are indicative and not mandatory and many member states, including Ireland, would not be in a position to meet the 2% target by the end of this year. Ireland is starting from a very low current production base, and the 2% target therefore represents a considerable challenge.
The Deputy can be assured I am committed to the development and promotion of further renewable energy projects in the electricity market and the development of a biofuels market in Ireland's transport fuel sector.
I welcome the Minister's reply. Will the Minister concede that comments made in January by Mr. Tom Reeves, the regulator, that he was unconvinced of the need for additional support for the wind energy sector, has led to something of a crisis of confidence in the renewable energy sector? I welcome the Minister's reference to the EU allowances and the tax break is very important. Will the Minister state what he believes to be the necessary level of support that would be adequate to kick-start this again? Wind energy can offer an independent energy source to divert us from dependence on gas from the North Sea. Spain has a thriving wind energy industry employing 25,000 people. Ireland has the capacity to produce 80,000 MW of electricity from wind with a current peak demand of 4,500 MW. Will the Minister agree there could be a potential for export in this important sector? Is there a possibility of introducing more competition into the market which will reduce costs?
I do not wish to comment on what Mr. Tom Reeves said about support for alternative energy sources because I do not think that would be fair. I reiterate my belief, which is Government policy, that we need to support the alternative energy sector and adopt more ambitious targets. It was for this reason that we established the renewable energy development group that will report to me shortly.
I agree with the Deputy that we must examine alternatives to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, specifically gas. We should continue to support alternative sources of energy, including but not only wind. The renewable energy development group report should help to clarify the future direction of policy. We need to view alternative and renewable energies on a longer timescale than heretofore and spread costs over a longer period.
What consultations have taken place with the ESB on the forthcoming deregulation and expanding the grid? The major difficulty with establishing wind farms is the prohibitive cost of connecting to the grid. How supportive has the ESB been of deregulation, opening the market to competition, and wind farms? Do the location of wind farms constrain the development of the national grid?
I have no function in matters such as the price and costs of electricity as these are regulated by the Commission for Energy Regulation. In fairness to Eirgrid and the ESB both companies have supported connections to the grid. The Deputy may be adverting to difficulties in certain areas, principally the west, where the grid is not suitable for wind energy.
Yes.
In the course of a conversation with the chief executive of the ESB, I asked him about this issue in the context of the €3 billion programme the company is undertaking to upgrade transmission lines and so forth. He informed me that the upgrade would overcome some of the technical difficulties regarding the grid.
ComReg is the body responsible for ensuring the ESB and others do not use their position to hinder alternative sources of energy, prevent connections and so forth. A limit has been imposed on the amount of wind energy permitted in the system. As I indicated, we should extend the planning timescale and take a longer term view as opposed to engaging, as heretofore, in short-term planning.
Mobile Telephony.
Tony Gregory
Question:3 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on the recommendations in the report (details supplied) published in January 2005 by Britain’s National Radiological Protection Board regarding the positioning of mobile telephone masts near schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8395/05]
The National Radiological Protection Board in January 2005 published the report, Mobile Phones and Health 2004, to provide further advice to address remaining public concerns in the United Kingdom about mobile telephone technology as well as related technological developments. It also reviews progress on implementing the recommendations in the Stewart report published in 2000.
The report states in general that the board believes the main conclusions reached in the Stewart report still apply and a precautionary approach, that is, where there are uncertainties about the associated risks of using mobile telephone technologies, should continue to be adopted; in the absence of new scientific evidence the recommendation in the Stewart report on limiting the use of mobile telephones by children remains appropriate as a precautionary measure; and measurements made by the NRPB demonstrate that there is no scientific basis for establishing minimal distances between base stations and areas of public occupancy, as has been suggested in some countries.
Other than referring to the recommendations of the Stewart report of 2000, the report does not make a specific recommendation on the positioning of mobile telephone masts near schools. The article referred to, which featured in the Irish Independent on 12 January 2005, appears to refer to comments made by the chairman of the NRPB, Sir William Stewart, during an interview to mark the launch of the report.
As the Minister will agree, the Stewart report of 2000 specifically stated in one of its main recommendations that planning should be extra cautious around schools as children are more susceptible to the effects of radiation and will be exposed to more radiation over their lifetime than adults. The most recent report to which the Minister referred stated that this recommendation holds, a point emphasised by the chairman of the board of the National Radiological Protection Board in Britain when questioned about it, as noted in an article in the Irish Independent.
The issue on which I am again attempting to get clarity from the Minister, having tried to do so several months ago, is whether it is advisable, given the limited research available and the views of some leading experts, to have mobile telephone masts located close to schools. Does he agree that this question is of considerable concern to parents of schoolchildren? In 2000 the report of the independent expert group in Britain, the Stewart report, recommended taking a precautionary approach and locating mobile telephone masts at a distance from schools. The Minister, in a reply to a parliamentary question in December last year, suggested that more recent studies removed any validity the recommendation of the Stewart report may have had. However, the latest report by the National Radiological Protection Board restates the position taken in the Stewart report and advises a precautionary approach.
Who is advising the Minister? Which leading experts are dictating his approach? Why will he not get to grips with a basic question as to whether, in light of the views of some of the leading experts, mobile telephone masts should be located near schools? Prohibiting masts from the vicinity of schools would not cost the State money or impose significant difficulties as it is a simple planning matter. What is the Minister's problem with the view of leading experts that masts should not be located near schools? Will he clarify his position because the response his advisers drew up to my question in November last year has been shown to be grossly inaccurate and without foundation?
