Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 1 Nov 2006

Report of Independent Working Group on Salmon: Ministerial Presentation.

The purpose of the meeting is to review the recently published report by the Independent Working Group on Salmon. I welcome the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, the Minister of State, Deputy John Browne, Mr. Padraic White and Mr. John Malone, two of the three members of the independent salmon group, Mr. Michael Keatinge from BIM who is secretary to the group, and Dr. Niall Ó Maoileidigh, chairman of the standing scientific committee to the National Salmon Commission. I also draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before we begin to discuss the report of the independent salmon group and the Government decision of today, it is important to advise everybody of the committee's own report, which was published in October 2005, in which it made five recommendations. We should reacquaint ourselves with the recommendations. They are set out in the report as follows:

(1) The joint committee is adamant that public policy must be dedicated to the survival of the salmon species and in this regard it is urgent to move to single stock management.

(2) Given that the move to single stock management will take time it is regarded that a voluntary compensatory and/or set-aside scheme (over a three-year period) would be of significant benefit to stocks. The position to be reviewed at the end of the three-year period.

A compensatory scheme would mean a permanent cessation of net fishing and a permanent reduction in the number of licences in the district.

Set-aside, it is suggested, would require a current licensee to undertake not to apply for a licence to fish for three years. As compensation, such individuals would receive an annual payment (for each of the years in which the set-aside is in place) or a once off payment. On the basis that salmon stocks recover an individual who has participated in this scheme would be free to apply for a licence to fish and the conditions in regard to the grant of licences, as currently vested in the Minister, would remain.

Take-up would lead to a reduction in the overall quota available for the district calculated as a percentage for each licence that exited. The percentage reduction would be permanent with regard to the compensatory scheme and reviewed, on the basis of the stock recovery with regard to the set-aside scheme. Funding for the compensatory and set-aside schemes should be made available from sectors, such as; (a) the angling and angling tourism sector as these sectors, pursuant to the arguments made at the sub-Committee hearings, will be the main 'economic' beneficiary; (b) conservation groups, both national and international; (c) the EU; and (d) Government.

(3) The joint committee recommends that if the stock improves, in light of single stock management, then an increase in the commercial net fishing sector should be addressed.

(4) It is the view of the joint committee that the precise mechanisms required to achieve single stock management in terms of legislation, management, reorganisation and compensation are functions of the Department. The joint committee does not wish to be prescriptive, except in recommending that any public monies spent must have, as a primary aim, ensuring the survival of the salmon species and that this precept must be regarded as more important than any economic gain to any sector that may accrue.

(5) The joint committee recommends that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should prepare a report on predation by seals on the salmon stocks.

More than 48 organisations or individuals made submissions to the committee following which the report was produced and warmly welcomed by the Government. As a result, the Minister of State, Deputy John Browne, set up the independent group to examine the policies that should be pursued.

I invite the Minister to make his presentation.

Thank you, Chairman, and members of the committee.

The Government has adopted the key recommendations of the report by the independent working group on salmon. The key recommendation of this report is the creation of a hardship fund for those affected by the compulsory buy-out of drift-net fishermen.

The Government's primary motivation in aligning with the scientific report, to which it committed some time ago, is the conservation of the wild salmon species, which has long been regarded as one of Ireland's most prized fish, instilled in our traditional mythology as the bradán feasa. Coming from the banks of the Boyne I have a particular affinity with it. It is valued as a cultural, recreational and economic resource.

Expert scientific advice available shows marine survival of salmon in the north Atlantic has decreased significantly in the past decade. Less than half to one third of the salmon returning to rivers in the 1970s and 1980s are currently returning to Irish rivers. In this regard it is vital to afford every protection to the remaining stocks and to clearly prioritise conservation over catch. That is something with which this committee agreed. The current imperative must be to maintain stocks above conservation limits or, at the very least, halt the decline that has been evident for some time. If we do not take action now, the relentless deterioration of stocks will continue, leading to the inevitable demise of the wild salmon.

International best practice for the management of the north Atlantic salmon requires the adoption of the precautionary approach and the cessation of indiscriminate mixed stock fisheries. These are the recommendations of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, NASCO, and the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, ICES.

EU obligations require Ireland to comply with the habitats directive which also prescribes the precautionary approach and requires an end to indiscriminate mixed stock fishing. As committee members are aware, the European Commission has issued a reasoned opinion against Ireland for non-compliance with the directive in our management of fisheries to date. Ireland could face substantial fines if the European Court of Justice upholds the Commission's complaint. If we do not end mixed stock fishing in 2007, the Commission will, unquestionably, proceed in its action against Ireland. We can, on the other hand, expect a reputational bonus from neighbouring countries if we proceed on the proposed course.

In future the harvesting of salmon by any means will be restricted to the stocks of rivers meeting their conservation limits. This means there will be no more indiscriminate captures of fish. At the time of the appointment of the independent group the scientific advice was that this could best be achieved by restricting fishing to bays, estuaries and rivers. Commercial fishing and recreational angling can continue only on the scientifically identified exploitable surplus. We have no option, therefore, but to move to single stock management of the fishery immediately as urged by this committee's fourth report on salmon drift-netting, draft-netting and angling of October last. While I note the observations of those proposing a voluntary cessation of the fishery, we simply cannot rely on sufficient fishermen volunteering to do this where it is necessary to avoid impacting on stocks failing to meet conservation limits at home or abroad.

The Government realises that these proposals will entail hardship for commercial fishermen and vulnerable coastal communities. To offset this, it has established a hardship scheme for those affected. This fund which is worth more than €25 million will give each fisherman a payment equal to six times his or her average annual catch over the period 2001 to 2006 multiplied by the average price per salmon over the period. Each fisherman will also receive a payment equal to six times the current licence fee. An additional fund of €5 million will be available for a community support scheme which is designed to aid the development of those communities where the impact of the cessation of drift-netting will be hardest felt and provide alternative employment and economic opportunities for those affected.

The members of the independent group will explain how they addressed their terms of reference and arrived at their conclusions. I know they have committed a huge amount of time and effort to producing the report, far above their original expectation. However, they are to be commended for the thorough way in which they approached and completed the task and addressed this very complex issue. The level of understanding they achieved and their independent approach are clearly evident in the report. On my own behalf and that of the Government, I thank them for the work they undertook.

Mr. Michael Keatinge

I am the fishery development manager with Bord Iascaigh Mhara. However, for the past few months I have been secretary to the independent salmon group.

The terms of reference of the group are set out in the first PowerPoint slide. The slide does not show the complete terms of reference, merely the key points relating to the work of the group. The list includes: the implications of fully aligning with the scientific advice; addressing the scale of financial loss and the financial hardship that emerges; and determining who the main economic beneficiaries are and how they should contribute, whether in cash or in kind, to any scheme and the implications for the angling sector. It is clear from the terms of reference that it was not the task of the group to determine the nature of the science per se but to start with the science as presented and look at the implications. Therefore, the available scientific data at the time the group was established relate to this year’s report which captures the situation at the end of 2005. During the course of the work of the group, the information on the current year and looking forward to 2007 became available in preliminary form and that influenced the final outcome. The final report on that period will be available to the Minister shortly.

There are four key recommendations in the 2006 report which are worth bringing to the attention of the committee. First, in most districts an immediate decrease in the exploitation of wild salmon is required. Second, mixed stock fisheries present a particular threat to the status of individual stocks. Third, the most precautionary way to meet the objectives is to operate fisheries based on individual river stocks that are exceeding their conservation limits. The conservation limit has been defined by the scientific community as the level of spawning stock that will produce the maximum sustainable yield, on average. This can be expressed in numbers of salmon. Fourth, fisheries in estuaries and rivers are more likely to fulfil these requirements.

The term "mixed stock fishing" has become very prominent in this debate and it is worth spending a moment to look at what a mixed stock fishery is. The group spent considerable time on this issue. NASCO has provided a definition. It states "any fishery exploiting a significant number of salmon from two or more river stocks is defined as a mixed stock fishery". This is somewhat different from the definition commonly used in some quarters until now which considers that one only finds a mixed stock fishery at sea. The new definition clearly indicates that there can be a mixed stock fishery in rivers and estuaries, as well as at sea. Specifically, where two rivers meet, the individual stocks destined for them, downstream of that meeting point, constitute a mixed stock fishery. The group has adopted the NASCO definition.

With regard to the scientific advice, three critical areas were looked at. These are: the current catastrophic decline in salmon stocks evident since the mid-1970s; the EU habitats directive; and Ireland's position vis-à-vis the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. The next slide clearly addresses the catastrophic decline in salmon stocks which is particularly evident in the trend shown in red on the slide. The current position, as of the end of 2005, is shown on the extreme right of the slide. With regard to the habitats directive, the Commission has clearly stated that to avoid further infringement cases Ireland must comply with the directive and eschew drift-net fishing. The slide uses the term “mixed stock fishing” but it is clear that drift-net fishing is referred to. Regarding the third area, at successive meetings of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation Ireland has come under increased pressure to comply with international best practice and eliminate indiscriminate mixed stock fishing at sea. In this regard, certain commitments were given at the 2006 meeting of NASCO.

Chapter 3 of the report deals with the implications of the precautionary advice for 2007. The presentation gives a summary of some of the key implications. We have not included every point. The most fundamental outcome of this advice is that management would move from the current district-based approach of managing a number of rivers in a given district to one based on a single river. Each river would be managed in its own right.

The next basic principle is that harvesting by whatever means should only take place on rivers which meet their conservation limits and must not exceed the surplus available on a given river. Furthermore, there can be no mixed stock fishing, which in this case means drift-net fishing, from 2007. To turn this into specific advice, it appears, based on the preliminary outcome of this year's scientific work, that 34 rivers will meet their conservation limits to allow harvesting, while 32 will not. On the basis of the precautionary approach, harvesting will not be allowed on a further 76 rivers for which there are insufficient scientific data or on which the total salmon catch was fewer than ten fish. To contextualise the advice, the rivers set out in red on the graph do not meet their conservation limits this year, while the rivers in green do. The rivers in yellow are the ones for which there are insufficient scientific data or the total salmon catch is fewer than ten fish. There are a further seven rivers which have complex returning fish populations comprising a strong element of multi-sea winter fish. The scientific status of these seven rivers will be clarified in the report of the standing scientific committee when it emerges in the next few weeks.

In the event that mixed stock fishing does not take place next year, approximately 68,000 fish will be available for redistribution back to rivers. While salmon only return to their rivers of origin, it is not the case that all the rivers marked red this year will automatically be marked green next year. The scientific data have identified ten rivers where the new surplus will be sufficient for them to meet their conservation limits, which means the total number of rivers meeting their conservation limits next year will jump from 24 to 34. The total number failing to meet their conservation limits will fall from 42 to 32. At least ten rivers will exceed their conservation limits next year, which would otherwise have failed to do so.

Among the implications we face are, first and foremost, an end to mixed stock fishing at sea, that is, drift-netting. Mixed stock fishing for salmon in rivers or estuaries will also be prohibited where any component of the mixed stock fails to meet the conservation limit. In estuaries fed by more than one river fishing will be prohibited downstream of the point at which any river failing to meet its conservation limit joins an estuary. There are further implications for managers and their management of the process, foremost among which is a need for real-time monitoring and management of harvesting. There is also a requirement to establish a central database to manage distribution and monitor angling licences and tags. Stock rebuilding programmes will be required, while the displacement impact on other fisheries arising from the ban on drift-netting must be considered. There are also implications for other aspects of salmon management, especially water quality and river pollution management and the protection and enhancement of river habitats. All of these and more have been set out clearly in chapter 3 of the report.

It is clear that full alignment with the scientific advice will affect the drift-net fishery. While the compulsory buy-out will impact on the current 877 drift-net licence holders, the degree of hardship experienced by each will vary greatly. We can address that matter. Other commercial netsmen, including draft-net, bag-net, snap-net, loop-net and head-weir trap fishermen, will be subject to a voluntary rather than a compulsory buy-out. These fishermen represent about 44% of commercial netsmen. Only a small number, approximately 30, of those fishermen caught more than 100 fish in 2005.

The next slide may contain too much detail, but I will try to interpret it for the committee. The key point relates to the red line which represents the trajectory of the percentage catch taken in the drift-net fishery dating back to the 1960s. It is clear that prior to the 1960s, drift-net fishing was conducted with traditional cotton nets which were ineffective compared to modern nets. The monofilament net emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, from which point the fishery expanded. The yellow line in the diagram which starts at 30% represents the draft-net fishery which has declined from its position as the dominant catcher of fish in the commercial fishery, including angling. Prior to the 1960s, the dominant method used to catch salmon was draft-netting which has declined as the drift-net fishery moved towards the monofilament net and expanded to reach approximately 80% of the total catch.

On a graph which depicts the same scenario differently, the yellow triangles represent the draft-net fishery, while the drift-net fishery is represented by red lines with black circles. The graph demonstrates that the drift-net fishery was relatively minor, accounting for less than 20% of the total catch prior to the 1960s. From the mid-1960s an increase in the number of licences from less than 400 to more than 1,000 and the introduction of the monofilament net saw the catch taken expand significantly to a high in the mid-1970s which was followed by a strong, sharp decline clearly evident on the extreme right of the diagram.

The hardship scheme has two elements. The direct payments scheme is based on average net income over the five-year period 2001-05. Having calculated the average number of salmon caught by a given individual, the group considered the average net value of the salmon caught during the period. I stress that it is the net value of the salmon which was considered having substracted the cost of catching the fish, including the expense of operating a drift-net vessel at sea. This expense includes the cost of fuel oil, lubricating oil, wear and tear, the purchase of nets, etc. The net income per salmon has been calculated at €23, which equates to a gross value over the period in question of €29. The overheads have been calculated at 20%, which figure is comparable to that in independent studies carried out in, for example, Northern Ireland. It is worth noting at this point that in 2001 the average price of salmon per kilo varied between €5 and €5.50 but had risen to at least €15 per kilo by 2006. The price has increased significantly since 2001 as the number of salmon being taken has fallen, almost in inverse proportion. As the direct hardship scheme is based on average net income from 2001 to 2005, average catch and price with a multiplier of six, the average catch during the period multiplied by €23 multiplied by six will give the payment. The report proposes a single payment in a process that would involve the verifiable decommissioning of nets. The assumed after-cost value would be €23 net or €29 gross, with an estimated total cost of €25 million.

The next slide shows average income forgone by the drift-net fishery. There are 877 drift-net licences this year, but I will show the Central Fisheries Board's figures for 2005. Last year 445 licenceholders caught fewer than 50 salmon each. The data are available on page 32 of the report. I cannot read the details from the slide. In the period 2001-05 the figure mentioned equated to an average income of approximately €465 per individual. At the other extreme, three individuals caught more than 1,000 fish, equating to an average income of €26,285. In 2005, the last year for which we have full data and when the price was significantly higher, the income of the three fishermen concerned may have been in excess of €52,000. Another point emerging from the data is that approximately 13% of drift-net fishermen caught more than 50% of the total catch.

