Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND THE MARINE debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2000

Vol. 3 No. 7

Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2000 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, and his officials.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.-The Minister may, after consultation with the National Salmon Commission, make regulations to provide for a scheme for the tagging of farmed salmon within 2 years if a distortion arises as a result of farmed salmon not being tagged. Such scheme would be administered in a similar manner to the scheme which is in place for the tagging of wild salmon.".

I tabled this amendment because some of the interests involved contacted me about a problem regarding the identification of wild and farmed salmon. After today, all wild salmon caught must be tagged. However, the legislation does not apply to farmed salmon.

I appreciate that it would be hugely difficult to apply the same legislation to farmed and wild salmon. However, many people are concerned that there could be a certain amount of misrepresentation of the type of salmon involved unless farmed salmon is also included in the scope of the legislation. The Bill will involve a type of pilot project and we assume it will work. However, if a distortion against wild salmon appeared with two years - it could be any period; I only used two years as a mechanism to raise this issue - the Department and the Minister would have to consider how farmed salmon is treated.

I said in the Dáil yesterday that wild salmon might be sold as farmed salmon because farmed salmon does not need to be tagged. People said to me that one would have to be an expert to know the difference between one type of salmon and the other. If it was presented to me on a plate, I would not know the difference. However, some people say they would know the difference from ten feet away.

Would the Deputy know if it was in his mouth?

Taste buds. People who farm salmon say one would not, and should not, know the difference. I wanted to give the Minister an opportunity to indicate how he intends to handle the situation with regard to wild and farmed salmon because there is a reasonable point involved.

I cannot understand the point. Why would anybody try to sell wild salmon as farmed salmon given that wild salmon is——

Much dearer.

——much more expensive, more attractive and much more sought after?

The issue would arise if a person was handling wild salmon but did not want to get involved in tagging and the identification process. I assume their feeling is that half a loaf is better than no bread.

The essential point is that everybody who handles wild salmon is agreeable to tagging and that every wild salmon is tagged. It is essential that everybody handling wild salmon is agreeable to tagging, and that every wild salmon is tagged. Aside from our main objective of counting wild salmon, this system will give a new prestige to wild salmon because, for the first time, wild salmon will be identified. One of the problems is that wild salmon is not identified currently and because there is an amount of illegal wild salmon on the market, it is being sold at a far lower price. Wild salmon is the most prestigious food and it should command the highest price. It will command a higher price and increased prices will be one of the advantages for the commercial side. I do not understand the converse argument, and I have discussed this matter with one or two of the fishing organisations.

Let us look at the logistics of what we are talking about. If one goes down to Kilkearan, where they harvest perhaps 500 tonnes of salmon and process the catch in a factory, it would not be realistic to put a tag on every one of those salmon. If a tag is put on the salmon, it will be taken off in the factory, so it does not make sense. The other aspect is that currently each box is labelled with the date of the harvest, the farm origin, the cage number and so on. A total of 34 million fish are harvested annually. If we forced these companies to tag 34 million fish, it would cost millions of pounds, aside from everything else. It just does not make sense.

The national salmon commission decided not to propose compulsory carcase tagging unless there was substantive evidence over the next few years that there would be a significant interference of farm salmon with wild salmon, but I cannot understand how that will happen. In fact, the opposite will happen. I fail to understand the reason some of the anglers want to do this. I cannot get a logical reason from them.

I am not in a position to argue line by line with the Minister but when one is in Opposition one tries to talk to as many people as possible, as the Minister knows. I understood that the issue of the interference of the wild salmon with the farm salmon was raised on Committee Stage, in other words, it did not simply fall from the sky.

I will give the Deputy the background to it. One angling organisation, FISTA, proposed this measure. I met its members in Birr one Saturday or Sunday and discussed the matter with them. We agreed that it would not go ahead and I also agreed, in line with what the commission decided, that if it became a problem in the future we would be happy to examine it again but I am convinced it will not, unless people start to sell wild salmon as farmed salmon, and there is no logic in that.

Has it come to the notice of the Minister that people have tried to sell wild salmon as farmed salmon?

