I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy John Browne.
Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alterations of Duties) Order 2003: Motion
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the joint committee to outline the rationale for the motion. The motion seeks the joint committee's approval for the Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alterations of Duties) Order 2003, which prescribes the licence fees to be payable in respect of salmon, eel and oyster commercial fishing and dealer's licences in 2004.
The commercial salmon, eel and oyster fishing licence duties were last set in 1988. The salmon, eel and shellfish dealer licence duties were last set in January 1995. The licence fees now proposed allow for inflation since they were last applied. The proceeds from the sale of licences contributes to the revenues of the central and regional fisheries boards, which are statutorily responsible for the conservation, management and development of inland fisheries in the State, including the fisheries to which the licences apply. When introducing similar increases for salmon rod licences for 2003, I gave an undertaking at that time that similar treatment would be applied to commercial fishing licences and that in future the setting of all licence fees would be applied on an annual basis in line with the consumer price index. I can confirm to the joint committee that I intend to set the salmon rod licence fees for 2004, again in line with inflation, under a separate order. Application of licence fees now proposed will mean that all licence duties in respect of inland fisheries will be set for 2004 in a fair and equitable manner. In addition, the Exchequer grants in 2004, amounting to more than €20 million, and the proceeds from the sale of licences, further support regional fisheries boards' ability to maintain services. According to the Central Fisheries Board, the proposed increases in all categories of licence fees, both commercial and rod angling, are expected to generate an additional €300,000 in revenue for the boards in 2004. This revenue will be reinvested by the boards directly into the ongoing management and development of inland fisheries boards. I again thank the Chairman and the committee for their attention and welcome any questions members have on this motion.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on this and on the fact that the order has been brought before the committee prior to being introduced.
I am concerned about the level of increase. It has been pointed out that the increases are in line with inflation. However, the increases range between 44% and 70%. If they are in line with inflation they should all be at the same level. There is a big difference between 44% and 70%. Some of the increases are more than 70%. What is the rationale for the differences? Are we trying to target some forms of fishing by increasing or rounding up the figures? If so, which ones are being targeted and why? There are many examples from draft-netting to drift-netting to bag netting. They are all quite technical. There is a clear differential in the price increases. If we are increasing duties in line with inflation, they should all be roughly the same. What is the inflation figure between 1988 and today and between 1995 and today? We need to know that in order to establish that the increases are in line with inflation. To ask the parties who are affected on a commercial level to pay 70% or 80% more for their licence next year amounts to a huge increase. I agree with the Minister that licence duties should be linked to inflation and the consumer price index on an annual basis in future. The individuals concerned would hardly notice such increases each year because they would be gradual. However, there is a big difference between doing that and introducing in one heavy-handed step an increase of 70% or 80% on a licence fee. I have genuine concern about it. The Minister should explain the rationale in more detail.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. This gives us an opportunity to speak on the salmon fishing industry which the committee has not fully debated. On the face of it, the level of increase might seem excessive, but the Minister is charged with the responsibility of bringing costs up to date. Unfortunately - and this is something that happens not just in this area but across all Departments - duties are not updated on a yearly basis and that is the cause of the problem. I agree that from now on it should be done on a yearly basis.
I do not know whether it is possible to compensate salmon fisheries in any way. In my area 2002 was a good year for salmon fishermen, but 2003 was not and nor was 2001 or previous years. The reason is that fishery closures have been brought back continually. It is now at 31 July and there are salmon in the rivers in August. We are right at the end of the run. Many commercial fishermen are catching very little. They are small operators. They will not do any damage to salmon stock. Perhaps in bringing in this order, we could take the opportunity to help them out in some way.
Will the Minister comment on the vexed question of the licence buyout that has been under discussion for nearly ten years? I am aware that drift netting of salmon is banned in practically all of the EU. I am not sure of the position in the accession countries. That is an issue we need to address. It would not cost much and it could be cost effective.
The Minister mentioned the fisheries boards. Perhaps he could comment on their future and what is envisaged regarding their operation and composition.
Perhaps the Minister could respond to those questions first and then we will hear from Deputy Eamon Ryan, Senator Finucane and Deputies O'Donovan, Broughan and Kelly.
On price increases, we have discussed them widely with the fisheries boards and the National Salmon Commission, which is representative of fishermen across the board. We decided last year to increase the rod licence fee. Following discussions with the board and with the salmon commission, we signalled that we would deal with the rod licence last year and that this year we would increase the licence fees of commercial fishermen in line with inflation over the years.