Planning issues are a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities. In my previous position as Minister in that Department I introduced planning guidelines which, if I recall correctly, take the location of schools into account in siting mobile telephone masts. While I do not have a major problem, decisions in this regard are not my responsibility but a matter for local authorities. I understand some local authorities have adopted a policy of refusing permission to erect any mobile telephone masts.
The original Stewart report advocated taking a precautionary approach on the location of telephone masts in the vicinity of schools. I have never had a problem with this approach. I do not decide on planning matters in this area. It is a matter for the local authority or relevant Department. I receive advice from officials involved with various international bodies, including the World Health Organisation, and base it on their scientific data and reports.
What is the Minister's policy on this issue? In July 1996 guidelines for planning authorities on telecommunications antennae were issued. They stated that free-standing masts should only be located in a residential area or beside schools as a last resort. However, many masts are located across the roads from schools throughout Dublin city and other cities, particularly in the Dublin Central constituency. These guidelines are simply advisory. There is a lack of policy.
While I accept planning is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has direct responsibility for all issues arising from telecommunications and mobile telephony masts. The Minister rubbished the findings of the Stewart report in a reply to Question No. 97 on 8 December 2004. In it he stated there was no validity in the recommendations that masts be located away from schools. Will the Minister correct the record and accept the validity of the case I have made, backed up by the latest expert report available?
I do not have the benefit of having the response to that parliamentary question with me. If I recall correctly, Deputy Gregory insinuated that the Stewart report stated that no mast should be put anywhere near a school. My reply would have been based on that. If my recollection is wrong, I will correct the record. The siting of telecommunications masts is a matter for the planning authorities, not for me as Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
Fisheries Protection.
John Perry
Question:4 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources when he intends to end an imposition in Killybegs and other major ports whereby no landings can take place between midnight and 8 o’clock in the morning, and restore full landing times which are essential, particularly for the pelagic industry. [8485/05]
New EU control requirements for pelagic fisheries were introduced in 2004 to meet concerns of possible illegal fish landings in these fisheries across Europe. Such controls are a key element in fisheries management policy to enable the sustainable management and development of the fisheries concerned.
The requirements created new and more onerous obligations for member states to ensure all landings of pelagic fish over ten tonnes were weighed in the presence of controllers. In implementing the procedures, my Department has acceded to industry requests to allow landings at a variety of ports. The immediate impact of this decision was that some restrictions had to be placed on permitted landing times. To implement this with the available resources, it was necessary to restrict the landing times in the designated pelagic ports. The new controls were extended to the south and east coasts with the inclusion of the Celtic Sea and Irish Sea herring fisheries from 2005.
While it is desirable to provide 24-hour cover for major ports where possible, this has to be balanced by the legal obligations which the State carries to ensure adequate control presence at those ports when open. I recognise the need to augment the Department's seafood control resources to permit longer opening times at key ports. My Department is pursuing a case for the necessary additional resources.
No landings can take place at Killybegs harbour between midnight and 8 o'clock in the morning. Will the Minister restore full landing times, essential to the pelagic fishing industry? What meetings have taken place on this issue between the Minister and the Killybegs fishermen?
Regarding illegal catches, will he agree that many fisherman in the area are innocent of wrongdoing and are being unfairly punished by these draconian measures? When will the investigation process into illegalities be completed? Will he agree the slow rate of the investigation is endangering the viability of the port? Despite the large level of State and private sector investment in the port, ships are now bypassing it and landing at Peterhead in Scotland.
I am aware of the difficulties caused by these arrangements. However, it is a question of the number of ports versus the opening hours. If the original decision on the proper control of fisheries was adhered to by the Department, Killybegs would be open on a 24-hour basis. However, the number of ports available for landings would be reduced. The Department is endeavouring to be as fair as possible. It has acceded to the wishes of fishermen, including those in Killybegs, to have more ports covered. However, the hours must be restricted due to limits on personnel numbers. We are trying to address this by getting the extra resources available to have the ports open for longer periods.
The Minister of State has met frequently Killybegs fishermen over the past six months on a variety of issues, although I do not have an exact figure.
Deputy Perry will appreciate I do not want to say too much on the investigations. The Garda must do its job as quickly and efficiently as possible. I accept innocent fishermen are caught up as a result of this. Unfortunately, where rogues operate, the law must be applied. Since this investigation began, there have been three more incidents which saw individuals taken to court. I have no information on when the investigation will be completed. I know the Garda is anxious to pursue the investigation vigorously and bring it to a conclusion soon. However, it has been an extensive investigation.
Does the Minister realise the difficulties being encountered by many fish processing companies in the area because of these night-time restrictions? Many have had to reduce staff numbers from 1,500 people to 150. This is the major port on the west coast with its large capacity underused. Will the Minister intervene in this case? I accept the need for due process in the Garda investigation but it is a separate issue. Killybegs port is practically shut.
I accept the Deputy's comments on this matter. We are vigorously pursuing the allocation of extra personnel to the port. Most landings were at Killybegs. When it was suggested that we concentrate resources there, for one reason or other, the industry decided it wanted wider coverage. If it was a case that the fishing industry was willing to allow Killybegs, where the majority of fish are landed, to be a designated port, then we would be able to give 24-hour coverage. That is something perhaps the fishermen in Killybegs and the fishing industry generally should take into account. It was to accommodate the industry that landings at four ports other than Killybegs were agreed to. That has stretched resources. We are trying to get the resources to ensure those ports can be adequately covered and that we can give the type of coverage for which they are looking.
A possible compromise would be if we went back to the situation where landings were only allowed to take place in Killybegs. I think I would then be in a position to say to the Deputy that we would be able to give 24-hour coverage and ensure the job losses and the damage being done to the local economy in Killybegs would not continue. So far, we have not got that agreement.
Question No. 5 answered with QuestionNo. 2.