JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Apr 2009

Eel Management Plan: Discussion.

Chairman

The next item is a discussion on the eel management plan, for which members are joined by the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Seán Power. As a former constituency colleague, I welcome him before the joint committee and thank him for his attendance. The joint committee issued invitations to the Minister and the Minister of State. We received a letter of apology from the Minister, who is unable to attend, but are glad to welcome the Minister of State.

As the Minister of State is aware, this issue has exercised the minds of people associated with eel fishing in recent months. The joint committee has undertaken some research on this issue, which also relates to the eel management proposals in other European countries, and has gathered much useful information. Essentially, the gist of members' previous comments on this is that while the number of people involved in the eel fishing industry in Ireland is relatively small, the impact on them of a 90-year ban, as proposed, would constitute a vast over-reaction to an issue, particularly when it is believed that the complete ban on Irish eel fishing is unlikely to affect in a significant way the overall eel population and the conservation of stocks. In several other instances pertaining to sea fishing in general, evidence has been put before members to the effect that when tested scientifically, much of the information used to bring about a cessation in what effectively are home industries in fishing or eel fishing in this case, is out of context in respect of a reaction to a particular situation.

That said, I will invite the Minister of State to address the joint committee, after which there will be a brief response from members. I point out that a vote in the Dáil will take place at 2.20 p.m. We will get as much business done as possible in the meantime. Even at this late stage, the joint committee is anxious to bring its views to the attention of the Minister of State's European colleagues. These views are not simply based on emotion as members have considerable evidence to back up their theory that the Irish response constitutes an over-reaction that will have a limited impact on the overall eel population.

I will reiterate the usual remarks in respect of privilege. Members of the joint committee have privilege at all times and are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas or any official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. This refers to privilege and as abuse of that practice renders the privilege obsolete, I must bring it to everyone's attention.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Seán Power)

I thank the Chairman for his welcome. As a former member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I am glad that members still are showing confidence in the Chairman. As he noted, this matter relating to eels has received much attention in recent months and I am delighted to appear before the joint committee to explain the decision we have taken in the recent past and to try to be as helpful to members as possible.

Members will be aware that my Department provided a briefing for the joint committee last December on the eel regulation and a further update for today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to describe further the Irish authorities' compliance with European Council Regulation No. 1100 of 2007, which establishes measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel. In the meantime, the Department has submitted a draft eel management plan to the European Commission for approval, as required under the regulation.

Earlier this decade, scientific research conducted by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, indicated that the European eel stock is so depleted that it now is outside safe biological limits. The ICES advised that a recovery plan be developed for the entire stock of European eel and that the exploitation and other human activities affecting the fishery be reduced as much as possible. The European Union brought forward a Council regulation, the purpose of which is the establishment of a new framework for the protection and sustainable use of the stock of European eel. Members will agree there is no mistaking the conservation imperative involved in this regard.

The target of the regulation has been commonly misquoted, including the claim made by some parties that the eel regulation required a reduction of just 40% in the catching of eels. The EU target is clearly defined in the regulation and in the Irish national eel management plan as follows:

The objective of each Eel Management Plan shall be to reduce anthropogenic mortalities so as to permit with high probability the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of the silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock.

In other words, the regulation requires that 4 kg of eels escape to sea for every 10 kg that would have escaped if people did not kill any or prevent any from migrating and the number of elvers coming into the water was as high as it ever was. It does not constitute a 40% reduction in catch or in the fishery nor does it state that we need to let only 40% of our silver eels escape. A comprehensive public consultation exercise was undertaken last year on the draft eel management plan. Details of this were made known to committee members. Some 16 submissions were received, largely from eel fishermen representatives. While acknowledging the decline in stocks, these submissions sought to continue fishing. The outcome of the consultation did not change the conservation imperative given the critical status of the eel stocks.

I met eel fishermen's representatives prior to and since the submission of the national plan to the European Commission. I am alert to their concerns and to the impact the necessary conservation measures will have on them. Having considered the scientific and management advice regarding the critical status of the eel stock as demonstrated in the assessment contained in the eel management plan, the working group charged with responsibility for preparing the draft plans recommended a number of management measures necessary to reach the targets set in the regulation. The four management actions aimed at reducing eel mortality and increasing silver eel escapement in Irish waters recommended in the plan are: a cessation of the commercial eel fishery and closure of the market; mitigation of the impact of hydropower, including a comprehensive silver eel trap and transport plan; ensuring upstream migration of juvenile eels at barriers; and the improvement of water quality in eel habitats.

Recognising the serious state of stocks, conservation by-laws were introduced in May 2008 that capped the number of licences and restricted the season. Long line licences had already been capped since 1998. There was evidence of a last gasp fishing occurring in some districts. The option of reducing rather than closing the commercial fishery in some districts was considered in the plan and was decided against for several reasons. The required traceability scheme would be uneconomical, the monitoring and enforcement effort would be disproportionate to the value of the activity and the recovery of the eel stock would take up to three times as long.