Deputy Coveney raised the issue of differences in the increases. There is no difference for dealers. Their licence fees were reviewed in 1995 and were increased by the same amount in respect of salmon, eel and shellfish and Part X licences. In the other areas there were reasons for the differences. The loop netting licence fee of £12.69 was increased and rounded up to €20. That gave a 57% increase, slightly above the rate of inflation. Snap net licence fees were increased from £44 to €75. Draft-net fishermen have eight weeks' fishing so what they pay, at €15 a week, is not exorbitant.
Over the years Ministers, did not increase the licence fees. They probably had reasons for not doing so. However, following wide and varied discussions with all of the groups involved, we made a decision to increase the licence fees to reflect today's costs and to link them to inflation in future. One reason was that members and directors of boards had informed us that the level of licence fees was so low that it was hardly worthwhile collecting them and that administration costs were greater than what was being taken in licence fees. We therefore made the decision we are here to discuss today.
On the buyout issue and the salmon industry generally, a number of Ministers have examined the buyout system. Some years ago when the former Deputy Andrews was Minister, I argued for a buyout on behalf of the net fishermen on the river Slaney. No Minister has introduced a buyout scheme. I should like to give the committee some figures. In England recently a buyout of 56 licences cost £3.25 million. If we were to implement a similar system here we would be talking about somewhere in the region of €70 million that the Exchequer would have to provide, and that would be only half the funding. We would have to obtain the remainder from other sources. This issue has been examined in a review of the fisheries boards and in the Indecon report. There has been no strong recommendation that a buyout system should be implemented. A number of fishermen have intimated to me that they would not want to participate in a buyout. Obviously, some fishermen would participate, but there would not be a 100% take-up. The exorbitant cost of a buyout would make it difficult to implement at present. It would be difficult to get that kind of money from the Minister for Finance to initiate a buyout of the commercial fishermen at present.
I am deeply disappointed by the Minister's last comments. The Minister said that no Irish Minister has introduced a buyout to try to protect wild salmon stocks. Every other Minister in the European Union who faced this decision has introduced a buyout scheme. I understand Ireland is the only country that does not have such a scheme. Although I might go further in terms of compulsion, even a voluntary buyout system under which certain commercial fishermen who wanted to stay in would not be forced out would have much less of a cost implication and now, when the charges are being raised to €320 for drift-netting or €180 for draft-netting, is exactly the right time to introduce such a scheme. As Senator Kenneally said, most commercial licence-holders are taking an incredibly small number of fish and there is a possibility that they are holding on to licences in the hope that they will be able to cash in on a compulsory buyout at a future date. For Ireland to remain the one country which is not considering such a restriction or trying to reduce the assault on dwindling wild salmon stock leaves us answering some very serious questions in Europe as to whether we are serious about conserving this very important wild stock. That is my first reaction. It does not relate to the question, for which I apologise. I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has received no strong recommendation. I would give him a very strong recommendation that a voluntary buyout, if not a compulsory one, is something he should consider. Perhaps he will respond to that.
I understand he said the cost to the Exchequer would be €70 million. That, I presume, is for a compulsory buyout of all licences. Can the Minister give any indication of what a voluntary system might cost? It would obviously depend on the amount paid for a licence. If the Minister will not consider a compulsory buyout of all licences, will he consider a voluntary buyout system? If so what would be the timescale for the introduction of it? It is my understanding when we raised the issue in the Dáil last summer the Minister said that if we were to introduce such a system we would have to give fishermen reasonable advance notice. Perhaps, now that we are introducing higher fees, it is as good a time as any to intimate that we will be going in that direction. That is my key question. Will the Minister be considering a voluntary buyout if, as he seems to be saying, he is ruling out a compulsory buyout system?
It is an issue in which I have been interested for quite a long time. I know many salmon fishermen along the estuary from touring the coastline in the past in Waterford or Limerick. Many of them were retaining a licence in the hope of a buyout because they recognised that, with declining stocks, it was not worthwhile handing the licence on to a successor. It is a contradiction to say that the last increase was in 1998. I would like the Minister to quantify the number of salmon running in 1998, because there were big salmon catches compared to these days. We have seen several successive reports of a decline in salmon stocks. If we are serious about protecting the stocks and want to show creativity in the marine brief, we should examine the possibility of a voluntary buyout scheme. We all know about a gentleman in Greenland who spearheaded many innovations in many countries in a sole direction. I am disappointed there is no movement here in that direction.