The next table appears on page 33 of the report and provides similar data for the draft-net fishery, in respect of which there will be a voluntary rather than a compulsory scheme. Of the 518 licenceholders, one individual caught more than 1,000 fish, while another caught more than 500. Three fishermen caught more than 250 fish each. Some 83% of draft-net licenceholders caught fewer than 50 fish in 2005.

The next slide addresses the scale of payment. The table on page 36 of the report shows how payments accrue to the fishermen affected. For example, a drift-net fisherman with an average catch of 750 salmon between 2001 and 2005 would expect a payment of €105,522. This figure is calculated by multiplying 750 by six and the reference amount of €23, providing a figure of €103,500, to which six times the current licence fee is added, namely, €2,022. At the other end, an individual catching as few as 50 salmon would expect a payment of €8,922, with six times the licence fee added. The figures for draft-net fishermen vary in so far as their licence costs less than the drift-net licence. The payment per fish and the method of calculating the payment remain the same. The licence fees for drift-net and draft-net fishermen are €337 and €190, respectively.

The scheme's other element is the community support component which is similar to that in other schemes such as the proposed European fisheries fund, schemes run by Pobal or under the Leader programme and so on. It crosses various Departments and agencies and provides up to €5 million in grant aid for projects that support communities affected by the report's outcome, including those involved in ancillary industries such as processing, transport and so on. It will be complementary to other schemes.

On whether the buy-out in respect of drift-netting should be voluntary or compulsory, the opinion of our group on the three aspects noted — the scientific advice, the habitats directive and NASCO — is unequivocal. The scientific advice is that there should not be an indiscriminate mixed stock fishery. My colleague, Dr. Ó Maoileidigh, the chairman of the standing scientific committee, is better able to answer questions in this regard, but the group's terms of reference start from that point. Having discussed the matter with the standing scientific committee and the national fisheries management executive at the group's earliest meetings, it was left in no doubt concerning the scientific community's view on what the position would be from 2007 onwards. The Minister of State has made it clear that the European Commission is unequivocal in its intention to proceed in accordance with the EU habitats directive should there be no movement on drift-netting. Considerable commitments have been given to NASCO regarding this problem. The opinion on an indiscriminate mixed stock fishery is unequivocal.

At the outset of the debate there was a notion that mixed stock fishing only took place at sea. Recalling the NASCO definition adopted by the group, it is important to realise that this approach is taken for everyone. Regardless of which harvesting method is used, be it recreational angling, drift-netting or draft-netting, the same advice is given — when a river fails to meet the conservation limit and does not have a surplus, there should be no harvesting. In a river with a surplus, harvesting can take place by any means. Downstream of where two rivers meet, including the sea, is a mixed stock fishery. If any component of that fishery falls below its conservation limit, harvesting cannot take place. A precautionary lowest common denominator approach is required if one is to secure sustainable harvesting of salmon.

Regarding income streams, recreational fishermen and their associations have clearly indicated their willingness to bear some of the cost of addressing hardship issues, the details of which are contained in the report. It is proposed to introduce an environmental stamp for angling. This would involve a doubling of the licence fee. It is possible that private fisheries' rates will increase, while another option is to sell the surplus.

The new surplus is important. I mentioned at the outset that if one foregoes the drift-net fishery next year, in the order of — the numbers come from the scientific committee rather than the group — 68,000 fish will be available in 2007 from what would have been a drift-net fishery. Something in the order of 28,000 of those will return to rivers that are currently below their conservation limit. Therefore, they will not constitute a surplus. However, the remaining 40,000 fish, a number that will vary from year to year, will constitute fish returning to rivers that meet their conservation limit. Hence, this 40,000 fish will be a surplus capable of being harvested.

This is a new surplus and the report is quite clear there can be no a priori claim to these fish. Their distribution is addressed in section 3.2 of the report, which clearly outlines some of the key principles that should be taken into account when considering how that surplus might be made available to harvesters. Any model for the allocation of this surplus should be predicated on the basis that it is a public good. It should recognise the case of groups such as processors, restaurateurs and retailers and accommodate the interests of the tourism sector.

Some additional issues raised in section 3.2 should be highlighted. One is the suggested change to the current legislation that would permit the sale of rod caught fish, thus making available to the processing sector some of the new surplus. There is a clear indication from the group that the beneficiaries should make a proportionate payment. For clarity, the various beneficiaries have been indicated in the report and include, recreational anglers, the tourism sector, both domestic and foreign, the processing sector and netsmen. Those netsmen who remain as harvesters, draft-net, snap-net, loop-net, bag-net and head ware fishermen, namely, some 44% of current netsmen, have the option of remaining and can, in principle, access some of this new surplus. However, the group has suggested the distribution should be made on the basis of it being a public good and should be considered at a national or regional level.

The income the State derives from payments for this new surplus could be used to enhance management and development of the salmon resource at an individual river level. It constitutes another form of income, alongside the income derived from any environmental stamp introduced on the angling licence or any increase in the rates derived from the private fishery owners.

The group points to a better future for salmon. The report seeks to address the historic decline evident in the data coming from the standing scientific committee. In addition, it will mean that Ireland is in compliance with its international obligations and that we will increasingly see more rivers meeting their conservation limit and thus reopening to all forms of harvesting where a surplus is identified.

Thank you, Mr. Keatinge. A number of members have offered to speak and we will take them in the order in which they offered.

I welcome the Minister, the Minister of State and their representatives. I have already made my views clear on this report. I am very unhappy with it and do not accept what has been produced. I have conveyed these views strongly to both the Minister and the Minister of State and they gave me a good hearing, but unfortunately my views have not been reflected in the final decision. Quite a number of other members of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party put forward similar views to mine.

I am disappointed that when the group chose to meet different fishery organisations throughout the country, it chose not to go to the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, the region with the largest number of drift-net fishermen in the country. I would have expected that to be the first port of call. I feel there are elements within the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources who would be quite happy if our fisheries were done away with completely, as could be seen in the most recent fisheries Bill. The drift-net fishermen are now seen as causing hassle and it appears the Department wants to move them aside.

The report, by its authors' admission, has been compiled outside the terms of reference provided. On page 19, it was stated that the terms of reference require the group to examine the implications of aligning with scientific advice in 2007, but this advice is not normally available until next year. Therefore, the report has been compiled outside the terms of reference laid down and should not have proceeded on that basis.

On page 20, the group admits that the information available for estimating river specific spawners and returns for fisheries consists of data on 17 rivers with counters and 15 without counters. Only a quarter of rivers have counters. Therefore, it is admitted that the scientific advice is flawed as the group does not have exact scientific advice. In fairness, we were told this at previous hearings. We were told then that scientific advice in this area is not exact. Dr. Ken Whelan told us counters would be put on all of the rivers. They have been put on some recently, but not in time for the compilation of this report which operates in the dark. There are no counters on the Suir, Nore and Barrow, which are some of the biggest spawning rivers in the country.

One of the agreements made with fishermen at the time quotas and the tagging system were introduced was that counters would be put on the rivers, but it did not happen and now fishermen are being forced off the rivers. Fishermen have made concession after concession over the years, but now they are being pushed aside.

I disagree with the manner in which the group has decided to deal with the issues. The proposed method of compensating fishermen is wrong. In the Southern Regional Fisheries Board area, fishermen do not have the capacity to catch the same number of fish as their counterparts on the west coast because, by and large, salmon stocks come down along the west coast and are therefore fished out before they get near fishermen in the south-eastern part of the country. It is physically not possible for these fishermen to catch as many and for that reason the compensation regime discriminates against them.

For example, some scientific results, as illustrated on page 14 of the report, demonstrate that of the fish spawned in the River Suir, 60% are caught off the coast of Kerry and 10% are caught elsewhere. Only 30% of them return to the Suir. How can the fishermen in the area survive in such circumstances? There are 39,000 spawners in the Suir, but the fishermen only have a fraction of those by way of quota. They have been discriminated against and continue to be discriminated against in the compensation regime put forward today.

Unless fishermen have been telling me lies, and I do not believe that is the case, fish have been running later each year. The number of fish running in September this year was huge when the seasons were closed. I have been hearing this year after year, yet it is not being taken into consideration. There is also no mention of seals in the report. Every fisherman will say seals are removing a vast quantity of salmon from our stocks.

I have two questions for the group, as I am a little confused. Is it the case that all 877 drift-netting operations must go or will those drift-netting on rivers — indicated in the green section of the graph provided — be allowed to continue? Mr. Keatinge states on page 6 of the presentation — page 29 of the report: "This means that in estuaries fed by more than one river fishing will be prohibited downstream from the point where any river not meeting its conservation limit joins the estuary". Does this mean fishing will be permitted in two or three years time when conservation limits are reached? Obviously, I am concerned more about the Waterford estuary than any other. I reiterate my unhappiness with the report before us.

Senator Kenneally has raised serious questions. I will ask Dr. Ó Maoileidigh to respond in respect of the scientific evidence and Mr. Keatinge to respond to the questions relating to the river fish counters, etc. The group members may share the questions as they are the authors of the report.

Dr. Niall Ó Maoileidigh

The answer to the Senator's question lies in the set of rules introduced by the scientific group last year which essentially provided that fishing could take place in an estuary provided stocks within it met conservation limits. The method used does not matter as long as the surplus above the conservation limit is only taken. That is the theory. The reality is that there are no situations where this is occurring.

Mr. John Malone

I thank the Senator for his questions. By way of introduction, this was a difficult and emotive issue, as I am sure the committee established through its own work. It is important to state there is general agreement that the salmon stock is in serious difficulty. I do not believe there is any argument in that regard. I was struck by the amount of common ground between the report and that of the committee. There may be differences in terms of proposed solutions, implementation issues and so on but there is much shared ground in terms of analysis.

Reference was made to concessions which must be viewed in the context of the various efforts made in the past decade. We must be impressed by these efforts and the amount of work done to try to arrest the decline. Unfortunately, these measures did not have the desired results. We believe we consulted widely. In fact, we were worried at one point that we might become a consultative group as distinct from a group charged with preparing a report. Pages 64 and 65 of the report contain a list of those whom we consulted.

We did not want to become a travelling roadshow, rather we wanted to see draft-netting and drift-netting operations. That is what we did. For reasons of convenience and to enable us to make conclusions, we visited two locations over two days. We also visited the Loughs Agency. They were the only visits we undertook. We would be very concerned if there was a connotation that because we one visited one part of the country, we were ignoring another. As I stated, we consulted widely on the issue.

Questions were asked about preliminary scientific advice. By definition, all we could receive was preliminary scientific advice for 2007. We had received advice for 2006 which, as outlined in the presentation, pointed in a very clear and specific direction. We consulted the scientists to obtain their views on where the scientific evidence for 2007 was likely to lead. We indicate in the report that our work was based on preliminary scientific advice for 2007.

Reference was made to counters in rivers. Certainly, this issue was raised in a number of presentations made to the group. Clearly — I do not think there is any argument about this — there is a need for more counters. However, their presence or absence does not change the inescapable fact that the stock is in difficulty and that numbers are in decline. I do not think anyone presented us with information to indicate the graph was moving in the other direction. There is consensus in that regard.

The issue of counters is important in the context of river management into the future. The following is a point which my colleagues and I are anxious to labour: given the way salmon migrate, any recovery programme will have to be centred on individual rivers. We see individual rivers and spawning as being at the centre of any conservation and recovery programme. That was the strategy and line of logic we followed. Hence, the difficulty for interceptory fishing. We did not set out to target draft-netting, but to follow a conservation principle.

The issue of compensation is an emotive one. As someone with previous experience in this regard, I do not believe a compensation scheme has yet been devised that would receive universal acclaim. Any compensation mechanism must relate to loss of income. I accept the point that salmon move in a particular direction. However, we took the average amount of salmon likely to be caught over a five year period and multiplied it by six. We included a de minimis figure of six times the value of the licence, thereby ensuring everybody would receive a basic level of compensation.

Will crew members on vessels be compensated in any way or will compensation be paid to the licenceholder only?

Mr. Malone

It will be paid to the licenceholder.

What will happen to the crew of such vessels?

Mr. Malone

There is a proposal for a community-based scheme. However, this type of scheme can be best operated if it is based on the licenceholder. A crew member is an employee of the licenceholder. I do not think we could take any other approach to this matter.

We were asked if we had taken other factors into account. Yes, we did. I do not think it is indicated anywhere in the report that the beginning, middle and end of the problem is drift-netting or draft-netting. There is a range of other factors involved, as we have acknowledged. In fact, the first chapter of the report is devoted to what is happening at sea, water quality, habitats, seals and so on. We accept all of this. On the question of whether drift-netting will cease completely, the answer is "Yes". That is the nature of the proposal.

The final question was related to single stock in estuaries. If the rivers feeding into a particular estuary are above their conservation limit, harvesting can take place. The point raised was that if rivers feeding into the estuary recover then clearly there is a benefit for those rivers and for the estuary. I hope I have picked up on all the points.

Can I clarify the point concerning the Waterford estuary because it is the one I know best? Is Mr. Malone saying that if in three or four years' time the conservation limits have been exceeded, it will be open to fishermen to use drift nets there again?

Mr. Malone

In theory, yes.

Why does the independent salmon group not go for set-aside if it is going to be open?

I have a number of speakers offering before Deputy Ferris. I ask Senator Kenneally to finish his point and then we will go on to Deputy Perry.

It is a valid point because set-aside was in our report. That is exactly what Mr. Malone is saying.

Mr. Malone

No.

This is set aside. The fishermen have no problem with setting it aside for three or four years to give stocks a chance to recover. Many fishermen do not have a problem with that, which seems to be what Mr. Malone is suggesting.

Mr. Malone

No, it is not what I am suggesting. First, one must look at the state of individual rivers. Quite a number of rivers in this country — the red rivers as they are described — are chronically below their conservation limit. Second, as the Senator knows, drift-netting takes place mainly at sea; it is interceptory fishing. Third, we are talking about estuaries which, in the main, would entail draught netting. We took the voluntary approach on draft-netting because we felt there were some options. Some draft-netters will decide, first, that the compensation is good, second, that there is no prospect of a recovery or, third, that there is a prospect of a recovery. In the latter case, they can take that decision. Drift-netting and draft-netting are two very different types of operation.

There is drift-netting in the Waterford estuary.

Mr. Malone can bank that question. I must go to Deputy Perry now. I will come back to Deputy Ferris.

In its opening paragraph the report states that the specific remit of the independent salmon group is to advise the Government on the impact of fully aligning with the scientific advice in 2007 and, in particular, the hardship that may arise for individuals in coastal communities. In effect, the reality was that the independent group had to say that mixed stock fisheries must be banned, which is the same as saying that drift-nets must be banned. The qualitative and substantive questions as to whether drift-nets are a principal cause of the decline in salmon stocks and whether banning them will have a significant impact, were not discussed in the report.