The problem is that there is some illegal catching of wild salmon, which is being sold from the back of a car; Deputy Bell mentioned that. Tagging will help to stop that practice to an extent. It will not eliminate it because a fellow can catch a wild salmon and sell it to his neighbour, but it will enable us to ensure that restaurants, for instance, do not stock wild salmon that is not tagged. In that way there will be a type of quality mark put on the wild salmon. With increased surveillance, which we discussed yesterday when I agreed with the strong point made by all three Deputies about having better controls to stop poaching of wild salmon, we will succeed in eliminating many of the illegal activities that are taking place. We will never be able to stop it but we will try to cut it out. It is anti-social behaviour which communities along those rivers should not tolerate. I do not see this as a major problem. I do not see the necessity for tagging 34 million farm salmon to ensure that people do not sell wild salmon as farm salmon. That is the only logical reason one could give for wanting to do it.

I was not talking about tagging the salmon. I said we should wait for a number of years to see if a distortion appeared.

That is in line with the commission's proposal. I have already stated that I do not have a problem with that but I am not prepared to do it now.

I am not asking the Minister to do it now. The amendment specifically states that. The only difference is that I put a time limit on it.

The Minister is missing the point. There is no wholesale poaching of wild salmon. The greatest fear of those of us living along the south-west coastline, and I am sure the same pertains in Donegal and Galway, is that when these farm salmon break loose, which can happen - the cage can be dented - there is no identification on them to follow them through. They are a menace to the wild salmon. Once they interbreed, it is all over. It is fine to tag the wild salmon but the Minister is not doing anything to find out where these farm salmon go when they break loose from the cage.

Can I clarify something? We are talking about tagging carcases. We are not talking about tagging the salmon when they are alive. I explained before the Deputy joined us——

The wild salmon are tagged when they are caught?

Yes. FISTA wants us to agree to tag every farmed salmon but as I explained before the Deputy came in, 500 tonnes of salmon are being taken out of a salmon farm. That salmon is brought into a factory where it is processed. The practical effect of what is being proposed is that we put a tag on the salmon at that stage but when it comes out of the factory as a slice of salmon, what good is the tag? It does not make any sense whatsoever.

When the Minister goes into a restaurant in County Meath or Dublin and sees fresh Boyne salmon on the menu, that is farm salmon but the customer does not know that.

However, the tag will now identify it as wild salmon. We will insist on wild salmon being identified and, therefore, farmed salmon can only be described as salmon. It is not wild salmon. That will give a new prestige to wild salmon for the first time in that it will be identified as wild salmon. I made the point earlier that the price of wild salmon will increase considerably and the fishermen will benefit from a much better price because it is now traceable as wild salmon. No one can sell farm salmon as if it were wild.

I have seen farm salmon being advertised as Atlantic salmon. I do not know what significance that has.

It can be advertised as Atlantic salmon because it is reared in the Atlantic. Wild salmon can and will only be described as wild, and there is a distinct difference. One of the good things is that the quality of farm salmon is increasing constantly and the gap between the two is narrowing. There are now one or two new farms, for example on Clare Island, which are in deeper water with a new type of cage. The salmon coming from those, which is an organic type of salmon, is of a very high quality. It is difficult to distinguish between farm salmon and wild salmon because the quality of farm salmon is so high.

That is what I have been saying.

The quality of farm salmon in Ireland is very high. We are far ahead of the Norwegians and the quality of their farm salmon. However, there is still a clear distinction between wild and farmed salmon.

What concerns me about this is that it would defeat the objective of tagging the fish because it would mean both farm and wild salmon would be tagged and one would not be able to distinguish between the two. The idea is that, by tagging, one can distinguish the difference between wild and farm salmon. It is also a numerical exercise to enable the Department to monitor the movement, quality and count of salmon more accurately than heretofore. With all due respect, if we were to accept the amendment, it would defeat the objective of the section. Perhaps we should put the amendment on hold.

