Apologies have been received from Deputy Peter Kelly.
The draft order has been circulated to members. It was referred to the joint committee by the Dáil and Seanad yesterday, 26 January 2010. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and his officials to the committee. I invite the Minister of State to make his opening statement.
I welcome this opportunity to come before the joint committee today to outline the reason for this motion.
The motion seeks the joint committee's approval for the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing Licences) (Alteration of Duties and Fees) Order 2010, which prescribes the licence fees payable in respect of salmon and oyster commercial fishing and dealers' licences that fall to be issued or renewed in 2010. This proposal is in keeping with Government policy to apply adjustments in line with the Consumer Price Index. In previous years these changes have been proposed in accordance with the commitment first given in 2003 in front of the joint committee, that adjustments would be applied in line with the consumer price index on an annual basis. The licence fee adjustment I have now proposed applies a reduction of 10% in 2010. The recommendation is in line with the Government's commitment to bring down charges where possible.
The existing rates were set on 1 January 2008. No change was made in 2009, as such alteration would have generated only a small amount of additional revenue and would not have been cost effective to implement. Since the cessation of mixed stock fishing in line with scientific advice, commercial salmon fishing is limited to only those rivers with stocks that are exceeding conservation limits. Some 186 licences operated in 2009, at a value of €70,114 for the year.
This licence fee decrease will apply to wild salmon, oyster fishing and dealers' licences also, consistent with past practice. The proposed reduction is consistent with my decision, in December 2009, to reduce the cost of salmon rod licences by the same percentage, as set down in the published Salmon Rod Ordinary Licences (Alteration of Duties) Order 2009 and the Special Tidal Waters (Special Local Licences) (Alteration of Duties) Order 2009.
I will require the fisheries boards to absorb the reduction in fee income and look to internal efficiencies to bridge the gap in funding. The proceeds from the sale of these licences, equate to €1.3 million per annum of which the commercial licence contribution is a modest €70,000. These fees contribute to the revenues of the central and regional fisheries boards, who currently hold the statutory responsibility for the conservation, management and development of inland fisheries in the State, including the fisheries to which the licences apply. A 50% component of all licence fees collected (that is both commercial salmon fishing licences and salmon rod licences) are particularly reinvested in salmon stock rehabilitation and habitat improvement.
I am advised by the central and regional fisheries boards that the conservation component from total licence fees collected in 2009 generated approximately €650,000. Over the three years of application of this component to the fees collected, some 50 projects have been undertaken, making a positive contribution to the conservation of wild salmon stocks. The details are published by the fisheries boards in their annual reports.
I thank the Chairman and the committee for their attention and I trust that the committee will recommend that the Oireachtas should pass the motion approving the licence fees for 2010.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the committee. My party will support the motion. It is refreshing to note that Government charges, at least in this case, are going down with deflation at a time when many other Government charges are not, for example, those imposed on businesses, such as rates, water charges and so on. That is a welcome trend. The Minister of State is reducing the charges by more than the deflation figure which is 7% because he has chosen a 10% figure. My only reservation, which the Minister of State might address, is in regard to the actual financing of conservation measures and the capacity for the new fisheries management model, which is being put in place through legislation, or the current regional fisheries boards to ensure they have the necessary finance to carry out the required monitoring and the restocking activity.
The Minister of State made the point that he will require the fisheries boards to absorb the reduction in fee income and look to internal efficiencies to bridge the gap in funding. I ask him to put a check in place to ensure they are seeking internal efficiencies rather than simply cutting programmes that may impact on fish conservation, fish management programmes or supervision and all the essential work they do in terms of ensuring our inland waterways are properly stocked and that commercial salmon and shellfish farming is properly controlled.
I also welcome the reduction in fees. It is refreshing that charges are going down. Yesterday in the House we looked at the staggering increase in charges for the broadcasting industry as a result of ministerial decisions, with which I do not agree. In this instance, it is good that fees are being reduced. The Minister of State mentioned a reduction in ordinary licences and in commercial licences which I presume is 10% all over but it is vital, particularly in regard to conservation, that if anything the efforts in conservation are increased rather than remain static or are reduced. Will he spell out the strategy? Obviously huge changes are occurring in the regional fishery boards structure but we need to be clear that funding is not being reduced in areas that are essential to the work of fishery boards across the country.