The proposal that rod-caught fish should be sold in the commercial processing sector is unworkable. The commercial processing sector, particularly for smoked fish, wants sea-caught fish. This has been made clear by all leading smokers. From a food safety point of view it is not acceptable to deal with fresh water fish, which would be the case otherwise. Allowing rod-caught fish for commercial sale is substituting the draught net commercial fishery with the rod-caught commercial sector and would be an incentive to catch or poach.

The admission in the report that the state of stocks in half the country's rivers is completely unknown is an indictment of the management of those resources. If salmon is so important why is this the case? For some years, salmon counters have not been placed on the rivers. Even with this report, the independent salmon group's representatives cannot tell me the precise amount of salmon that is out there. In other jurisdictions salmon counters are working and the relevant management knows exactly what stocks are available. As we speak, however, we do not know that information as it relates to Ireland.

What are the views of the independent salmon group on the fact that it is not proposed to ban drift-net fishing in the north east of England? In 2006, some 85,000 fish were caught in that region so are they in breach of the EU directive?

I understand that the Marine Institute is part of an international consortium that this year began a four-year salt sea project to determine if the numbers of salmon returning to the coast from sea habitats are declining. The research for this report is ongoing. Has the independent salmon group had any consultation with those people? While awaiting the report of the salt sea project, would it not be advisable to take a graduated approach involving the voluntary buy-out of licences and set-aside with the right to return to fishing if and when stocks recover? Such a graduated approach could also include a cessation of all rod catching on certain rivers, an expansion of river counters, and a concerted series of habitat enhancement projects in key rivers to assess the benefits of such enhancement. Were these matters dealt with in the report?

The compensation payment for affected communities is very small. Increased funding for employment diversification should be made available as a matter of course. When one considers that a similar sum, €30 million, was paid for Thornton Hall we are getting to the bones of the matter because we are talking about the survival of coastal communities. This is not just about taking out drift-netting, it concerns a way of life for many people in coastal areas.

Fine Gael supports the conservation of salmon stocks and published the salmon charter report in January 2005. Mr. Are Vikersen from Iceland examined that report and was happy with its recommendations. He was also satisfied with the report of this committee which sought information from every vested interest in the sector. Nonetheless, there seems to be little incentive on the Government's part to take on board the major recommendations of that report.

The distribution of compensation needs to be addressed. The sums involved, even for large catches, do not provide adequate compensation. The fund should be increased considerably.

Point four of the independent salmon group's terms of reference requires it to consider the extent to which those stakeholders who are the main economic beneficiaries of more salmon being returned to rivers, should contribute to any scheme, whether in cash or kind, including improved tourist access. The independent salmon group did not, and could not, take account of the contribution made to salmon conservation by drift-net fishermen who have made concessions, including reducing the fishing area by 66% and the season by 83%. Such nets are now in the water for only 6% of the year. They have also taken a quota reduction of more than 60%. That is the current situation.

The anti-drift-net lobby regularly makes the point that Irish drift-net fishermen are catching huge numbers of salmon originating from rivers in continental Europe. The facts show, however, that over the past 20 years less than 0.5% of tagged fish caught in Irish fisheries were of European origin. Does the group agree with that opinion?

Thank you, Deputy.

These are important issues, Chairman. I have four or five more questions before I finish.

Will Mr. Keatinge bank those questions? As he is the secretary of the group, I presume he is in a position to dole out those questions to his colleagues. Alternatively, do they wish to take some of the questions now?

Yes, I will answer them. I come back to the common ground between this committee and Deputy Perry, which is the urgent need to move to mixed stock fishing. As Mr. Malone said, this group did not start out as drift-net fishermen. Such fishermen suffer adverse effects through the medium of mixed stock fishing. The entire international community is now campaigning and putting pressure on Ireland to end mixed stock fishing. Our group has met representatives of the drift net fishermen and we were impressed by them. We were impressed by many of the changes they made in coming in from 12 to six miles, and with their concern for the fish. We were also impressed by the fact that they do not see themselves as the sole cause of the problem.

That is the point.

They are not the sole cause of the problem. However, the inescapable conclusion is that whatever we can do as a country to influence what is under our control — which is mixed stock fishery — we have to do it.

I refer to the main point of difference between the committee and us. We agree with virtually all the committee's recommendations, including the need for substantial changes in the management of the fisheries into the future. The difference is whether one can do this in a slow transition period or all at once. Our clear conclusion was that one must do it all at once. In a sense, it would be indefensible and unsustainable to take out certain drift-net fishermen and leave others — in other words, to continue a mixed stock fishery and to spend public money partially compensating people but not actually doing the job.

We have the greatest sympathy for the plight of the drift-net fishermen, and I say that not simply for the sake of doing so. They have had bad press in this debate. That is why, when we came to the compensation — the compensation is generous, by any standards — we did not only take the last year into account. We went back over five years to take into account and give them credit for some of the higher volumes of fishing five years ago. We averaged that out and took the net income, which is approximately 80% of the gross income, and gave them a six times buy out plus the €2,000 for buying out the licence. Under that package somebody who catches say an average of 75 fish per year — there are 139 in that category — will get €12,300 as against a net income per annum over the five year period of €1,700. Our view is that the package of €25 million is substantial. If one sets that package against the gross value to all the commercial fishery, it is approximately €5 million per year so a €25 million compensation package against that is very significant. We understand that this hits the drift-netters as collateral damage caused by the need to once and for all end mixed stock fisheries in the interest of the future of the fish which this committee has charted very clearly.

As regards the state of the stocks, it is fair to say that everywhere we go, people question the science. One can pick holes here and there. However, the scientists' knowledge, know-how and expertise is at the forefront of know-how in Europe. Apart from counters, they use other techniques using rods, surveys, etc. One of the specific proposals we made was that if we are serious going forward and want to base conservation on individual rivers, that means the fishery boards must have state-of-the-art management of individual rivers in terms of real time counters, knowing the fish going up rivers, what is being caught and being able to respond, more or less, instantly as in the case of the Loughs Agency. That is the direction in which we should go so that together, we should be able to see a revival of the salmon stocks.

As regards the contribution of the stakeholders, it is fair to say the anglers were very forthcoming. They said they would contribute €2 million to €2.5 million per year. We have a proposal for an environmental stamp which basically would be 100% of the value of a particular licence and which, over a ten year period, would contribute approximately €10 million of that fund. We have had difficulty coming to grips with the ownership of the fisheries, the payers of rates and so on but that is another source of revenue at which we can look in the future. Our view is that these revenues and new streams of income should be used and put back into the management of the industry to achieve the objective the committee has set out.

A number of members had queries about the contributions. Some €29 million will come from the Exchequer and €1 million after one year from the anglers. That is the rod licence plus the environmental licence.

Will they contribute the €1.5 million they told this committee they had to contribute towards the buy-out?

We estimate that in present value terms, the environmental stamp will contribute €10 million over ten years as against the €25 million compensation fund.

Is Mr. White confident the 28,700 licences will be paid and that there will not be a rod licence war or something like that?

That is one of the interesting changes. We met an umbrella group which represented virtually every angling interest in the country. It was very forthcoming and was very specific that it would make a contribution. Niall Green spoke on behalf of that group and there was no ambiguity about it. We have taken the group at its word and this proposal reflects that. In present value terms, we expect it to pay €10 million of the €25 million.

I refer to the other €5 million. Our group listened to the issues of some of the drift-net fishermen, many of whom are gaeilgeoirí. The case was put to us that the ending of the drift-net fishery would have a deleterious effect on some of the Gaeltacht communities and that there should be some encouragement of alternative development opportunities. In direct response to that case, we have created a fund of €5 million to encourage those coastal communities to use the skills and know-how of the crewmen and fishermen if they wish to seek alternative enterprise to capitalise on their skills. I strongly recommend that fund should be looked at creatively and positively by the interests involved.

The report acknowledges the negative impact a ban on drift-netting will have on other fully exploited inshore fisheries. Why then are there no recommendations on how to alleviate those negative impacts? We are certainly creating another set of problems. The €250,000 Farrell Grant Sparks report on inland waterways, which the Government commissioned, is also a contentious document and has not yet been debated in the House.

Mr. White spoke about the harvesting of salmon in rivers — in soft water. I refer to the feasibility of that. I am not an expert on salmon but I have spoken to people who are and they reckon that will be quite a difficult task. This will mean that harvesting of salmon by draft-nets will be allowed in estuaries and rivers where salmon will be in excess of the capacity to fish by rod. Will that not have an impact?

Given that commercial quotas declined by approximately 60% in the reference period for compensation, that fishermen were penalised to a greater or lesser extent by the area based quota system and that commercial representatives suggested equal valuation of all salmon licences, why did the review group suggest the track record-based evaluation? Did the review group consider alternatives to a compulsory buy out, such as a voluntary buy out, set aside or moratorium on commercial fishing for a number of years?

A number of members are offering. I did not expect the extent of questioning. I will have to call some of the spokespersons who will have to leave to go to the Order of Business in the House.

I would like those important questions answered because they will be lost in the debate.

Certainly.

I would like those questions dealt with now because if they are pooled, they will be lost.

We are wasting the committee's time. I will have to by-pass some of the members who have offered and I ask them to be patient. I will allow the spokespersons to ask a few questions before we continue. Is Deputy Perry anxious to hear the answers to his question or can I call Deputy Broughan?

If these questions are pooled, they will be lost.

Deputy Perry is the Vice Chairman of the committee and I have to——

The three of us approached this in a neutral fashion. The word "drift-netting" does not occur in our terms of reference but it was absolutely clear to us when we looked at the pressures on the stocks and the international pressure that Ireland had passed the finishing line. We are out of time on this and are in extra time. It was absolutely clear to us that anything short of a complete cessation of mixed stock fishing would not be acceptable and would not work.

Has Mr. White studied the report that was commissioned by the State at a cost of €250,000?

We have read all the reports.

I refer to the Grant Farrell Sparks report.

Mr. White, without interruption.

The answer is "No" because, first, we do not believe it would work in terms of the revival of the salmon and, second, it would not meet the requirements of the European Union or NASCO. Therefore, in our view it would just prolong the agony.

On that point——

Deputy Broughan, I will come to you in a moment.

Will Mr. White address the point——

Hold on a second, Deputy Broughan. You will get your chance. Mr. White will address the other questions so I can move on to Deputies Broughan and Ryan.

On the other point raised by Deputy Perry, the reason we referred to the possible pressure on the other stocks was that it is simply a statement of fact. The other stocks like lobster and crab are already under pressure, and we are aware of that. In a way that was one of the other factors leading to our proposal for the €5 million fund to facilitate alternative activities.

Deputy Perry's final point was on the harvestability of the surplus.

That is correct.

If all of this works out and if the salmon expected come next year, there will be a surplus in certain rivers and there is a need to harvest those surpluses. That must be done within the estuary where it is permissible or in the rivers.

That would be in soft water.

Yes. That is the only conceivable way one can do it and that is why we set out a clear set of principles on section 3.2 of the report to deal with that surplus.

The overall package of €30 million is quite insignificant when one considers the impact of this measure. Even though Mr. White indicated that the €5 million fund is generous, it is quite insignificant. I have spoken to quite a number of people among the coastal communities and it is minimal funding for alternative enterprises.

It is six times their average net income. As I stated earlier, we did not penalise them by only taking account of the last two or three years. We went back five years so as to give them the benefit in the calculation of the higher catches five years ago.

Did Mr. White observe the level of devastation in every community from north Donegal to Castletownbere?

In Burtonport during the week I was stunned by the level of factory closures, the level of inaction and the lack of any enterprise initiative. It was astonishing.

I thank Deputy Perry. Deputies Broughan and Ryan will be next. As members will be aware, I am going against the list. I ask Deputy Broughan to be brief.

On the point Deputy Perry was pursuing, did Mr. White carry out any surveys of drift-net, draft-net, loop and inland fishermen, to indicate how many people would have taken up a voluntary scheme, for example, in 2007?

In general terms, I welcome two of the three wise men to the committee and thank them for the report. It is a thorough means of addressing a difficult subject. I note the achievements of the three public servants who have brought this forward. Indeed, Mr. White's earlier work on the scallop and whitefish sectors was incredibly valuable to this committee, as of course was the strategy statement on the sea-fisheries area from 1998 to which we tend to return. In general terms, I commend them for the amount of work and the swiftness with which they brought this report forward. It is fair to state it builds on the Indecon report and this committee's report.

Deputy Perry might have referred to this next point in his initial questions. To what extent did the group look at fisheries abroad? The Indecon report made much reference to Canada and, as Deputy Perry mentioned, to the north west of the UK. The Scots abolished or bought out drift-net fishing nearly 50 years ago. Did the group look at the position in other jurisdictions and how that would have influenced likely policy?

How did the group calculate the surpluses? Senator Kenneally and others referred to the dearth of information. The big problem the committee finds, of which Mr. White and Mr. Malone are probably aware, is the dearth of information across the sea-fisheries sector. During days of debate on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2005, we experienced this difficulty here in the case of salmon and in other areas and given that there are so many rivers, we did not undertake the research effectively. How is the surplus calculated? How can the group state, for example, in section 3.2 of the report:

Any model for the allocation of this surplus should:

1. Be predicated on the assumption that this is a public good.

2. Recognise the case of groups such as processors, restaurateurs and retailers, ...

3. Accommodate the interests of the tourism sector, . . .

It is possible to devise models for allocating the surplus either at a regional or national basis. Regardless of the model chosen, changes to the current legislation will be required to permit the sale of rod caught fish, as was the case prior to 2001.

The group does not in any way tell us how this surplus is calculated. The group is giving us figures but why should we accept those figures, given that in the past the management has been so poor and, as Deputy Perry has correctly stated, the Department's information base has been so poor? How can the group make all these confident predictions for the future?

How do we know that the €5 million fund will be additional compensation? I assume it refers to all the drift-net communities, not just the important Gaeltacht communities. How do we know that this will be €5 million? For example, Mr. White was involved with RAPID programme projects where we worked together. The RAPID programme has been distinguished by the fact that the money was never made available. The Government's term is nearly over and the programme got no money. How do we know there will be €5 million in compensation? Is €5 million not a tiny sum in the context of the livelihoods of 1,000 people and their workers? In that context, will there be a redundancy package for people who are working for the larger licence holders? How will those workers be treated? The group stated that the €25 million in compensation will work out effectively as a net cost of €15 million — the Chairman seemed to infer €14 million — to the State. That is a fairly derisory sum. Is it not a tiny amount of money?

In the compulsory section, drift-net fishermen are leaving their trade and inshore fishermen, who the group met and watched in their cots setting out their nets and which the group detailed well in the report, are giving up historic rights. The Suir fishermen from the south east appeared before the committee. Deputy O'Shea comes from an important part of the river systems. What is the future for these fishermen, given that their total compensation may be worth only €7,000 or €8,000? Is that not a derisory sum to accept for giving up an historic right?