It will be kept under review.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

"(i) in subsection (2), by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (j):

'(j) fees to be charged in respect of the issue of any such tag or log book:

Provided that no fee, levy or other charge shall be imposed on the holder of a salmon rod ordinary licence before 1 January, 2011,',".

The Minister answered this question in the Dáil Chamber yesterday but I wish to put it on record here. All the tags and logbooks necessary for each salmon caught have already been distributed to the fisheries boards. If the legislation is to be put into action on 1 January, I assume all this has been done for many months and possibly a year. The Minister has decided that the tag and logbook which goes to each fisherman will be provided free of charge. I agree with that because it is enough to get fishermen into the mentality and discipline of doing it without asking them to pay for it.

I come from another walk of life where I have often heard about cattle tags, and we will soon have sheep tags, which were all to be provided for free. I am prepared to say - this is nothing personal against the Minister because, no matter who was in his place, I would say the same - that the salmon tags will not be free, but I received an absolute assurance from the Minister that it is not intended to charge for the tags or logbooks. I assure him that charging for them is the type of action which upsets schemes such as this. The selling point of this scheme is that the value of wild salmon will increase.

The process is complicated and I have gone through it as it is laid out. A great deal of effort has been put into this, as there must be with all tagging, no matter what is tagged, with all the barcodes and computerisation which must be done.

My amendment requires that a commitment be given that charges would not be made for at least ten years. I do not propose to press the amendment given the categoric assurance the Minister gave me, and which I hope he will give again today, that a cost will not be associated with this. My amendment requires that fishermen would not be charged for at least ten years. However, if the Minister is prepared to give me a commitment that they will not be required to pay at any stage, that would be better. I have no intention of delaying progress because there are other important amendments. There would be bedlam if fishermen, fisherwomen or anyone else concerned were to have to pay for the tag and logbook. That is the type of action which creates trouble.

That is why I am categoric in saying there will not be any charge for tags and logbooks and there should never be a charge. The reason is it would be a very small cost to the State to pay for the tags and logbooks when compared with the value the State will reap not only from the saving of the wild salmon stock but also from the significant growth which will come about in it. It is for that reason I oppose any suggestion that there should be a payment. As Deputy Connaughton rightly pointed out, that gives the impression to anglers we want to collect some money from them. We are not doing that; the exact opposite is the case.

We want a partnership with anglers which will enable us to conserve and become involved in a major programme of growing the wild salmon stock. There will be new initiatives to get more salmon up the rivers to improve spawning and to build up significantly the stock of wild salmon. If we achieve that objective, which we will, whatever cost is involved to the State in the administration and running of the system, including the tags and logbooks, will be very small.

Only one group of anglers has objected strongly to the idea of tagging. That is anathema to me. If the commercial men complained about it, I would say they had some reason. The group which will benefit most from this legislation is anglers because it will put more fish up the rivers, improve recreational angling and make a significant contribution to tourism angling. I have figures to show that some people from Great Britain pay £8,000 to go to Chile and Argentina for a week to do some salmon angling. That is the potential we have if the quality and the fish can be brought back to rivers.

Anglers will benefit from this scheme and the majority of them support it. They are a responsible group of people who want to conserve the stock and end the skulduggery. I do not know why any angler would be concerned about this. I have assured them that this will not be a cost or a money collecting exercise. No cost or quotas will be involved for anglers. I repeat that categorically here. Some anglers were worried that when the salmon are counted a quota will be put on a river. I have assured them in writing that there will not be a quota for recreational anglers. That would only happen where, in a particular catchment, the stock went down so badly that one had to try to conserve. I am sure anglers would be the first people who would want to conserve in that situation. This is for the benefit of anglers and that is why I am so enthusiastic about it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"(c) in section 21 (inserted by section 13 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999) by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following subsection:

'(1A) In making grants as comprehended by subsection (1), the Minister shall indicate the portion of each such grant which relates to the discharge of functions imposed on the Central Board or the regional board, as appropriate, by or under the Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 2000.’.”.