I welcome the Minister of State and his team. I welcome this move, small as it is. I refer to two items. The Minister of State made the point that commercial salmon fishing is limited to only those rivers with stocks that exceed conservation limits. I do not understand how he worked that out. We asked questions here before on how salmon is counted. I certainly put forward the view that salmon should be counted but the Department indicated some years ago that counting salmon was inexact or very difficult and that it was an inefficient system.
Does the Department take into account the second run of salmon? The first run of salmon is clearly understood, but I am not aware that the Department takes a close enough interest in the second run salmon. One of the major difficulties is that at that time of the year salmon are not able to get up river because of the lower water levels caused by domestic, agricultural or commercial demands. Is the Department taking an active role in ensuring that the second run of salmon can go up river? It has been brought to my attention on several occasions that many salmon that are full of eggs die at the mouth of the rivers because they are not able to get up river. In many cases they need to be lifted over the incline to go up river.
I will address the issues raised by Deputy Coveney. The idea of the 10% across the board decrease in licence fees was to anticipate the financial drop in the consumer price index. We have experienced a 7% drop in the consumer price index in 2009 with the expectation of a further drop of between 2% to 3% in 2010. We do not take the view that we should do this every year, although potentially we could do so, and we have tried to anticipate the fall in the CPI.
The regional fisheries boards have responsibility at present for monitoring the conservation of fish stocks in rivers and lakes. That will be consolidated as part of the passage of the Bill, where Inland Fisheries Ireland, through a centralised board structure, will have a mandate. The Central Fisheries Board spent approximately €28 million in its allocation last year and much of that is devoted to the issue of conservation. We will seek internal efficiencies rather than efficiencies made at the expense of operational programmes, particularly programmes dedicated to conservation or restocking. I assure members that will be my priority as Minister of State.
Deputy McManus raised the issue of salmon stock. About 50% of the conservation money spent by the regional fisheries boards and the Central Fisheries Board in particular is devoted to salmon stock conservation, which is the major item of expenditure. In the context of the McCarthy report, we are looking at ways to create synergy between the efforts of the fisheries officers and the fisheries service generally and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In the long term, if we are to promote the water resources of Ireland, be it rivers and lakes in a more vigorous manner to attract angling as well as other tourism, it depends on water quality and conservation measures. One flows from the other so my priority is to see how we can make the operation much more efficient by combining the work of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the work done under my Department by the fisheries officers. I will meet the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, to discuss the issue. There should be movement towards the recommendation in the McCarthy report as to where responsibility for the operation of the fisheries service lies.
Senator O'Toole raised the question of allowing fishing only where the stocks exceed the current conservation limits. Before Christmas I announced a series of ministerial orders on rivers that were now open and those that would be closed. Rather than allow people to become over optimistic about the net improvement, two additional rivers were opened that were not open in the previous year. I take on board the need to have proper scientific evaluation of the salmon stock and the migration of the fish up river. This is a controversial issue. Some anglers have different views from those of the regional fisheries boards. We have a standing scientific advisory committee. There are now improved methods of fish counting by electronic and non-electronic means. There is a definite effort by all of the regional fisheries boards to improve the operational efficiency of the fish counters in various points along rivers. I have visited rivers and lakes in various areas to see this in operation. There is very sophisticated technology in use around Ballynahinch Castle where they catch the fish on camera as they move across a strip in the river. One can physically see the fish passing upwards and count them very carefully. The accuracy levels in this area must have improved. There is always controversy about salmon fishing restrictions and there must be a scientific basis rather than inferential thinking for decision making. I have been very strong on the need to count the fish systematically.
I can come back to the Senator with a specific note on second run salmon. It is a natural phenomenon that salmon die at the mouth of rivers and I will endeavour to get the Senator a detailed note on that. I see the Senator is signalling to ask a supplementary question.