I note the group stated that this is important for the future. The Minister has a key responsibility. I welcome the wise men and the officials and commend them for doing a difficult job well. My party's policy for a number of years before the last general election, was to provide for a voluntary buy-out of the sector and that remains our policy. It was a well-thought out policy devised by my colleagues, former Deputy Bell and Deputy Stagg. The group has made the case so convincingly that it is right to proceed and in that sense we support the Minister. However, there is an element of theatre here so the Fianna Fáil Government, which has taken this decision about the drift-net sector——

A question, Deputy Broughan.

I want to make this point.

Do not make political points.

We are a political assembly and this is a political point. There is an element in which we are acting out a theatre here so that Fianna Fáil can try to be the Opposition as well.

Deputy Broughan——

The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is ending the drift-net fishery. That is the position.

Deputy Broughan——

The Chairman did not start with the representatives of the various parties. He started with a member of his own party. We heard the Minister. It was for the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, resolving their differences.

We will bank Deputy Broughan's questions for the moment and return to them. The group can ignore the last remarks of the Deputy because he was out of order. I call Deputy Ryan. Leave Deputy Broughan's microphone switched off.

When will the questions I posed be answered?

If the Deputy was listening, I told Mr. White that the questions will be answered——

The Chairman's treatment of Opposition spokespersons is extremely discourteous——

I gave Deputy Perry a great degree of latitude.

——not to mention disgraceful.

On each occasion Deputy Broughan speaks, he tries to raise political points.

This is a political assembly.

I congratulate the authors of this excellent, well thought out, concise and crucial report. I thank God that, for once, conservation and common sense are winning. In a sense, we can now, as we must, move on. There is utter shame on the Government which for the past five years has ignored the scientific advice put forward. For each of those years that advice recommended a lower limit in respect of the amount of fish that should be caught but the Government proceeded to ignore it and removed the brood stock that would have boosted the numbers of fish in our waters. That shameful pattern is at last coming to an end with the Government's decision earlier to end drift-net fishing for salmon forthwith. I welcome that development but it should have come many years ago. It was painfully obvious that we needed to proceed in this way. I am glad the recommendation in the committee's report that we need to move to single stock management will finally be implemented.

I commend those groups which, for many years, have been making that obvious point. I refer here to campaigners such as T. K. Whitaker, those in the Stop Now campaign, anglers' groups and environmental groups, who have made the point that what we were doing was unsustainable and not in the interests of coastal communities, anglers or anyone concerned with the protection of wild salmon.

It is crucial to recognise that drift-netting is not the only issue. Serious problems exist in respect of river management, poor water quality in rivers and silting, which affects spawning. More importantly, there is a major problem with regard to the open sea in that climate change appears to be affecting the feeding grounds for these fish. Whereas 20 years ago, for every 100 salmon that left our rivers 20 returned, now for every 100 that leave only ten return. Research must be carried out in respect of that matter so that we might understand what is happening. Salmon are sensitive to the waters to which they return and, particularly if their numbers continue to decline — as with canaries in coal mines — they may warn us that a significant problem exists. Not only are salmon of mythological and scientific interest, they are also of interest to us in the context of what we are doing to the environment.

Will the Minister indicate if he is taking on board all of the main recommendations in the report, including those relating to placing restrictions on activity on rivers, not only on those where salmon numbers are demonstrably below conservation levels but also on those where precautionary principles require that all forms of fishing should be brought to an end? If he accepts the various recommendations, it would assist us in ensuring that people would not engage in poaching or other illegal activities. The report refers to the urgent need for better river management, including the provision of new counters and the introduction of new water quality measures. What commitment has the Minister received from the Government regarding the allocation of additional funding to provide the extra state-of-the-art river management systems to which the authors of the report referred?

Does Mr. Keatinge from Bord Iascaigh Mhara agree that rather than concentrating on how much we should pay in compensation to members of the fishing communities, we should consider what new fishing opportunities will be available on a sustainable basis to those communities? Cornish fisheries examined a number of new environmentally recognised fishing means which allow fishermen to sell products at a premium price as a result of methods such as hand-lining for catching mackerel and other migratory species. Does Mr. Keatinge believe that the vessels that were involved in drift-net fishing for salmon could be engaged in such environmental fishing practices in respect of which recognised benchmarks are already available? What is Bord Iascaigh Mhara planning to do to open up such new environmental fishing methods?

We all agree that it is important that we should save the salmon. As legislators, we should support the excellent work carried out by people such as Dr. Niall Ó Maoileidigh, which should be recognised as the leading edge and best international thinking on what is happening. I welcome the fact that the report recognises that work and that we are finally about to start to listen to the authors of the report and implement its recommendations.

I propose to take answers to the questions posed by the two Deputies and then take questions from Deputies O'Donovan and Fiona O'Malley before returning to Senator Finucane and Deputy Ferris. Mr. White and Mr. Keatinge may both reply to the questions put to them and then the Minister may conclude on the point raised by Deputy Eamon Ryan.

I will reply to the questions raised by Deputy Broughan. As regards other countries, Scotland, Canada and Norway have banned mixed stock fishing. Increasing international pressure is being exerted on countries that have not done so. In the case of north-east England, a voluntary buy-out took place but even after that more than 20,000 fish are being caught on some 19 licences. The likelihood is that pressure from the international community will be exerted on the owners of those licences. It is worth bearing in mind that Ireland accounts for something of the order of 10% of the entire stock of fish in the north Atlantic and that it, therefore, occupies a strategic position. The latter came into our consideration in terms of whether there should be a voluntary or compulsory buy-out. It was clear to us, for two reasons, that the voluntary model would not work because it was unlikely to achieve——

Was a survey carried out as to the level of interest among fishermen?

No. Our mandate was to work out the implications of full alignment with the scientific advice. That advice, both nationally and internationally, was clear, namely, that we were in extra time as far as mixed stock fishing was concerned. It would have been misleading for us to examine that as a viable alternative. As stated earlier, that is a critical dividing point between us and the committee.

As regards the calculations relating to rivers, etc., John Malone, Tom Collins and I are not scientists but we listened to the scientific evidence. In the chapter that deals with the new 2007 regime, members will see that there are many new techniques, apart from counters, to calculate the numbers of salmon based on, for example, rod catch and surveys of very small salmon. The scientific expertise available in Ireland is probably better than that which exists anywhere else. We were happy to accept the evidence presented to us. I reiterate, however, that we are not scientists. We accepted and were impressed by the techniques and expertise available in Ireland. I was astonished by the fact that an industry with a gross value of €5 million had such sophistication in its infrastructure. The number of personnel engaged in managing and trying to look after that resource is extremely impressive.

Are we spending more researching and policing the system than we are receiving in revenue from it?

Deputy Eamon Ryan should address his remarks through the Chair. He is aware of the system that we operate.

We see the €5 million fund as additional money. We believe it should give some encouragement to the communities affected. As stated earlier, we made that proposal in direct response to some of the communities that identified the fact that drift-net fishing was coming to an end.

I do not agree that the level of compensation is derisory. Two thirds of the licensees catch fewer than 100 fish a year. For example, somebody catching 75 fish had a net income over the five-year period of €1,700 a year. We propose that he should get €12,300. It is a generous package and we put it forward in recognition of the implications for the drift-netters and their way of life.

Mr. Keatinge

In response to the issue of displacement activity, it is important that it is recognised that of the 877 drift net fishermen that will be directly affected by the outcome of the report, 350 are registered licensed inshore fishermen in so far as they have vessels licensed and registered under the sea-fisheries legislation and they will continue to fish. Therefore, almost half of the 877 directly affected will continue to fish and that raises the spectre of increased effort on stocks such as crab, lobster, shrimp and so on, as the Deputy mentioned. We are very conscious of that in BIM. In terms of how one addresses it, the obvious route lies within the framework for the management of inshore fisheries, which was launched last year by BIM and the Department. That provides for stakeholder involvement throughout the coast in regard to the four main species groups I have mentioned and that will enable stakeholder driven management, that is, the setting of pot limits, the management of effort and so on. There is a framework in place going forward that will enable us to manage.

However, if those 350 fishermen are no longer fishing salmon in June and July, there is a deficit in their ongoing income, which must be addressed. Deputy Eamon Ryan has hit the nail very much on the head regarding the examination of alternatives. For the past three years or so, we have worked very successfully with local fishermen in Dunmore East, County Waterford, providing grant aid to fit gurdies to their vessels, which will enable them fish mackerel. This year, working with our parent Department, we ensured there was a mackerel fishery open to those fishermen when it was closed to all other pelagic fisheries and, therefore, they continued to fish and hand catch mackerel. We are working with them to develop their business acumen to market the fish through the co-operative in Dunmore East and we brought them to Brussels to show their wares at the Brussels seafood show. It is one of a range of products that can be used to reverse trends, otherwise evident in inshore stock. It is not a case of just saying, "Let us have more effort on lobster and crab and a domino effect on those". There are mechanisms in place.

The €5 million compensation community support scheme mentioned in the report is in addition to the existing schemes. For example, we operate with our parent Department supporting measures for sea fisheries development, under which €25 million has been delivered over the lifetime of the current NDP while the next NDP will provide for grant aid to undertake the measures we have discussed. The aid will be available to processors, fishermen and for marketing initiatives and so on. A range of measures beyond those mentioned in this report is available for the 350 drift net fishermen who will remain in the sector. It is vital that we support their continued existence as fishermen.

Will the Minister respond to the questions asked by Deputy Eamon Ryan?

He first asked whether we were taking a precautionary approach regarding rivers because we did not have the detail we would like and the answer is "Yes". With regard to this and other matters, a cross-Government approach is being taken. Record expenditure is being provided by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to clear up pollution in rivers and to implement the water framework directive, which I was involved in negotiating at EU level. Ireland is ahead of most member states in implementing the directive. My Department will try to ensure additional resources are available to the fisheries boards for enforcement. We have provided for additional habitat rehabilitation in those areas as well. More than the €30 million provided under this measure is being expended. The Deputy asked whether we are spending more on policing, monitoring and research than we get back and the general feeling is we are spending considerably more than we get back. If we continue to fish salmon to extinction, we will spend much more money for much less into the future.

Apart from the Government decision earlier, what additional spending will the Government commit to, given that prior to today, it had not been agreed to move towards single stock? As a result, counters are needed on every river and river management must be improved. When will an outline of additional measures be decided by the Government to provide the background monitoring the experts say is needed?

Does this mean the Minister will bring forward two Bills?

Last year we spent approximately €25 million and that will be increased in next year's Estimate in the allocation to the fisheries boards. We are also providing an additional €4 million, principally aimed at fisheries enforcement and another €1.5 million will be provided for rehabilitation in addition to the €25 million compensation fund and the €5 million community scheme. The package is worth nearer €40 million than €30 million.

I have heard three Opposition members and one Government member. Will Deputy Ferris yield to a Government member?

I thank the Deputy. I call Deputy O'Donovan who will be followed by Deputy Ferris.

We are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted as far as the drift-net fishermen are concerned. I express disappointment because this is a post mortem for fishermen in Cork South West. My dissatisfaction is twofold. I cannot understand why the Government did not opt for a voluntary buy-out, as opposed to a compulsory scheme, because the fishing industry is going through a difficult period for many reasons and this proposal gives a clear, concise negative message to rural communities, which I do not like and which is difficult to rebut. Second, the compensation is inadequate. It is grand to examine figures and value a salmon at €23 but what does one say to somebody whose family has had a licence for up to 50 years? I have heard a great deal about promoting rural communities but if the construction activity is taken out of the economy of Cork South-West, very little is happening, particularly in farming and fishing. Our islands and peninsulas are being depopulated but there is significant tourism activity for a few months of the year.

This debate is a post mortem and it should have been held before the Cabinet decision was made. I am sorely disappointed, as someone who represents a coastal community, that a guillotine rather than a carrot and stick method was used. Senator Kenneally conducted a survey in Waterford, which highlighted that 70% of drift-net fishermen there were prepared to undertake a voluntary buy-out, if the option was provided. I surveyed fishermen in my constituency and the number was slightly higher. That option would have encouraged drift-net fishermen to come forward rather than be beaten into a decision. They are browbeaten today. I met some of them taking part in the protest outside. I am sad for them because they feel they have been dealt a hammer blow. A set-aside over a three year period, something we suggested, or a voluntary buy-out would be more appropriate. The issue is not so much the money, although fishermen obviously need compensation. I do not agree this package is an enticing or good package. Some fishermen have rights going back over many years, but little by little more restrictions have been imposed on them and they are facing new terms.

I come from a place that examined all the options. Our herring fishery ceased in the 1970s and early 1980s and alternatives like fish-farming, the mussel industry and salmon farming started but are not that successful. We have an industry going, but the future is rocky and we face all sorts of problems. I am disappointed and cannot conceal that disappointment here.

I commend the group on its report and the Government for taking the decision it has taken. Notwithstanding what Deputy O'Donovan has said, when the national and international interest and the evidence point a way, the Government must respond. I commend it on making this decision today. When scientists, who are not given to hyperbole, use a term like "catastrophic consequences", we need to do something about it. It is for this reason I commend the decision taken.

I find it difficult to understand the fishing industry reaction. Given what is in the report and the catastrophic state of the stocks in Irish rivers, I cannot understand how fishermen and the industry fail to realise what is at stake. The Marine Institute presented a report to the committee indicating that if we continue the way we are going, there will be no fish left. This is a short-term attitude. Did the group get a sense during its deliberations with the various representative groups that they realise if they continue the way they are going, there will be no industry? I find it difficult to get my head around that fact.

A voluntary buy-out appears to be a nice option, but the table on page 32 indicates graphically why such a scheme cannot work. If the three people who have caught between 1,000 and 2,000 fish do not opt for it, it is irrelevant what the rest do. There are 877 licence holders to be dealt with. Does the group know how many workers this figure represents? I presume the reference to the three individual licence holders who caught the 1,000 to 2,000 fish is a reference to boats. Can the group confirm that?

The question of payments may be more a question for the Minister or Minister of State. Are the payments taxable or has a decision been made in that regard? I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan that today's decision is only the beginning of the recovery of the angling industry. Much more resources need to be put into the industry and the commitments sought by the Deputy to restore both the inland and offshore fishing industry will require significant investment. I am not sure of this, but I believe moving from district management of rivers to individual management of each river will be more expensive. Is that correct? In terms of the brave decision taken today, we cannot undermine it by not following through with resources for the other areas dependent on restoring fish stocks. In that regard, has the area of pollutants and other matters been examined? Perhaps these are matters with which the Department must deal.

My final question relates to the calculations on the value of salmon. It was said these values were calculated on a standard international basis. However, they are disputed by the representatives of fisheries' groups. What is the group's response to that?

I advise members and those attending the committee that Deputy Fiona O'Malley was not a member of this committee when the report was published in October 2005. The committee was an all-party committee and its report was accepted by all.