I regard this as the most important amendment. It is the only thing on which I am not satisfied the Minister has a handle and I have to be critical. This has to do with the protection staff, the protection of the resource itself, as far as the fisheries boards are concerned. We accept unreservedly the main thrust of the Bill, that is, that it is in the interests of increasing wild salmon numbers. There are several tangents to that into which I need not go. It is good for fishermen and is certainly good for tourism.

This is an historic and courageous step forward. We have talked about the tagging of salmon for many years. In fairness to the Minister, he has introduced it and it should be given a sporting chance.

The fisheries boards have been telling me over the years, particularly over the past ten or 15 years, that because of a shortage of money for the various developmental projects they do, they have very little money for fishery protection and it is possible for anyone to catch fish on our rivers illegally. I would like to make it clear that I want this to be done in an even-handed way. I do not want a police state - we do not have the mentality for that.

I know the Minister and my colleagues want the fish, which will be made available through this and other mechanisms, to be there for bona fide fishermen for whom this is their stock-in-trade. Efforts have been made down through the years and water bailiffs did not have a particularly good name but we are in a new era now. I accept what the Minister said that we have to look at things differently. The State and fishing organisations have put a great deal of time and effort into this and each would want to ensure that once this resource is put into the rivers and wild salmon are there in greater numbers than heretofore, the fish will be there for the bona fide fishermen doing their job. It is as simple as that.

I have been led to believe that the protection service has been almost abandoned. That is the way ordinary folk and many professionals see things. The Minister will be given the opportunity in a moment to put on record how he sees it. Having read the Bill and the financial and explanatory memorandum, I do not understand how there are no costs to the Exchequer from the staffing implications associated with this Bill. This is new legislation and we do not have the money to back the start-up and the supervision. I can only go by what I have read.

With the agreement of the Oireachtas the Minister will embark on this principle of ensuring this resource is there and yet he says there are no Exchequer costs involved. The Minister may feel this is only a minor problem but I believe it is a major one. According to our colleagues, the professionals involved and the anglers there would want greater protection of the resources. The Minister expects that to be done for nothing but I cannot see how the fisheries boards will do that. Maybe there is a soft underbelly of finance of which I have not heard in the fisheries boards and that they can employ people. The Minister said yesterday that there would be a temporary staff person in all the fisheries boards areas. That is not what is said here. If we are interested and believe in what we are doing, we will have to have greater protection of that resource. It is a central issue. I cannot say more than that - I have laid the position on the line. As far as I am concerned, this is a major issue in this Bill.

With no disrespect, there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Deputy Connaughton. I said yesterday that there is a need for more protection. Everybody is agreed on that. It is wrong of Deputy Connaughton to say there is not any protection at present.

I said there was very little.

That is also wrong. We have excellent staff in all the fisheries boards. These people give more time and effort to their job because it is a vocation for most of them. They do a superb job.

On a point of order, I do not want a lecture about having a go at the protection people.

I am not saying the Deputy is having a go at them.

The people there are doing an excellent job. My point is that they are not doing enough——

That is correct. We are agreed on that. It is very important that we do not misrepresent the situation. The position a number of years ago was far worse than it is now. Far more illegal fishing and illegal taking of salmon was going on a number of years ago. It is still going on but the fisheries boards do a very good job with the limited resources they have. It is ongoing. The fisheries boards do a very good job with the limited resources they have. I am the first to acknowledge there are not sufficient resources in terms of manpower to protect our stocks. By the same token, we must understand that people could be put at intervals of 500 yards on the banks of lakes and rivers and we still would not stop some people from illegally taking salmon.

When I was appointed Minister I put an additional £2 million, which I received from the Minister for Finance, into inland fisheries, largely invested through clubs. This included some discretion for the fisheries boards to employ additional staff. This year I am investing an extra £2 million, in addition to the normal budget, and I propose to ask the boards to use some of that money in association with the angling clubs. Angling clubs are the most important resource we have and this year I will ask that the clubs, in association with the boards, appoint some people on a temporary basis, especially for the spring run when the real damage is done, to carry out the extra policing, which Deputy Connaughton and I agree is necessary.