It is difficult to say to salmon fishermen, who have not done well in recent times, that they will face an increase of more than 50% in their licence fee. As a result of the Department not having made such increases in line with the consumer price index over the years, these fishermen will be given a dart of more than a 50% increase in the licence fee. I cannot accept that. What was the increase in the rod licence fee and the commitment the Minister made to the rod licence representative group? I have known many of these fishermen for a long time and they have had a bad season this year. It is ridiculous to inform such fishermen that they will face such an increase in the licence fee. In one case a fisherman will face an increase of 55% in his licence fee and in another case a fisherman will face an increase of 59%. That is unfair and unjust.
The Minister of State might answer those two specific questions and then I will call Deputy O'Donovan.
There has been a good deal of discussion about the notion of a buyout scheme in respect of which expectations among fisherman are high. I am aware from dealing with the Slaney trap net fishermen that they expect to receive at least a similar amount of funding as that given under the UK buyout system, which amount they quote to me and other politicians in the region on a regular basis. If we were to introduce a system similar to the UK buyout system, it would involve an Exchequer expenditure of €70 million. We have discussed this matter with commercial fishermen, rod licence associations and angling groups. There is considerable support for a buyout system, but it has been difficult to secure funds from people. Many people have put forward the idea of a buyout system, but no organisations or groups want to put forward money. For example, the anglers and the riparian owner groups talk about a buyout system, but none of them has offered money. It seems there is a general expectation that the State should fund such a system 100%, but the State will not do so. In the UK and in other countries the state funded such a system to the tune of "X" amount of money and anglers and other groups have picked up the remainder of the cost. We have an open mind about such a system, but we need sufficient funds to implement it.
There is also the notion of a setaside scheme for commercial fishermen. Should a regional fisheries board bring forward developed proposals for a local catchment based setaside scheme, the Department would be prepared to consider such a proposal provided that matching funds would come from within the existing allocation of the fisheries boards.
I met representatives of the Southern Fisheries Board last week and they put proposals to me about the implementation of a new setaside scheme. We will examine that, but I do not envisage the introduction of a buyout scheme in the immediate future.
The Minister of State may have covered some of the matters on which I wish to make a few comments. I intended to raise the question of a buyout system and I was interested to hear the figures involved for such a system in the UK and what it would cost to introduce such a system here. To be honest, there is a mixed reaction among drift net fishermen, in particular, in my area to the introduction of such a system. Some of them would favour it and others would be against it. I am referring to traditional fishermen.
We look upon wild salmon as an endangered species. It was interesting to hear a visiting Chilean delegation last year say they did not know anything about wild salmon. Chilean fishermen are successfully engaged in farming salmon off the southern cost of Chile. We queried with the delegation the flooding of the European market with farmed salmon. We should be glad that we are one of the few countries which still has good fishing rivers and a reasonable supply of wild salmon.
Scientific data and knowledge on the movement of salmon is imponderable. There is no set pattern to the movement of wild salmon. Has any progress been made on that in this modern era of technology and science? I view drift net fishermen in my area as being an endangered species. Little by little the noose has been tightened in terms of the number of days they can go to sea, the number of nets they can use and the season is being gradually shortened. There will be no need to buy them out in a few years' time if we keep tightening the shackles around them at present. Some of these fishermen have depended on salmon fishing for a long time. I raised this point with the Minister previously and I am concerned about it.
An interesting proposal was put to me on which the Minister of State might be able to shed some light. Some drift net fishermen have proposed a quota system whereby they would each have an individual quota of how much they could catch. They also propose that the season should not be narrowed down so stringently, which would enable them to maximise the market. A considerable stock of wild salmon, which is a valuable commodity, is caught in a short period of four or five weeks. This applies to salmon fishing off the coast of Waterford and Cork. If fishermen had wild salmon on 1 May or towards the end of August, restaurant proprietors and the retail market would pay a good price for it. However, all the wild salmon is caught around the coastline in the period from June up to the middle of July when the price for it falls.
This proposal is interesting. These fishermen propose that if they have a set quota whereby under their licences they can catch only 200 salmon, why should they not be able to catch them from May until towards the end of August, as was traditionally the case? I am not sure if that would be feasible, but such fishermen could double the money they earn from salmon fishing if they were allowed to fish during such an extended period. Rather than catching all the salmon in a space of four or five weeks, it would be preferable if the season could be extended to enable them to maximise their earnings. Wild salmon are becoming an increasingly precious and expensive commodity. The current position whereby all salmon comes onstream in a four or five-week period creates a problem. That should be examined.