The group's report drives another nail in the coffin of the Irish fishing industry, particularly in that of our coastal communities. Some members have said today's decision is a brave decision. How can it be brave when it hurts people who are struggling in difficult circumstances to feed families, live in the community and be part of the Ireland they grew up in where generations before them made their livelihoods from fishing? Would the same decision be taken against a powerful lobby? This so-called brave decision comes down to the size of the small number of constituents involved.

I have active knowledge and experience of salmon fishing and during the summer was out for a day with some fishermen. I know the state of the stocks. I also know that the salmon are running later each year. This year there was an abundance of fish in the water during August and September. In June a person could have fished a full week to catch ten or 15 salmon, but in August or September could have caught 300 or 400 salmon in that time. Scientists seem to have no understanding of how the industry or the salmon fishing cycle has changed.

I assume much of the scientific analysis is based on spring salmon, not on the main run. If it was based on the main run, it is untrue. I have lived this all my life and know what I am talking about. Our all-party committee went to great lengths and through difficulty to meet every sector and invite them to make presentations and submissions. We went to the trouble of drawing up an agreed report, bar one. That report has been binned by the Government, just as have the livelihoods of decent honest people.

I find it hard to contain myself after seeing what has happened today. I went outside and met people who have spent their whole life in the industry. The consequences of what the group is doing and what it recommends are not the group's but the Government's fault. The recommendations put pressure on other sectors of the fishing industry. Lobster and crayfishing in particular will be hit hardest. Those involved in salmon fishing for two months of the summer will have to find an alternative way to try and make a few bob which means they will join the lobster, crayfish and gill-netting fleet. We will then have to face the consequences of that move.

There has been no forward thinking with regard to today's decision. Our committee report which was very fair and balanced, suggested a voluntary buy-out clause which I am certain 90% of people involved in the industry would have accepted. There was also the opportunity for set-aside, which would have provided a reprieve for several years and allowed us see if salmon drift-netting is the cause of the problem.

I listened to another scientist give a report recently. His analysis was that because of the amount of dirt at the bottom of a river as a result of pollution, spawn were unable to develop. This may yet prove to be correct.

What is to be done for those whose livelihoods will be taken from them? The Government has proposed to pay compensation of €12,000 to those catching 75 fish per year. Some 20 to 25 years ago the same individuals, now in their late 50s and early 60s, were landing between 400 and 500 salmon because they had the necessary energy and youth on their side but they are to be compensated on the size of their catch in the past five years. How is that fair? Most of those involved in the industry inherited their licence from their father. They will be given €12,000, €15,000 or €20,000 and removed from the industry. That is ridiculous.

I know crewmen in my parish who have been fishing for salmon for 30 years and there is nothing available for them. These are men in their 50s. There is no obligation on any skipper to compensate crewmen — usually two or three per boat. I am not blaming the group because it was commissioned to do something that would suit the Government but this is a disgrace. It will do nothing for rural Ireland and our coastal communities; it will only decimate them further.

Does the Minister agree with Mr. Malone's assessment that if stocks improve, drift-net fishermen should have their licences returned to them? Can they be returned to them after five, ten or 15 years if stocks improve? If that is the case, why does the Minister not opt for a set-aside scheme?

This is a black day for our coastal communities. We are talking about a small sector and a small number of people, perhaps 2,000, between crew members and families. Many remained in coastal communities because they had an income for that part of the year. It is a seasonal industry. The Minister has contributed to removing the fabric of a community which has been the backbone of rural Ireland. That is what the report does. It is a shambles and a disgrace.

I will allow the Minister to answer Deputy Ferris's questions. Is it still the case that he must leave at 4.45 p.m.?

Yes; I will have to leave for a short while but the Minister of State will stay.

Mr. Malone will answer some of the questions asked by Deputies O'Malley and Ferris.

On a point of clarification, Mr. Malone did not say what Deputy Ferris said he did. We are discussing the situation within estuaries where fishing may take place if stocks recover. There will be no restoration of drift-netting fishing in the open seas.

Deputy Ferris should tell his colleague in County Louth what their party policy is on the matter. Some time ago Deputy Morgan advocated a buy-out scheme when he was having a go at my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern.

The Ministers hold opposing views.

That has been established.

Will the Minister clarify the issue?

Does this mean we could move to a set-aside scheme in estuaries?

No, we are not moving to a set-aside scheme. We have made a decision based on the scientific advice available.

Will it be open to those involved in the estuaries to engage in drift-net fishing in the future if stocks improve?

That is draft-net fishing. Drift-net fishing takes place further out.

There is drift-net fishing in the Waterford estuary.

Within the estuary?

Mr. Malone

As I understand it, there are four estuaries involved — Waterford, Cork, Lismore and the Shannon. The matter will be determined by the state of the stock in the individual rivers feeding into those estuaries.

Those who contacted me are worried about whether they will be able to fish, even though the Loughs Agency is in charge of that area. They are of the view that they will be affected.

Mr. Malone

There is draft-net and drift-net fishing in that estuary. The point I was trying to make was that the status of——

I apologise for interrupting. Will the Minister say whether it is taxable?

I am not the Minister for Finance. All income is taxable if one is within the taxable limits. From what I have heard, many of the people involved do not fall within the tax net because they do not earn enough. Even though the report advocates the payment of compensation in one instalment, the Government has decided to provide for the option of making payments over three years, which will be a help when it comes to taxation.

I compare this to the position on redundancies, of which there have been a lot in County Donegal in traditional industries in the past five or ten years. When redundancy payments are made, they are tax free. To all intents and purposes, fishermen are being made redundant. Are they not entitled to the same tax concession?

It is neither a redundancy payment nor a compensation payment; it is a hardship payment to be made on the basis of a decision by the Government. The legal and constitutional position is that nobody is entitled to be paid anything for a licence, the State's way of managing a national asset, in this case, salmon. If there were no salmon, the State would be perfectly within its rights to withdraw licences and offer no compensation but the Government did not believe that would be a fair way of doing business. Recognising the difficulties it would cause, on the basis of the recommendation, it decided to make individual payments as well as payments to local communities. Nobody in government decides whether income is taxable; that is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners to decide. To be as helpful as possible, even though a once-off payment was recommended, we have agreed to provide for the option of making the payment over a three year period. This means many will not fall within the tax bracket because they will not earn enough. However, I cannot make a pronouncement on the matter because it is one for the Revenue Commissioners to decide.

Mr. Malone

To tidy up on the point related to the estuaries, it depends on the individual rivers feeding into them. Each individual river would need to exceed its conservation target. The reality — we must deal with realities — is that it will be some considerable time before all the rivers feeding into the estuaries will exceed their conservation targets. Hence, the view on the basis of what we set out in the report is that we should have a total ban on drift-net fishing and that there should be options regarding draft-net fishing. That is why we allowed for that option.

We have discussed at length the voluntary option versus the compulsory option and indicated our views. I draw attention to a graph on page 42 which indicates the balance of drift-net fishing in the overall salmon fishing effort. The proportion of fish caught by drift-net fishermen indicates that the only viable option, as outlined by Mr. White, is to provide for a cessation of mixed stock fishing.

We have set out our views at length on the payment of compensation, or the hardship fund as it is more correctly described. Deputy O'Malley asked how we arrived at a figure of €23 per fish. It was done on the basis of a calculation taking prices over a five-year period. It is a net figure. We opted for a balance of high and low and gave the advantage, 75%, on the high side. The calculation could have been made in different ways but we considered the fairest way was to make it over a five-year period as it would give the licenceholder the advantage of the higher catches four or five years ago. Doing it differently, taking a more recent set of figures, might result in higher prices, but at the same time it would be multiplied by a lower volume. That was a fair and equitable way of making the calculation. Other compensation schemes of which I have some knowledge have opted for a three-year average figure, which is common as it provides for a balance between a high and a low figure. Taking five years and using a multiplier of six is a fair way to handle the issue.

On the numbers employed, there are approximately 877 licences. By our calculations, there are approximately 300 to 400 active fishermen. It must be remembered that salmon fishing takes place for eight weeks in the year and is not a year-round activity.

The point about individual rivers was made and will be central to our view of life. We will be into a new system of managing at individual river level which will require resources and commitment. It brings one important advantage from our perspective in that it gives the local community and the anglers involved a sense of ownership of the river concerned. If the river is listed as red, the community will need to ascertain how far it is from attaining its conservation target and have a sense of ownership in having it listed green. We are almost into a new regime and thought process.

We accept the points made about individuals and the hardship and difficulties caused. As Mr. White said, we were struck by their sense of powerlessness and the way that, in a sense, they saw themselves as victims. However, in reality the catch has halved over five years. Even if we were to stand back and do nothing it would be no more than half again in another five years. There is a diminishing asset and a diminishing pool of raw material, with which we need to deal.

I picked up the point made on the estuaries and also the point the Minister made. The licence is given by the Minister. We need to be mindful of the legal position and that we are compensating for hardship rather than for the loss of a licence per se.

This debate has two strands. There are very strong emotional connotations for those people living close to the coastline. I acknowledge the amount of research Deputy Perry has done in travelling to coastal communities, empathising with difficulties they have with the proposals. I am highly amused by the Minister's reference to the European Union water framework directive. He should be aware of sewerage schemes bundled together and that sewerage schemes are proceeding in most areas. The biggest polluters in rivers and the Shannon Estuary are often the local authorities.

If we are talking about the economic impact on a coastal community, somebody should take cognisance of reinforcing the fisheries regime changes that the Minister has advocated. He cannot stop where he does; an extension to the document is needed. It cannot be treated in isolation. It is necessary to consider the recommendation made by the committee in October 2005 that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government extend it further to take in the predatory aspect of seals and the damage they cause to fishing stocks. This issue needs to be taken seriously and we should consider what recommendation emerges as a result.

On the report, I would be very critical of the Marine Institute. Dr. Ó Maoileidigh has left. It stated the increased number of river counters promised to assess stocks accurately had not been delivered. Eight years ago when I was marine spokesman in the other House, the then Minister, Deputy Woods, promised me that river counters would be put in place and that the Marine Institute would be party to it. We are talking about introducing measures when the jigsaw is not even complete. Work remains to be done if we want to know the true stock levels.

I am surprised Mr. Keatinge said the group had worked on documentation relating to 2005. The group started its work in March this year and completed its report in October. I cannot understand why data are not totally up to date. Did many drop out this year or are the figures the same as for last year?

Eight years ago I visited coastal communities in counties Cork and Waterford. At the time they appealed to me to have a buy-out system introduced. They were complaining about a drop in salmon stocks. The only reason many of them had retained a licence was they hoped some day there would be a buy-out scheme of which either they or a member of their family could avail. In our report of October 2005 we tried to respond to the groups involved. Naturally we were also trying to retain the commercial fishermen. How could retaining them in a voluntary system work, when in reality others with greater resources would seek to buy into it and, by definition, catch more salmon?

I have read the report from cover to cover and agree with many of the sentiments expressed. Once it was presented it was game, set and match: the Government would acknowledge it completely. My only disappointment is with the post-mortem today. The Minister should have heard the sentiments expressed by members of the committee today rather than issuing a press release at lunchtime. He appears to have accepted the report's recommendations on the introduction of a compensation package. One national newspaper this morning reported that he would not consider any extra financial measures. I wonder whether that is written on a tablet of stone at this stage. Has he accepted everything the group states in its entirety?

I would like to make one more point before I conclude. I ask those who compiled the report to look at this matter. Many of those involved in the salmon fishing business are also involved in the crab and lobster sectors. Crab and lobster stocks are under pressure. It seems we want to get such people out of the other sector, but we need to ensure they remain in business. Have we asked them if they are interested in decommissioning that fleet? Is a financial package available? Will those who are having financial pressures imposed on them start to have more of an impact on crab and lobster stocks which are under threat? I would be interested to hear the group's response.

One's reaction to this proposal depends on where one comes from. Those involved along the Shannon Estuary in County Limerick are interested in the buy-out scheme. The members of the angling fraternity have approached me vociferously about this matter. They welcome the measure.

I would like to refer to one aspect of the report. Reference was made to a figure of 1 million over ten years. They said they had put in the package. If they say that, I believe they are genuine about it. The Feale fishermen in my area who adopt a totally responsible approach to their fishing activity have invested a massive amount of money in that river. I sometimes wonder whether the Government is serious about putting the top-up measures in place and encouraging such local enterprise. A great deal needs to be done at Government level if we are to give financial stimulus to the industry.

I ask those present to excuse Senator Finucane and I who may have to leave to go to the Curtin committee before some of our questions are answered.

Before Deputy O'Malley spoke, I was wondering whether anyone would speak up for the Government. What has happened today is good in some respects. I fully acknowledge that it will lead to a great deal of hardship for people involved in the drift-netting industry and that the decision is not palatable for them. However, it is an absolutely essential decision. We have no choice whatsoever in this regard, as the scientific evidence is overwhelming. We were becoming overwhelmed by our international commitments. This country was starting to be regarded internationally as a pariah when it came to salmon conservation. Neither the netsmen nor the anglers will benefit if changes are not made because there will not be salmon resources to be exploited. The difficulty is that all the groups want to exploit these resources and far fewer people want to conserve them. The salmon is central to Irish life, as the Minister said. We are all familiar with the story of an bradán feasa and the broader cultural aspects of the issue. It is about more than the conservation of the species, which is important.

I find it difficult to come to terms with the matter of the traditional netsmen. Fishing of that nature was once a traditional activity. I can appreciate the case being made by the people in question but it ceased to be a traditional activity when monofilament nets were introduced. The fathers of those now fishing for salmon fished in a different and far less efficient way. The salmon had more opportunities to survive when the old methods were used. Those who fish for salmon in the west know they sometimes encounter grilse of 2 lb, 3 lb or 4 lb with net marks on them. There are two aspects to this — the question of the monofilament net and the question of whether mesh sizes are being monitored and controlled.

There is, however, a much broader environmental dimension to all of this. The decision taken sends a positive signal about how we regard and treat the environment. I do not deny that other factors such as predation, global warming, the silting and management of spawning beds are at play. The forestry industry has questions to answer in this regard. As far as most reasonable people can see, however, the use of various nets is the dominant factor. That is why the matter had to be dealt with. We have the word of people like Dr. Whelan and Dr. Ó Maoileidigh who have international reputations in this field. I do not think their opinions can be denied.

The Minister who has done a good day's work should be congratulated on his determination in this regard. The country owes him and the so-called three wise men a debt. The members of the independent salmon group — Mr. White, Professor Collins and Mr. Malone — have done a very good job in difficult circumstances. They have acted prudently and ably in a very balanced way. The report stands on its merits in that respect.