The Deputy's fundamental misunderstanding is in relation to the line which says there is no Exchequer cost. The requirements we are talking about are necessary and have nothing to do with tagging.

It will involve more——

No, it will be less. We must invest more resources in inland fisheries on a number of fronts, including water quality, stocking and improvement of river structures and protection. That has to be done anyway and it is not changed by the fact that we are introducing tagging legislation. In fact, tagging will reduce the need as there will be better controls. That is why it says there will not be an Exchequer cost as such in terms of tagging. However, there are Exchequer costs and we are providing money to help build our inland fisheries resource, and I think the Deputy misunderstands.

As an angler I agree with the Minister about the time of year when the damage is done. Anglers have suggested to me that fisheries boards should consider availing of retired fishermen who are members of clubs as temporary staff as they know where the illegal fishing takes place and very often know who is responsible. Rod fishermen will be able to say when and how illegal fishing is taking place in a catchment and I suggest they be encouraged in terms of recruiting temporary staff.

I will take up that suggestion. I am hoping to have a fairly novel programme this year whereby the boards will give money to the angling clubs and whereby the clubs will take ownership of the control work in association with fishery officers. In many cases they already do so, and I am quite happy to be flexible and allow for local arrangements. For example, a club might decide to pay one or two retired people to do a certain amount of work, or that all members will be involved in control work as part of their daily lives and use the money for enhancement of the river, etc. I have put much emphasis on having this additional money given through the boards to the clubs.

Deputy Connaughton more than most will appreciate that currently fisheries boards are doing all the work and are paying people top salaries. For example, they are putting up stakes and wire on farmers' lands along river banks. I come from the west, and it is anathema for anybody to put up stakes and wire on a farmer's land. It should be done in association with the farmer and by the local voluntary effort which we know is very strong in rural areas.

I said I am prepared to give money to clubs. We know that small angling clubs will do much with a little encouragement. I will provide money so they can buy the stakes and wire and use their own labour to erect it. This way we would get much better value for money and much more work done. The fisheries boards can then concentrate on major works which would be too much for the clubs. My proposal could have a very significant impact in terms of the enhancement of our inland rivers. It would be very worthwhile if we could extend it in terms of the control mechanism so local anglers become involved.

I agree with the principle of involving angling clubs. If that happens to the extent the Minister and I would wish, it would mean the mentality in the area would be to support the common good - people would be doing it for their own benefit. That is the principle in all non-statutory organisations in areas such as health, etc. I assume, whatever efforts will be made to improve the relationship between the fisheries boards and angling clubs, which are now much closer than previously - it was daft that there should ever have been a gulf between them as they were all working for the same end - that the additional £2 million which will be spent this year and the further £2 million——

In 2001.

That is very welcome, but do I take it that it will be earmarked specifically? Will boards be given the opportunity to pay some of it to angling clubs?

While I have left them flexibility, I have stipulated that by and large this money should go through the angling clubs and that it should be allocated for small projects such as river bank enhancement, improvement of spawning areas, dealing with pollution problems, erecting stakes and wire to keep cattle out of rivers and other such work which is being done in any event on a voluntary basis, although less so than in the past. I have told regional managers that I want them to use this money as a pump priming exercise to get clubs more involved in this work. A number of clubs in Headford, County Galway, for example, organised dances to raise funds and have built a hatchery. We need to encourage more of that kind of enterprise. The boards and clubs throughout the country which make the greatest effort will receive the most money. Although we are prepared to be flexible, the intention is to provide the funding, some of which will be used for increased surveillance, through the clubs.

Will the regional boards report back to the Minister on how the money is spent?

Yes, the boards submitted a series of projects to us last year which we approved and allocations were made in respect of those projects. Where I saw merit in the projects brought to my attention, I suggested that the boards should examine them. This scheme is now open to the entire country and provides an ideal opportunity for anglers and clubs to get some work done. I am referring specifically to smaller jobs in regard to streams and spawning rivers which, although crucial, have been neglected for years. The Robe is a good example of where such neglect has almost destroyed a river. The boards will continue to carry out bigger projects, primarily under the TAM project.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Top
Share