We talk about constraints on fishermen and people say that the industry here lags behind that in other European countries. Do we take serious account of the damage to salmon by sea lice and by pollution in our rivers? For decades there was massive pollution in the major rivers in Munster caused perhaps by industry, local authority and sometimes by farmers. In support of drift net fishermen, I wish to point out that they are paying the price and suffering the consequences of something that happened over a long period which was outside their control.
I have made the point when I have defended people in court - I hope Senator Finucane will not take me up wrong on this - that if the criminals in Limerick were as closely policed by satellite dishes, officials on shore and by navy boats, the crime rate in Limerick would flitter away. These fishermen go out in small open boats and they can be easily spotted coming or going. They are not criminals but people who are trying to make a decent living. Commercial fishermen are being choked and squeezed to such an extent that their livelihoods are becoming uncommercial. I have great sympathy for them, particularly if this system continues for another four or five years with the days at sea being cut, fewer safety days and the season being shortened. Historically, these fishermen agreed the depth and length of nets. They came a long way to meet the requirements of the industry. Basically, they are an endangered species. Be they bought out or otherwise, in a decade's time we will not be talking about commercial drift net salmon fishermen because they will be a thing of the past. I do not know if that is a good thing. I would hate wild salmon fishing to be wiped out but in view of the amount of fish caught and the effort and difficulties involved in catching it, the rewards are minuscule.
It is amusing to hear the Minister say that Deputy McCreevy does not have the funding to do what he wishes to do. The buyout would be a far more important national objective in the context of the environment than some of the ways in which the Minister has frittered away significant amounts of State money and I presume the Committee of Public Accounts will continue its investigation of those.
The extra €300,000 generated will go to the fisheries boards. The harbour charges and some other changes made by the Minister during the year generated incredible feedback but I have not noticed that in the case of these charges. The Minister said he is in touch with the anglers' representatives. Is he saying that as there will be a transparent regime in implementing these fees on an annual basis, they are prepared to accept them? There appears to be a dichotomy between what some of my colleagues are saying about buyouts and higher fees, for example, in the salmon sector. Fees might have a discouraging impact in some respects. The two objectives appear to be mutually exclusive. It is not, as was the case with harbour charges, another stroke to make money but would the Minister argue that it is reasonably acceptable to the interests concerned?
There is a division in the Dáil.
In response to Deputy O'Donovan, Ireland's salmon management system is way ahead of those of other European countries. We have micro tagging of salmon, commercial catch quotas and restrictions on rod catches. Scientists in the Central Fisheries Board and the Marine Institute are to the forefront in salmon analysis and scientific advice is provided to the salmon commission each year on conservation limits. We are moving from obtaining scientific advice on a catch basis to a recruitment-based model. Within the next few years we will be able to detect recruitment levels in individual rivers. When that happens it might be possible to consider the Deputy's suggestion about the quota system and rotating and even extending the salmon fishery season in certain districts. A number of fishermen have been in contact with me and other Deputies suggesting that since the quota system is now in place, there should be more flexibility in the days and weeks they are allowed to fish. We have asked the salmon commission to examine that. However, when we move to the new system we hope to be in a better position to make decisions on that basis.
There were discussions last year about the rod licence increases. The rod licence fee was increased last year by approximately 55%. We were warned that there would be a ferocious reaction to it but there was none. Indeed, many of the fishermen and angling groups I met said that since they knew that the fees would in future be increased in line with inflation, they, the fisheries boards and the angling clubs could make decisions based on that increase. They were happy that it was being put on a clear footing for the future rather than depending on a Minister to increase or not increase it. There has been no bad feedback from the anglers to date. They are happy with the fact that we are moving on. We made a commitment to the anglers and commercial fishermen on that occasion to increase the commercial fee this year in line with the rod licence fee increase last year.
I compliment the regional fisheries boards, particularly the inland fisheries boards. They are doing a good job and I have seen no dissent in the midlands. The industry overall must be taken into consideration. I welcome the projected extra €300,000 for the fisheries boards. It is good news for them. The different types of fishermen help each other out when necessary and I am sure they will realise that this is in the interest of all fishermen.
There is a vote in the Dáil, which is important. When I first became a Member of the Oireachtas I did not know much about procedure but a certain committee chairman, who will remain nameless, told me it was more important that I attend a committee meeting than a meeting of the Dáil.
We will have to adjourn until the vote is finished. I have to read the order.
Will the Minister introduce non-transferable quotas this year?
The salmon commission is considering that at present and will make a recommendation to the Department. I am aware the Deputy feels strongly about that issue.
Will it be before or after Christmas?
It will be in the new year.