I find some aspects of this debate curious. I refer to the changes in the north east of England, for example. The River Tyne which has come back from nothing is now held up as an international example of what can be done to help a river. I am talking about the question of resources. It is obvious that the fisheries boards, or whoever will be in charge of improving the situation, will have to be resourced. I hope the Government will be mindful of this. When I started fishing on Lough Corrib 40 years ago, I knew of people who had come here to fish from the United States every year and stayed for a month. They left serious money in this country at a time when we had nothing. The riverine communities are just as important as the wider rural community. Approximately ten years ago I heard someone say fishing in Connemara was worth £10 million a year to the local economy. What did we do? We got rid of the sea trout and are now trying to get rid of the salmon. The people who used to come to Ireland are now going to places like Russia, the Falkland Islands, Patagonia, Alaska and British Columbia. They are also going to Scotland, now that the rivers there are starting to recover. The people who have money are going all over the world. We need to realise what a resource we have and what it could do for our economy, if managed properly.

I have a great deal of sympathy for a group of people who have not been mentioned in this regard. I refer to the guides on rivers and lakes. Such people are not employed. I fully understand private fisheries will benefit from this proposal, as it will have a capital value for them. Many who work as guides on rivers are independent and not employed by the fisheries. I have sympathy for them and they are being left out of this debate. What will happen to the guides who work on rivers which do not reach their conservation limits? It appears they will get nothing. I am not sure that is equitable. I refer to persons who are self-employed, as opposed to those who work for the fisheries, which is a different matter.

I have some questions, the first of which relates to the selling of fish by anglers at ports. Perhaps the members of the delegation will respond to the proposition that netsmen could hire half a dozen young fellows, buy them licences and send them off to fish in the rivers and lakes at levels above the conservation limit. We would not really achieve anything in such circumstances. Perhaps our guests will deal with that aspect of the matter.

What about poaching?

That is another question that needs to be addressed. It strikes me as very curious that we seem to spend much more time and energy protecting the predators than the species. Cormorants and seals seem to be protected, but the poor old salmon is the last thing in the chain.

The Senator is opening a can of worms.

I would also like to ask about draft nets. I am concerned about the voluntary aspect of the process. It is obvious that draft nets have to be removed from rivers which do not reach their conservation limits. I find it difficult to equate the voluntary aspect of the process with the need for conservation. Perhaps the delegation will comment on the issue. The manner in which the conservation limits are arrived at has been explained to us. There has been a great deal of talk about counters, but they can be crude. Fish can be counted several times if they move up and down. There is more to it than the matter of counters.

Perhaps Dr. Ó Maoileidigh might like to comment on the autumn run, mentioned by Deputy Ferris. As an angler, it seems more and more fish, particularly small fish, are coming through each September. If one was above one's conservation limit, would one be better off cropping the smaller fish, or should one crop the bigger fish? I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps Dr. Ó Maoileidigh will comment on it.

The Minister made the important point that licences were conferred by the State. I do not suggest people suffering hardship should not be compensated. I am not saying that, as I believe they should. Just as the State issues licences, however, it can take them away. There needs to be some recognition of this.

I apologise for taking up so much time. I feel just as passionately about this issue as Deputy Ferris, even if I am coming at it from another direction. I return to the point about what it was like in the west 40 years ago. The people who went there left money behind them. At least people now have opportunities to do other things. At the time there were no opportunities in some areas other than to be the local guide for visiting anglers.

Are the members of the delegation willing to take another set of questions? Will we take another set of questions from a member of the committee?

Can I ask the Chairman to take responses to the questions asked by Senator Dardis and me? We have been asked to go to the Curtin committee soon.

Will Mr. White address the issue of seal predation? I am sure the committee is anxious to know if he consulted the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. What plans does it have in this regard? Poaching is an important issue. Has Mr. White referred to fisheries officers? Do they operate on river banks?

I will respond first to Senator Finucane. We endorse his broad point about the responsibility of local authorities for the other causes that affect salmon, such as pollution and poor water quality. We stressed in our report that if the State is going to the hardship, from its point of view, of ending mixed stock fishing and paying out substantial sums of money, it makes no sense to do one part of the job only. We have made this point in discussions with the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey. In the interest of salmon, this policy must be accompanied by a renewed approach to the water directives and to the restoration of habitats to complete the job. That follows from what we said in the committee.

We touched on the issue of seals, cormorants, etc. One of the points that have been made is that drift-net fishing attracts seals because the fish are caught by their gills in the drift-nets. If drift-nets are no longer in use, that obvious source of salmon is gone. It is clear that there needs to be a review of the effect of cormorants and seals from the point of view of completing the report.

Beyond that, what is absolutely stunning when one first addresses this issue is that the marine survival rate for salmon is only 10% or less. What we have stressed in the report is the need for Ireland to become engaged with others in getting to the bottom of why this is so. There are indications that changes in temperature have affected the feeding habits and migration patterns of salmon. A 90% fatality rate for salmon crossing the Atlantic is significant but it does not take away the responsibility from us. This goes back to the scientific advice to do the bit we are expected to do and which the international community expects us to do.

To be clear, did Mr. White have a discussion with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about seal predation?

Not specifically, although we are aware of the situation relating to the status of seals. We are also aware of the scientific advice that it is a potential source of predation, but we did not go further down that road. The essence of our philosophy is that Ireland needs to move beyond the rivers, take an interest in the sources of predation and follow this through by taking an interest, with others, in getting to the bottom of why there is a 90% mortality rate for salmon that leave rivers.

While I accept this is a fine document, it cannot be taken in isolation. We have to put all the pieces of the jigsaw together if we want to be seen to do the right thing vis-à-vis the rest of Europe in regard to salmon.

We agree with Senator Finucane. Basically, Ireland would then be in a much stronger moral position because if we have complied with the international requirements and can say we have ended mixed stock fishing, essentially, that will give us a moral platform to argue for greater collaboration and initiatives in getting to the bottom of the sources of the marine mortality of the salmon.

Does Mr. White agree with recommendation No. 5 in our report recommending that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government prepare a report on seal predation on salmon stocks, from the point of view of completeness?

Yes, that would be very much in keeping with the spirit of our approach. To be fair to drift-net fishermen, they are aware that they are not the only problem and they will point to other sources. It is correct that we should follow through this initiative by getting to the bottom of the other sources of salmon mortality. We support the spirit of the committee's recommendations.

We will inquire from the Department what progress it is making on this report that was recommended by an Oireachtas committee.

Mr. Keatinge

For the record, responsibility for seals falls within the national parks and wildlife service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The group met Dr. Marnell of the national parks and wildlife service as part of its meeting with the standing scientific committee. The integration of phased service is in that context, under the auspices of the standing scientific committee which includes the national parks and wildlife service, which is responsible for the management of seals.

Are Mr. Keatinge or Dr. Ó Maoileidigh aware of any report carried out by the national parks and wildlife service?

Mr. Keatinge

No.

Is there such a report?

Dr. Ó Maoileidigh

I am not aware of any report in preparation.

The group would be aware, however, if one were being prepared?

Dr. Ó Maoileidigh

We would probably have heard about it through the committee. However, I will check.

To respond to Senator Finucane, by the time we completed our report in August, we did not have the data for this year. Angling data do not become available until the following year when the logbooks are returned. We would have a high degree of confidence in the preliminary scientific advice we received. It follows logically on last year's scientific advice. There would be a 99% confidence level that the advice would be sustained.

Senator Dardis made a point that is often left out of the equation. If nothing happens, we are on a trajectory to an almost catastrophic decline and minimal fish. There are serious implications for drift-net fishermen if nothing happens. In effect, a hardship scheme will compensate them before they get to that point.

The other point the Senator mentioned has not really been discussed either, namely, the potential for the tourism industry in coastal communities from a revival of salmon. We were very impressed by the presentation made to us by Fáilte Éireann. There is evidence that Irish anglers are travelling to Russia and other countries to pursue angling. Ireland has significant potential, which is of the order of €100 million in revenue from 110,000 international game anglers. That is roughly twice the number that comes here. We foresee the revival of traditional international tourism angling which has declined in recent years. Given its potential to contribute to rural communities, that is an important part of the future.

Senator Dardis asked about rod anglers being allowed to sell fish. The issue is that if there is a potential surplus of 40,000 fish, largely in rivers and to some extent in the estuaries, how does one get access to it? In paragraph 3.2, we set out certain principles. We came to the logical conclusion that since anglers are an important part of the fishing community along the rivers, if one is going to get access to the surplus fish in those rivers, in some way one would have to introduce a different form of licence for anglers. That would entail a repeal of what was the situation up to 2001 when rod anglers could fish. All we have done is set out a series of principles to deal with that issue.

The other question concerned the voluntary buy-out and draft-net fishing. In the case of drift-net fishermen, no issue arises in that mixed stock fishing must end, as Mr. Malone and I have said repeatedly. This is not necessarily the case in respect of draft-net fishing. Circumstances will differ from river to river and from estuary to estuary.

That is the point exactly. If the numbers in the rivers are below the conservation level, how can there be a voluntary buy-out?

It does not have to be compulsory and there is a case for a choice. The fishermen can make a rational choice based on their assessment of whether they are better off taking the package or holding on and resuming operations when the rivers recover in two, three, five or ten years. We believe they are perfectly capable of making that choice. Given that the choice will vary in respect of different waters——

If they exercise the choice and take the money, what will be their capacity to return to operations later?

If the State buys out the fishery or the licence, that will be it.

I thank Mr. White for that explanation.

On the autumn run——

I have allowed the Senator considerable time.

I compliment the three authors of the report. I acknowledge the work that went into it, regardless of whether I like the results. Mr. Keatinge mentioned the input of Bord Iascaigh Mhara regarding salmon in Dunmore East. He will be pleased to hear I have heard much good comment on this input and on how it has helped develop the product.

Deputy Broughan has outlined that the Labour Party is not in favour of a compulsory buy-out. Let us focus on the method of calculation of the hardship payment. Over a long period, but mostly in recent days, I have heard many reports that the fishermen and their families feel they have been under attack for a long time and that the recent decision is the final attack. The fishermen in my area have been making two major points. The fact that they are at the end of the line in a mixed stock fishery means there are fewer fish entering their area. All the calculations that have been made are relative to this.

For instance, after the tag system was introduced in 2001, the fairness of the calculation process was questioned. Everything that has occurred since then has been related to the baseline figure of the catch in 2001. The fishermen in my area say that because there were fewer fish in their area, they were catching fewer and that they therefore started from a position of weakness. It was not that they did not have the capacity to catch the fish but that the fish were not coming to them.

It was also put to me by the fishermen that the method of distribution of tags in the southern fisheries area does not replicate that which obtained in all other fisheries areas. The fishermen in the southern area alleged that the method of distribution in other fisheries board areas offered scope to fishermen to beef up their returns. Did the independent group come across evidence that would substantiate the view that the method of distribution of the tags could influence the entries in the logbooks at the end of the day? As the tags were used in some areas, more were issued, but in some areas the tags given out to the fishermen were divided among themselves, thus affording scope to beef up returns, which would have a bearing on the value of payments.

I was interested to hear that if the numbers of fish increase in the four rivers mentioned by Mr. Malone, drift-netting could be reintroduced. Would this not militate against the smaller operators? Mr. Keatinge stated that approximately half the people who are drift-netting at present will remain fishing. Half will not and will have to decommission their nets if they accept the hardship package. If they want to return, they will face an immediate problem because they will have to buy nets and reorganise.

From what I have heard I believe this issue has not been considered in depth. If fishermen can return to drift-netting in the estuaries, it should be introduced in such as way as not to militate against the smaller operators. In the drift-netting sector 80% of the fish are caught by 20% of the licenceholders. The smaller operators, the inshore men, will say they had a major problem competing with the larger boats because they could not fish when the weather was bad. This has a knock-on effect in terms of the calculation of the package on offer.

The compulsory concept is wrong as many fishermen will go voluntarily if the money is right. To kick out people who have felt under attack for a long time is not the best approach. There is a great need for an approach that will take into consideration the views of the fishermen concerned. In particular, there is a need to address the issues of concern to the people I represent. It is all right for Mr. White to say there is only one way to make calculations, that is, on the basis of catch, but if the system has militated against those in a particular area, this must surely be taken into account when offering the hardship package. The hardship experienced by those in the south east because operators in other areas had opportunities to catch stocks before they went to that region should be taken into consideration.

It is interesting to note that there are differing views within the Labour Party.

The Chairman should explain.

Deputy O'Shea favours the voluntary buy-out.

That comment needs to be addressed. A decision was made by the Government today and I want to plead the case of those in my area who will be forced out of the industry, but certainly not in less favourable conditions than other fishermen throughout the country. I do not disagree with my colleague Deputy Broughan and the Chairman's interpretation was never part of what I said.

Perhaps I misunderstood the Deputy.

I spent two hours speaking to two of the authors of the report last Tuesday and outlined to them the perspectives of the drift-net fishermen and anglers. I spent some hours on Wednesday offering my thoughts, albeit of a more political nature, to both the Minister and Minister of State. I have sat through two hours of this committee's deliberations and listened to the answers to many of the questions raised. However, I am disappointed that decisions were taken before this meeting took place. It is important for the Parliament to have a valuable input which can be taken on board and influence policy.

Senator Dardis said he felt sorry for the drift-net fishermen on account of the their hardship, which made it sound as if he still believed they would experience hardship. Salmon is being valued at €23 when the average salmon caught was worth €41 this year and last year according to those fishermen I spoke to, and Donegal salmon is not the most expensive. I did not want to see consideration of hardship after this decision. I favoured voluntary buy-out and set aside.

I have been through other changes in the fishing industry in the recent past and while I accept the environmental argument on stock decline, there are other factors influencing it. There are other ways of dealing with declining stocks. Fishermen in my constituency in Greencastle Harbour argued for many years about cod, pointing to areas where there was codling that could have been conserved. That could have developed and cod stocks would have been properly preserved. No one listened, however, and they could not do it unilaterally. If others could fish it, why would they not fish it?

If this were agriculture we would introduce the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, and set-aside grants, with money being invested in keeping people in the profession they know. We would not just abandon them. I was at a discussion of a wind farm on the Foyle and one of the selling points was that the salmon could swim round the bases of the wind turbines and become a tourist attraction. I have some scary thoughts about the expertise in that realm.

Did the buy-out work in Canada? What do I say to the 74 year old who has been working in this industry for 47 years and will now get a couple of thousand euro to leave it? Global warming was mentioned and I think there is a later run of salmon.

The number of tags a person received dictated the number of fish caught. We were given grants to improve or buy boats and we changed rules on nets, but now we are telling fishermen they cannot fish. Is the compensation, which is probably not enough for the loss of fish, really going to compensate people who are being told the boats they bought or upgraded are now no use to them and the nets cannot be used? Are we going to compensate the crew men and business people? There are those who say the business people use only farmed salmon.

I am from an area with the best salmon and there are those who say the Foyle area is not affected by this, but people see this as a starting point for what will happen in the Foyle. If the Foyle is closed down for drift-netting, the Government might not be in a position to offer compensation. If the Foyle Fisheries Commission does the same to drift-netting as we have done, who will provide for the buy-out there? We should not advocate this for the Foyle Fisheries Commission. I am far from being an advocate for the commission but I stood among the reed beds in the Foyle and I saw the development work it was doing there that we should have been doing.