I am very pleased to hear that the Department is finally beginning to depend on technology. The last time we had a discussion, the staff from the central and regional fisheries boards made the point that they could not depend on technology. What is now happening is correct, that one makes a judgment on the conservation limit and then opens the river for fishing. Is there any reason drift net fishing could not also be allowed at the point at which the commercial restocking was done? This is what happens in other countries. In Canada, as soon as enough fish have gone up river to feed the bears, for fishing and to sustain the conservation limit, drift net fishing is allowed outside this area. The only reason given for the banning of drift net fishing was to conserve salmon, but if we reach conservation limits, is there any reason not to reverse that? I know this is an unpopular point ——
It is heresy.
I know it is an unpopular point.
We already have compensated ——
It is fair to say that this would give a lot of hope ——
Are they prepared to pay back the money?
——to small communities go mór mhór i nGaeltachtaí na tíre seo, áiteanna nach bhfuil ach go raibh i gcónaí le blianta fada, an industry of salmon fishing. I would like to believe that some day that industry would return.
I have an idea of the part of County Kerry to which the Senator refers. I have already received representations on the matter but not from the Senator.
In his statement, the Minister of State stated that 50% of all licence fees collected were reinvested in salmon stock rehabilitation and habitat improvement. That equates to €650,000 a year. The total take from the licence fee is €1.3 million. Today, however, we are only discussing the licence fees from commercial fishing licences which equate to €70,000.
Can the Minister of State give an assurance that, despite the 10% reduction in the overall take from licence fee money, the €650,000 to which I refer will still be spent on conservation and restocking measures? Can he give an assurance that the savings of approximately €130,000, or 10% of €1.3 million, will be found by efficiencies, technological improvements and expenses out of the other licence fee money? It is important to assure people that restocking, stock rehabilitation and habitat improvement programmes will continue and be enhanced.
Have all the licences relating to commercial salmon farming been reduced by 10%?
No. That is a different category and is dealt with by the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Tony Killeen.
Is the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, applying the same rationale as regards the licence fee and the consumer price index?
Not that I am aware of but I will find out and get back to the Deputy. It takes place under different legislation. While the legislation governing my work prescribes that approach, I do not believe that is the case in respect of fish farming.
Can the Minister of State reply to my first question on restocking?
I answered it earlier. I have expressed the view to the new chief executive of Inland Fisheries Ireland that the level of restocking and rehabilitation should continue, notwithstanding the drop in income attributable to the 10% reduction. If efficiencies are to be made they are to be made elsewhere.
The figure is €650,000 and I am seeking an assurance that €650,000 will be spent on restocking.
That is precisely what I said in my reply. I expect that money to be spent on conservation and restocking.
The Central Fisheries Board is the Accounting Officer. The Minister of State does not have ultimate authority in this area and cannot give a guarantee.
I do. I can give a direction to the Central Fisheries Board.
Can the Minister of State instruct the board to act in a certain way?
I can and would be delighted to do so. I do not want people to think the new body will be separated from the Department. I have made it clear to the chief executive that I intend to be involved operationally on a day-to-day basis to constantly review operations so that the new body is efficient and does not become a disembodied part of the apparatus of State, without accountability to this committee or the Minister.
Will the Minister of State go fishing to check out the fish stocks?
I would welcome any invitation, especially from Cork. If Deputy Coveney wants to invite me down I will be happy to accept.
I just want to comment on the drift netting proposal, which is controversial. We cannot agree with it because it is indiscriminate and we are identifying and targeting individual rivers in that regard.
In what sense is it indiscriminate?
When it is practised away from the shore it is indiscriminate in terms of the species it affects and where fish are migrating from and to. It would not be in the interests of my Department or in accordance with the scientific advice we receive to undermine our policy of targeting the restoration of stocks in individual rivers by allowing fish to be ambushed further out in this manner.
Let us discuss this philosophically.