The Minister said he agreed with Deputy Eamon Ryan that we should invest more money in research and protection than we did in the stock and fishermen. I disagree. I watched what happened in the Foyle fisheries and listened as other rivers begged us for protection and pollution measures and interventions but it did not happen. If this is how it must be, can BIM tell us it has succeeded in Greencastle and similar places, where the loss of the three Fs — fishing, farming and Fruit of the Loom — have caused severe problems? Has it been successful in other coastal communities?

Greencastle is a pertinent example because it has been hit by the days at sea directive and other European legislation. It will be on the fringes of this decision from a boat building and maintenance point of view and the local supermarkets and ancillary jobs will be affected. BIM has the experience of trying to put these coastal communities back together. We can look at what might happen in the future but I would like to look at the present where there are opportunities. Difficulties have been faced already.

The fishermen are full of ideas and they want to stay in fishing. It is not all doom and gloom if they get the help they need. If there is enough money, I am putting my bid in for my area. We have been through this with other species so we offer an example the Minister could examine. I am also putting in a bid because this does not affect one of the main rivers, the Foyle. If this happens on the Foyle, an idea that should not be promoted, will we ensure there is compensation?

The whole argument has been made. There are other influences. If something similar happened in agriculture, we would have looked at the causes and decided how to re-evaluate the problem before the death knell was sounded. We have jumped over interim solutions to go the whole hog. It reminds me of cod and other species. There is a problem but best practice should have let us see if there was an interim solution that could then be re-evaluated. This is a difficult day for my community.

I thank the committee and the independent salmon group for their patience. This has been a long day for everyone.

I congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State on their courage in commissioning this report. I am more interested in conserving jobs than anything else. The environment should be conserved but not at the expense of jobs. There must be a certain number of jobs lost here but is it not a fact that if the report had not been commissioned and its findings had not been implemented, the communities Deputy Keaveney and Deputy Ferris are talking about would die anyway? Salmon fishing is a goner if the report's findings are not implemented. The Minister and the Minister of State had the courage to try to solve the problem.

I sympathise with Deputy Keaveney and those in my area and that of the Minister of State. The community support scheme is vital and will require a RAPID-type approach. The local communities come up with schemes for RAPID funding. Mr. Padraic White might have some comments on replacement industries such as aquaculture. Might it be "aquaculture" or is that the wrong word to use? Something must be put in place sensitively and the €5 million must be used for real job creation whether fish processing or whatever. I would be interested in hearing Mr. White's view of this, given his experience with the IDA.

The sum of €30 million sounds large but I have met fishermen in Wexford who receive only €2,200. Their licences have been in their families for generations. They may not have been using them as much as they should have but that could be due to ill health or growing old. A commercial bank in Wexford recently conducted a survey on the sum of money children receive to celebrate their Confirmation. The result was an average of €1,700. The bank repeated the survey because it did not believe this could be correct.

For someone who holds his grandfather's licence, €2,200 is not a realistic figure. Will the Minister of State consider some minimum payment to people in that situation, which would exceed €2,200? I agree with Deputy Keaveney's point that if one offered that sum to a farmer the IFA would knock the place down rather than accept it. There is a case to be examined in this respect.

I knew the Chairman would reach me at last.

The Deputy is a patient man.

I am and I will be brief. I have been associated with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs for 20 years during which I learned something about the angling industry and the fishing industry in general.

Some questions have not been satisfactorily answered. I compliment the working group and the report but it is a self-serving report. One can reach only one conclusion on reading it, as surely as the hanging follows the sentence.

I feel sad and sorry for the traditional net fishermen who featured on television over the past few months. A few talked about the work at length and how it had progressed over the years. They claimed there were other reasons for the problems. While I accept they would say that they made a reasonably good case. My colleague mentioned possible pollution of the riverbeds. We know about the transatlantic crossing and the wastage there but there must be another factor at work.

My constituency colleague, Senator Dardis, has left but he is a Moy fisherman. I was born in that catchment area and recall the debate about the cleaning of the river Moy. Prior to that thousands of acres were flooded every year through June and July and all through the winter. One could go boating on them. From high land one could see the flooding stretch for 20 or 30 miles. In places such as Castlebar and Turlough there was water on both sides of the road. When the area was drained and changed it was said the fish stocks would never return but that was wrong. They came back better than before. All the scientific evidence presented at the time was wrong.

I know the river Liffey quite well and years ago I asked why it could not be cleaned. It is filled with all kinds of debris such as branches that have collected and formed natural pools. If we continue in this way there will be no rivers because they will all be choked up. There should be a greater emphasis on cleaning the rivers. Otherwise, there will be no fishing at all, for tourists or anybody else.

There has been a catastrophic decline in salmon stocks and the graph on page 3 of the presentation is dramatic but there is something wrong with it that I cannot understand. Can someone explain how we know the stocks have degenerated to that level? According to the salmon fishermen along the rivers Suir and Nore, in 1925 they were reasonable, in 1945 they hit rock bottom, between 1945 and 1965 they rose and they increased dramatically in 1965. Suddenly between 1965 and 1975 they rose to an inexplicably high level. What was the scientific reason for that? There must be some explanation.

I have lived in rural areas all my life and feel that I have as good a knowledge as anybody else about the life of rivers and lakes and so on but I cannot understand how between 1975 and 1980 the stocks plummeted again. How are they counted? The discrepancy ranges from 1,400 to 200. Can some scientist explain this? I am sceptical about such a change in a short space of time. In 1981 the stock rose to 1,000 and by 2005 it fell to the bottom again. This is not conclusive evidence but it is feeding in to the decision on complete cessation. The science, however, does not stand up.

When did Canada and Norway ban drift-netting? Why is the North of Ireland left out of the map of Ireland? It is the first time I have seen the teddy bear without its head. I would like to see some reference to fishing in Northern Ireland.

County Donegal is included.

We are lucky it is because the rest of the map is chopped off. Tourism is marketed jointly between the North and the South.

The figures for the catches run from 1925 to 1990. Why do they stop there? Why do they not continue to 2005 as in the graph for the stock? Is this not a self-serving exercise? Between 1930 and 1965 the graph rose and fell slightly in respect of drift-netting but it remained within one band. At the same time rod fishing continued along a narrow band on the bottom without any dramatic change one way or the other. Is it expected that the band will suddenly go skywards? I do not think it will. There is no evidence to show what will happen there.

Drift-netting catches shot up suddenly in 1969 or 1970 and remained there until 1980 then started to fall again, the theory being that there were no more fish. Reference is made to the EU habitats directive with which we must comply. If we comply to the same extent on the agricultural issues as on this one we will have the same debate on agriculture five years from now. The scene is already set. This is the death knell for the fishing industry.

People in coastal towns get an emotional return as well as an economic living from fishing. I do not agree with those who disobey the law but there are genuine people who are helpful to the ecological system. Sadly, there are signs of serious problems. It is very well for us to say the people in coastal areas have many other things to do. That is like eating cake which Marie Antoinette was very good at. We know what happened to her.

For example, a year ago there was a debate on Common Agricultural Policy reform and the sugar beet industry subsequently went down the tubes because it was not compatible with European Union law. It was claimed all subsidies were to be withdrawn but the French sugar industry did not go down the tubes. In Australia, farm supports have been reintroduced. These are contrasts to our slavish compliance with EU directives. As for the bureaucrats in Brussels standing for election, as John Wayne said, "That'll be the day". Unless we recognise that we have a role to play and we need to elbow the people we are dealing with in Brussels, we will be flushed down the river. If we do not, people will be coming to look at how we live in our natural habitat.

This year the Department, the Marine Institute and the fisheries boards have operated a salmon gradation system with the national parks and wildlife service. The committee's recommendation was taken on board. The tagging system was introduced in 2001 but there were some teething problems at the beginning. District committees were established comprising fishermen and fisheries boards. The allocation of tags was the fishermen's call. It operated well and there were no complaints about it.

Deputy Keaveney raised the issue of funding. There is a €25 million hardship fund and the €5 million coastal communities fund. The latter will be worked through the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs through Leader, RAPID and CLÁR programmes. Most of this funding will be going to the west. Up to €1.5 million a year will be allocated for river rehabilitation and €4 million for extra enforcement. There is no point in implementing the regime proposed by the three wise men unless we increase the numbers involved in enforcement. Additional funding of €25 million for the fisheries boards will bring the total budget to €60 million.

Deputy Tony Dempsey, like me, lives on the banks of the River Slaney and we are both aware of the emotive issues between anglers and drift-net men. The reality is that we have a third of the salmon catch that we had 20 years ago. That is why Mr. White's committee was established to examine the scientific figures for 2007. It was claimed there was much interference from the Department and the Ministers when the three wise men were compiling their report. I met them when their committee was first established and I have not seen them since. Their report is independent and I thank them for it.

Is there a guarantee that there is buy-out scheme in the Foyle?

With regard to the Foyle, the habitats directive will apply to the Foyle drift net fishery where it captures mixed stocks of salmon and other river catchments do not meet conservation limits.

Mr. Malone

Deputy O'Shea raised the method of calculation. It is a fair argument that further along the chain there could be more disadvantage. Any compensation or alleviating hardship method must relate to the income generated and the volume of fish caught. In 2001 in Waterford, the catch by drift netters was three times the figure in 2005. I feel we are helping the people involved by taking a historic approach. It is those areas that stand to benefit most from the measures.

When one considers the rivers in this region, they are all below their conservation limit. The only way the stock will recover is if salmon come back to spawn in numbers. Deputy Durkan is correct in saying that there are a range of issues — some in and some out of our control — such as water pollution, the quality of the rivers and their maintenance.

Why is something not done about this?

Mr. Malone

We referred to that in the report.

Yet nothing has been done.

Mr. Malone

A considerable effort is taking place regarding the enhancement of water quality. Water quality is measured by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The figures from the EPA show it is improving. A series of measures have been introduced.

When was the River Liffey cleaned? Mr. Malone knows well about this.

Mr. Malone

I do.

Mr. Malone should speak through the Chair.

I will speak through the Chair.

Deputy Durkan can but I want the other questions answered.

The Chairman should not run away from it.

I have been here three and a half hours.

I have been here the same time and I have other responsibilities just as well as the Chairman has.

I am not going anywhere.

I am well aware of the responsibilities of the Chair so I do not need a lecture about it. I asked a question and it can be answered or we can have a row about it.

Deputy Durkan can come in at the end when the delegation has finished its presentation.

I have a right to ask a question.

I am sorry——

If that is the road we will go down——

Will Mr. Malone answer——

I am not going to let——

If the Deputy is not going to behave——

Is the question going to be answered? It is as simple as that.

We will suspend for five minutes and get the question answered.

The Chairman can suspend for longer if he wishes. It is all the same to me.

Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.05 p.m.

We are back in public session. I ask that Mr. Malone, Mr. White and Mr. Keatinge address the Chair when responding to questions. If I need to take any interjection from a member, I will allow it. The witnesses need not address members directly.

On a point of order, are we aiming for 6.30 p.m.?

I would be delighted if the Deputy had some questions and work.

It is just that certain tiny matters have arisen that we feel could be teased out a little more.

I am in no hurry, Deputy. I have until tomorrow evening, as I said to members last week when we were going through a Bill. We will follow the rules and Standing Orders.

We all will.

I am the current arbiter of Standing Orders. Mr. Malone had the floor and was answering some of the questions that the four members had raised.

Mr. Malone

It might be best if I start at the beginning again. The first question raised by Deputy O'Shea concerned the method of calculation and the point at which there might be difficulties for people in the eastern part of the country as one moves around the coast and further down the run of the salmon. That argument can be made, but the basis of our approach, which we feel was fair, was that it related to the volume of fish caught. We took a five-year period, and my specific point regarding Waterford, in which Deputy O'Shea is clearly interested, is that if one goes back to 2001, one sees that the drift-net catch was three times the 2005 level. Our strong argument is that, by taking a five-year average, we were giving everyone——

I do not believe that the same drop in fish numbers, down by as much as a third, would be reflected in other areas. The stock did not stand at a third for too many of them.

Mr. Malone

I can show the Deputy the figures for Cork, which were down by a third. I accept that Kerry is different, but one must relate it in some way to a loss of income.

Did the independent salmon group give any consideration to going further back, for example, seven or ten years?

Mr. Malone

We examined various options, but the point was that one had to take some sort of period. I made the point that in schemes of which I have previous experience one took a three-year average, since that allows a good year, a bad one and an average one. We went further, taking five years. We took the average and multiplied by six, so it was something to which we gave a fair amount of consideration. We saw it as a very important element of our work and feel that we produced a fair and reasonable solution. Clearly, one has any number of options if one goes back ten or 20 years, but going back five years was a reasonable approach that achieved a fair outcome for everyone.

The other point that is important to bear in mind is that we had a reference period. The tagging system started then, and if one went back beyond that, one was into slightly more difficult territory.

The method of distribution of tags has been dealt with by the Minister of State, Deputy Browne.

When the group was compiling the report, did anything come to its notice that might have caused it concern regarding how tags were distributed?

Mr. Malone

No. No concern was ever expressed regarding any issue in that regard.

What was said as regards tags? I have been informed that one can buy ten tags in one district and that there is no centralised data recording system. The same fisherman can go to a different area and buy ten more tags without the authorities being aware that he already had used ten tags previously on a different river. There is widespread abuse of the tag system.

Mr. Malone, without interruption, please. I know the Deputy was seeking clarification.

Mr. Malone

This point was brought to our attention. As regards angling tags, we are recommending in the report a centralised data system. We have taken that point on board.

On that point, since we are talking about conservation, will the centralised computer technology be in place in the current year, from January?

Mr. Malone

That is a management issue, but——

Mr. Malone might consider that question, and we shall come back to it. We shall move to the answers to the other questions, or I shall be in trouble with the members. We shall hear Mr. Malone without interruption. I appreciate that these interjections are intended to elicit more information based on the questions that were asked.

Mr. Malone

Deputy O'Shea asked about the return to drift-netting in estuaries if individual rivers exceed their conservation limits. The reality indicates that there will not be a return to drift-netting. If one looks in particular at the rivers in areas Deputy O'Shea is interested in, the conservation limits and the situation that prevails there at the moment, it will be a serious challenge to achieve sustained recovery in all of them. That was an important point in our approach to drift-netting. I explained earlier the difficulty of mixed stock fishing. Our approach was also coloured in this regard when it comes to draft-netting. This normally takes place at estuaries and is a different type of fishing to drift-netting, as I am sure the members are aware.

Our decision to leave some options for the draft-netting community was based on the fact that if people felt that they were on a river which was above its sustainable limit or there was a fairly real prospect it would be, in the short-term, then they might want to continue drift-netting. That was explained——

On that very point, and I promise not to interject again, Mr. Malone has referred to drift-netting on the river. Is that what he meant?

Did he mean draft-netting?

Mr. Malone

I am sorry, but I meant draft-netting.

Am I right in my interpretation of this report, that drift-netting can continue on the River Blackwater because it is above its conservation limit?

My understanding today from the Minister was that drift-netting was out, but draft-netting was allowed. Is that correct?

Mr. Malone

That is correct.

Despite the fact that it is above its conservation limit, drift-netting is still banned on the River Blackwater? That is contrary to what this——-

That is clarified now, is it not?

Mr. Malone

We are buying out all the drift-netting. We have gone through that four or five times today.

We shall move on quickly.

Mr. Malone

I am perfectly prepared to move quickly, but in fairness——

I thank Mr. Malone.

Mr. Malone

The question was raised about the value of a licence by a number of Deputies. A licence is something that is given by the Minister, as part of the regulatory framework. We felt it was equitable, however, that even people who caught no fish should be given six times the value of the licence. We feel, bearing in mind that there was no fishing activity, that this is a generous proposition.

Deputy Keaveney raised the question as to the value of salmon at today's prices. When we were doing the calculations over the five-year period — which showed a series of values along the line — we included the value she mentioned, €45, in the calculation for 2005.

It was left there and multiplied by six.

Mr. Malone

That is where one runs into trouble. If one takes that value, one then multiplies it by the number of fish caught in 2005, which is substantially less than what was caught in the earlier years. The overall catch halved in the five-year period——

I could argue that point with Mr. Malone all evening but——

Mr. Malone, please, without interruption.

Mr. Malone

We discussed before the point made by Deputy Keaveney and others the preference for a voluntary scheme. We have explained our views on that and there is not much point in going through it again. We were aware of buy-out schemes in other countries such as Norway, Canada and Scotland and we acquainted ourselves with what was happening internationally.

Did it work in Canada?

Mr. Malone

I shall ask Dr. Ó Maoileidigh to elaborate on that, but perhaps I can get through my series of questions first. As regards whether nets will be decommissioned, the short answer is "Yes". If there is a buy-out scheme, then in the interest of the protection of public money, some degree of clarity or certainty is required to ensure what is being bought out actually happens.

Was there a buy-out of the nets?

Mr. Malone

Nets will be decommissioned — I believe that is the term.

That is in the report, is it not?

Does decommissioning mean taken out of use or is it a matter of being paid for having taken equipment out of use?

Deputy Keaveney should be aware that I am trying to get to the bottom of this matter as the room must be vacated.

I know, but I asked whether there would be money for boats and nets and that is all.

I shall let the Deputy come back in later.

I do not intend to come back then.

If she does not, then she should not ask any questions.

I asked the question about an hour ago and I am just seeking an answer.

I am trying to get the answer. Will Mr. Malone continue, without interruption, please?

Mr. Malone

What is happening means that drift-netting and drift-net licences will be no more. The licence is the statutory instrument in that regard.

Will there be compensation for nets and boats?

Mr. Keatinge

On that specific question, this report deals with salmon drift-netting. Those registered as licensed fishermen are obviously not required to decommission their boats. The salmon nets will no longer be of use to them.

The boats are no use to them either.

Mr. Keatinge

That is not true. They are members of the inshore fisheries sector. They fish crab and lobster for ten months of the year. The challenge for us is to manage the other two months, June and July, and provide alternative opportunities that do not necessitate an unnecessary increase in crab, lobster, shrimp and so on, the other stock that they already pursue. Out of the 877, some 350 are inshore registered fishermen. The remainder have boats. There is nothing in the report which suggests they have to dismantle, throw away or burn those boats. That has nothing to do with this. They can keep the boats for recreational purposes, but the 350 registered inshore fishermen, hopefully, will continue to operate in that sector and BIM will continue to work with them.

I repeat the same question about money for nets.

Mr. Keatinge

To complete the answer, currently the decommissioning scheme that is available through the Department applies to vessels over 18 m. This is on foot of the Padraic White report from last year. Vessels under 18 m. will be dealt with in the Noel Cawley review, which will be reporting in due course to the Minister. It is exploring whether there is a need for a vessel decommissioning scheme as distinct from a salmon net issue, which is completely separate. In the event that there is a decommissioning scheme for vessels under 18 m., which would apply throughout the inshore sector, that would be in addition to any measures being discussed here. It is an entirely separate matter.

I still do not know whether people will be paid for the nets.

Has Dr. Ó Maoileidigh some scientific questions to answer as well?

Dr. Ó Maoileidigh

I must answer the question about the effects of the measures that stopped the nets in Canada. Like Ireland, Canada has a number of different sea-fishing areas such as Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland, the inner Bay of Fundy and so on. There are different areas with different biology. Not all of them instantly met their conservation limits and it will be similar here. In most of those areas they stopped the further decline of salmon stocks and that is what we will do in many areas here. Since they closed their fisheries in 1990, they have not seen what they would have liked to see, but it could have been worse.

Mr. Malone

Dr. Ó Maoileidigh will comment on the more scientific aspects. The first question Deputy Durkan asked was about the zig-zag effect on the graph. The same thought occurred to me when I looked at it for the first time. I wondered whether it was cyclical because cycles can occur. The answer that convinced me was that this was gone well beyond the cycle. I am not a scientist, but if there was a cyclical dimension, the graph would have turned a long time ago.

The intensity of drift-netting definitely increased in the 1970s when there were more licences. The style of drift-netting also changed in the 1970s with the introduction of monofilament nets.

Did the Canadians have the same peak that we had?

There is a Dáil vote now. On behalf of the Labour Party, I thank the three wise men for their efforts on this interesting and emotional subject.

I would like to finish the meeting.

Mr. Malone

Deputy Durkan made the point that there were other factors and other issues, and we accept that fully.

Why have we not acted on those other issues? Why was the cleaning and scouring of rivers for spawning beds not regarded as a priority alongside this?

Mr. Malone

We can only deal in the report with what we found when we began our work earlier this year. We set out clearly our vision for the future, which is the totality of individual river management. We accept the points made by Deputy Durkan about the spawning beds, the quality of the water, the management of the individual river and the counters. We are hopefully entering a new era and this will raise huge challenges for the regional fisheries boards.

There is a contradiction in the two graphs. One of the graphs shows the fish stocks going up and down until 2005. At some stages they went as low as they are now. That is incontrovertible. They zig-zagged from 1925 until 1965 and then went up rapidly. They then went down towards the bottom, went up again and now they are on the bottom again. The other graph deals with catches. The witnesses correctly state that drift-netting went up dramatically in the 1970s, as did the tonnage. However, in 1980 it went back down again. There is a contradiction in the two graphs and whatever scientific evidence exists, the two graphs should be coterminous as they should have gone to either 1990 or 2005 in both cases. We could then measure them accurately against one another. It is unfair to present them to us in their current format.

Mr. Keatinge

The recent data available to the group come from the Central Fisheries Board and they are the data we see on page 43 and figure 7.2, which starts from the 1970s. In our research, we found a paper from 1983 which is the first reference in the reference section. It is a submission from the sectoral consultative committee on the fishing industry. It provided catch data in the period from 1926 until 1980. We could have done what we did on page 9, which is to blend the two graphs but show them in different colours to indicate their different data series. We presented them separately on page 42 and page 43, but figure 7.1 and figure 7.2 are continuous, which means we can read one after the other.

We will continue because if we stop we will be here until 8 p.m. I apologise to the clerk, his staff and the editorial staff for the lateness of the meeting. For completeness, we must have the response to the four sets of questions. Has Mr. Malone completed them?

Mr. Malone

I think I have done so.

Deputy Tony Dempsey addressed one question to me about the community support scheme. He asked for my thoughts, given my background in IDA Ireland. We advocate that this should be implemented in a liberal and creative fashion. We see this as an opportunity for the communities affected to develop constructive ideas. There are two different kinds of promoters. The first kind are groups of ex-fishermen who could come together and form a co-operative. The other group would be an entrepreneurial community which could see a business opportunity and the merit in having a significant workforce from the fishing community. We were all very impressed with our visit to Dingle and Ballydavid.

The case was made to us that drift-netters in many areas are gaeilgeóirí and are part of the fabric of their community. If there are any ideas, there should be some mechanism to help them. There will be a surplus of fish in the south west and the west and if enterprises were formed that met these criteria, one could envisage the possibility of access to that surplus by those enterprises. That is just one of a number of possibilities. The overriding view of our group is that this should be operated in a positive, creative and liberal way, in response to proposals from the communities.

I have not asked any question today, other than by way of clarification. Is section 3.2 a proposal that rod-caught fish be sold to the commercial processing sector? I am not sure if this is workable. The commercial processing sector, especially the smoking sector, want sea-caught fish. It has been made clear by all leading smokers that it was not acceptable, for reasons of food safety, to deal with freshwater fish. Mr. Peter Dunn of the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association stated to this committee on 5 April 2005:

My company had a very serious incident involving a large consignment of draft-net fish that had to be returned due to water quality problems. A certain percentage of the fish were musty. It is reflective of the problem of water quality that must be addressed in the context of the debate on wild salmon. Our only source of the right type of fish for smoking is drift-netting. If drift-netting were abolished, as some people would like, it would mean the end of the smoked salmon business, which would not be the right course to adopt.

For the record, did the independent salmon group read the entire transcripts of the hearings the committee undertook in April 2005? I have a copy of the transcripts with me. During those hearings Mr. Dunn told the committee: "Our only source of the right type of fish for smoking is drift-netting. If drift-netting were abolished ... it would mean the end of the smoked salmon business". The independent salmon group recommended that the Government ban commercial drift-net fishing and give the resources to rod anglers who would then be able to sell salmon. It is suggesting one fishery be stopped and handed over to another. The processor states the only source of the right type of fish for smoking is drift-net fishing.

Did individual members of the consultative group — I will not call the group anything other than the independent consultative group; I am not sure from where the other term came — read the transcript of the committee meeting of 5 April 2005? Does the group attach significance to what the processors have stated? Does it think it is okay to hand over the traditional rights of the netman to the rodman? Does it consider it in the public good to use Exchequer funds to transfer the resource from the net fisherman to the rod angler in this case?

We read the transcripts of meetings of this committee and we all have a copy of the report, to which we paid considerable attention in the course of our deliberations. We support the setting up of a mechanism involving the range of stakeholders, including fish processors, hotels, restaurants and various interest groups.

It is not a question of transferring free gratis a resource from drift-net fishermen to any other group. What we have clearly stated in the principles set out in paragraph 3.2 is that the surplus should be used for the public good and that those who gain access to it should pay for it. It comes down to a market choice. If the processors regard the fish caught by draft net as inferior, that is their choice. However, my understanding is that draft-net fishermen currently supply fish to the various outlets, including——

Does that include the smoked fish processors?

Yes, that would be the case.

With regard to a point touched on by the Chairman, the effect on the salmon is influenced by the quality of the environment. A central part of our report is that equal attention should be paid to improving the habitat, water quality and so forth. However, ultimately, the structure we have created will mean that if the stakeholders want the fish, they will have to pay for access to them in some way. If the fish processors regard fish caught by rod angling as unacceptable, that is their choice.

I was making the point because it had been made clearly at the committee meeting.

I understand that. I clearly recall the reference to musty salmon — a new concept.

Water quality has been mentioned a number of times at this meeting. It is an important issue if we are to preserve the fish smoking industry.

I thank the group for attending. The lesson I have learned from this meeting — I also learned it before we produced our report — is that unless we stop overfishing, we are facing a sunset industry. This applies to the fisheries of the world, not just in Ireland. A major food resource could be lost unless all countries together introduce conservation measures.

I thank the members of the independent salmon group; the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, for attending. I particularly thank the Minister of State for taking on board this issue when he took office. He embraced the report of the committee and set up the three-person independent salmon group to do what we recommended, namely, to formulate a policy with a number of recommendations. On behalf of the committee, I record our appreciation of the Minister of State's efforts.

The meeting was a little boisterous but that will happen on occasion as members try to get their points across. I understand this and I am well able to cope. Unless I get the nod from above to resign from the Chair, or the nod from above to go up above, I will be in the Chair until the 29th Dáil adjourns. I call the Vice Chairman, Deputy Perry.

I compliment the Chairman on doing an excellent job. He is well able to deal with boisterous behaviour. I also compliment the independent salmon group which received a clear mandate which did not allow for any deviation. It has done an excellent job under its terms of reference and there was no ambiguity about what had to be done.

I know of Mr. White's other report on the south east and have no doubt that all of us will agree that other coastal communities, whether in Donegal, the south west or the regions, also need help. We know of Mr. White's experience with the IDA. The only concern I have with the €5 million fund is that it could be dispersed among funders. It is a pity the fund was not ring-fenced and benchmarked with respect to the effectiveness of its implementation. If the €5 million is dispersed among four or five semi-State bodies, it could become lost, which is an issue Mr. White might consider. Deputy Tony Dempsey referred to community employment schemes and how a scheme could be initiated for designated coastal communities, which might provide a better return for the money provided.

For every action there will be a reaction. There is a huge responsibility with regard to what happens from this point. I have concerns, given the many reports involved and the issues which arise with regard to the provision of funding. I am concerned that despite 21st century technology, we cannot embrace a comprehensive tagging system for anglers that would clearly identify them with a PIN number and prevent wide-scale abuse. If we are concerned about the conservation of salmon stocks and that some people are taking a big hit, it is important that we have the necessary technology in place. I am astonished this is not happening. If we intend to spend €30 million, what is another €1 million or €2 million to install a system that would deal with the control systems required across the board? It does not make sense that one segment has to pay the ultimate price.

Time will tell how effective this will be but at least a decision has been made. I will pursue the other obligations with regard to the Farrell Grant Sparks report on inland fisheries and the Central Fisheries Board. There is much work to be done to deliver this policy. I intend to focus the Fine Gael position on how funding will be spent on aquaculture and the development of inland waterways, lakes and rivers. This is only the beginning.

I thank the Deputy who is a well respected member of the committee and, as Vice Chairman, has contributed greatly to its work.

I thank the Chairman and his officials for staying with the programme all afternoon. This is an emotive issue and I am aware that all members, especially the Opposition spokespersons, were eager to make a contribution. They did so in a forthright fashion. It is up to us in the Department to ensure their suggestions are implemented and enforced. Like Deputy Perry, I hope the €5 million to which he referred will be ring-fenced for the benefit of coastal communities.

The Department is working on the tagging system. Angling, tagging and licensing are done through dealers and fisheries boards so it will take time and effort to ensure all the processes are computerised.

I thank Dr. Ó Maoileidigh, Mr. Keatinge, Mr. White, Mr. Malone and Professor Tom Collins, who was unable to attend the meeting, for their work and commitment over many months. We asked them to do a job independently and we did not interfere or hound them every day or week. I thank them for their report. The coming days and weeks will be difficult, but the decision has been made by the Government and everybody must live with that.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.40 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share