Instead of discussing it philosophically, why not look at it in a practical sense? In a particular part of Kerry drift netting was practised in four of the six rivers feeding into one particular area. Local lobbies are campaigning for drift netting to be restored but, if it is feeding into a common sea base and stocks exceed their limits in those rivers, how can we allow drift netting to be carried out? Although the other two rivers are distressed it is a big issue.
If conservation stocks are up in all rivers in the country we can claim to have had a certain amount of success and we do not need to worry about the case made by the Minister of State. I am always worried when I ask a question on a general principle and receive a reply about implementation. If every river on the west coast or a particular peninsula is in a satisfactory state what is the objection to opening them up to drift net fishing?
Philosophically I have no problem with drift netting in a context where fish stocks are at a certain level. I am also practical and pragmatic enough to know that if the general scientific advice is that stocks are improving in a majority of rivers in a particular locality in Kerry, I am open to allowing it.
We are of one mind on that.
Local people have been carrying out drift netting for centuries and it contributes to the local economy. A serious point to arise from this discussion concerns the point at which we collect and evaluate the evidence. At what point do we conclude that two or three years of plentiful stock is a trend? Arch conservationists take the view that a trend takes five or ten years.
They would have to give back the compensation if they wanted to apply for licences.
That is an interesting point but I am not sure if it is the case.
In Canada, the biggest salmon fisheries location in the world, fishermen implement the rules by policing each other. They count the fish and they decide when rivers have been adequately stocked. Nobody dares drop a net or a line until fishermen give clearance to do so. There are no better people to monitor the situation than fishermen because if somebody breaks the rules they are likely to find their boat at the bottom of the sea.
I think the situation in Ireland is more complicated in that fishing is mixed up with various nationalist issues and it is, consequently, more toxic territory than it is in Canada. Perhaps I should not say that.
The numbers are much smaller and drift and draft netting are carried out in small communities who are relatively easy to talk to. We should rely on the science because we now have the capacity to measure very accurately.
That has been the big problem to date. Decisions have not always been made entirely on scientific grounds and people who were motivated by protecting stocks may not have achieved that aim.
All of us may have been lobbied on the new legislation to do away with the seven regional fisheries boards and centralise them into one board, which we all support in principle. The regional fisheries offices are open and functioning at present. Is it the Minister's intention to keep them all open as satellite offices of the new central board? Concerns have been expressed in different parts of the country, particularly Mayo and Kerry, over the possibility that the jobs of officers in the fisheries boards are threatened. It would be good if the Minister of State would state that the plan is to keep the offices open even though they will be under a new centralised structure. It is an opportunity to get the Minister of State on the record on it because it is linked to what we are discussing today.
I want to be explicit on this. I have made this clear in my meetings with the chief executives of the regional fisheries boards and in a four-hour discussion, with the official seated on my right, Mr. Frank Sheridan, with the new chief executive of Inland Fisheries Ireland. We made it clear that we do not want this to be a big, over-powering centralised agency. We want it to work through the river basin regionals. That is where the strength lies in this picture and that is why we want to keep these offices open as far as possible well into the foreseeable future. I announced that the Ballina office would be staying open as well because there were some concerns that it would close because of the amalgamation that is occurring in that area.
I want the new body to operate strongly through the regional structures and the regional competencies that exist through the existing chief executives who, in effect, now become regional managers of the water resource countrywide. I have made it clear to the chief executive that I want the current persons who are called chief executives, soon to become regional managers, to be an integrated part of the management board of Inland Fisheries Ireland, in other words, that they will not be placed in a position whereby suddenly they move from being persons who are important to being persons who take instructions in management terms from a centralised authority without being involved in the decision making.
I have also asked the chief executive, in operational terms, to move his management meetings as often as possible between the different regions so that there is that sense that the new body is not in some fashion sitting up there in Dublin firing out instructions. We have been mindful in all of this about the experience, and some of the commentary made, in and around the creation of the HSE. We do not want the perception to occur in reality where the centralised body becomes a centralising and aggrandising power to itself and is not listening to and operating with the regional managers who will operate this system. That is very important in this area.
That is a helpful clarification.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance this morning.