The international scientific evidence and advice is clear. The available information indicates that European stock is at an historical minimum and continues to decline. Fishing mortality is thought to be high on all life cycle stages from the glass eel to the brown and silver eel stage. Recruitment to the stock is at an historically low level and varies between areas from 1% to 10% of recruitment observed before the 1980s. Landings reported to the food and agriculture organisation of the UN have declined to about 25% of the levels of the 1960s. Since recruitment remains in decline and stock recovery will be a long-term process for biological reasons, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommended that all exploitation and other anthropogenic impact on production and escapement of eels should be reduced to as close to zero as possible until stock recovery is achieved. The scientific knowledge provided throughout the development of Irish eel management plans was wide-ranging, transparent and not limited to the modelling exercises. The scientists also acknowledged to the national eel working group and the elected eel fishermen representatives the deficiencies in the data available and provided analysis of the data and the scientific advice given to the group. The most thorough overview of the scientific knowledge is given in the comprehensive national eel management plan and the river basin district plans. Further details of the scientific assessment are set out in the briefing note forwarded to the committee. To inform decision making in the preparation of the eel management plans, scientists developed a stock assessment model based on current best available data. This was developed to estimate the historic quantity of silver eels produced in the absence of human mortality. It also estimates current escapement and the impact of reduction in fishing and hydro power mortality on recovery time.

The eel regulation provides that member states will implement eel management plans approved by the Commission from 1 July or the earliest possible time before that date. The Commission intends to be in a position to approve the draft plans of member states before then. As regards the measures to give effect to the closure of the fishery, in recognition of the depleted status of the stocks, I will use my powers under the Fisheries Acts to maintain the closure of the fishery from 2009. The prospect of reopening the fishery will be considered in 2012 following a review of the data collated as a result of the scientific sampling provided for in the draft plan. Accordingly, the instrument to give legal effect to the closure will close the fishery for three years.

Regarding compensation, I have no funds at my disposal for a hardship fund for commercial eel fishermen. The central fisheries and BIM are investigating alternative opportunities to assist eel fishermen in attempting to identify diversification opportunities. The Department received written confirmation from the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the EU Commission last month, advising that after examining Ireland's draft eel management plans, the Commission considers it contains all the components in the eel regulation. According to the Commission, the draft plans are admissible and will undergo a technical and scientific evaluation by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea as foreseen by the regulation. The Commission will use the evaluation to decide whether additional information or amendment to Ireland's plans are necessary prior to proposing the plans for Commission approval. The only amendments that may be made to the eel management plan are those that the Commission may seek following the technical evaluation by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The Commission will not seek any significant changes to the Irish plans.

The past 25 years of poor recruitment means that the adult eel stock in Irish waters will continue to decline for at least the next decade. The timing and scale of a stock recovery is heavily dependent on increased recruitment coming from the European stock and the severity of management actions taken by all EU member states. For the foreseeable future, management of the fishery will focus on conservation not catch.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the Minister of State for explaining the issue from the point of view of his Department. It is unlikely that the committee would have spent so much time on this but for the fact that the extreme proposed action on eel fishing came to our attention. It set all sorts of alarm bells ringing that any Department or Minister could propose a ban on anything for 90 years. A number of generations will have gone by before eel fishing is operational again in this country. It seemed extravagant.

We are anxious to find out the scientific basis of the decision, the data compiled on it and the steps taken to prevent this drastic measure. I do not see an adequate response in the presentation of the Minister of State. The effect of the ban will be that eel fishing will finish for good here. The processing, curing and smoking of eels and the employment of eel fishermen will come to an end.

Before the Minister of State arrived, Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, spoke to us about a report on agriculture. She said she spoke to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, about why such a ban was to be imposed when he was in Brussels a week ago. His reply was that it would be too costly to police eel fishing and that therefore a ban was decided on. That is not in line with what the Minister of State, Deputy Power, has just said.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

A vote has been called in the House.

Chairman

We will take the first speaker and continue on before suspending.

Deputy Joe Costello

If it is a question of cost, we must hear it officially. That is what the senior Minister believes. I presume Ms McGuinness was not telling us lies. She said it in public for the committee to hear.

Can we take it that approximately 2% of the EU catch takes place in Ireland? A variety of measures are proposed by other countries, and those proposed by our neighbour do not include a ban on eel fishing in Britain or Northern Ireland.

Why have the transport measures not been put in place in advance as an initial measure rather than after an eel management regulation is passed by the European Union and the plan is in place? An inordinate number of eels will have been destroyed in the hydro-turbines on the Shannon and the Erne by then. This would be a major factor in the destruction of the eels.

Exactly what is the eel management plan? I understand it must be in place by 1 July. A review is built in for 2012. What is the nature of this review? If it is found that the plan operates effectively will the 90 year ban be reconsidered?

Would any other industry be banned in this or any other country without compensation accruing to those who would lose their livelihood? This is the total elimination of an industry and if the eel management plan as proposed by Ireland is implemented surely the European Commission is in a position to make some funding available for compensation.

Chairman

We will suspend until after the Dáil vote.

Sitting suspended at 2.25 p.m. and resumed at 2.40 p.m.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank the Chairman for facilitating this discussion with the Minister of State and his officials. I do not wish to be repetitive but concerns have been expressed by a number of my constituents who have inherited the tradition of fishing for eels. They are concerned about the blanket ban and believe other jurisdictions have taken a less aggressive approach. Notwithstanding the necessity to protect eel stocks, Ireland has approximately 2% of the total European eel population. It appears that the draconian approach taken in this management plan will have little or no effect on eel stocks at European level. Given that eels do not confine themselves to Irish waters, this is an international issue. Silver or glass eels are sold in Asia as delicacies and if we are to be realistic in conserving European stocks, we should consider harvesting elvers and silver eels rather than using a sledge-hammer to crack an Irish nut. It is difficult to accept the destruction of Irish businesses when similar approaches are not being taken in other countries. I would have thought that an important part of being good Europeans is retaining the capacity to protect our identities. When we discontinue practices that have been followed over many generations we contribute to the erosion of our identity and culture.

I ask the Minister of State to consider the introduction of a programme that would protect eel fishing. I recognise the importance of preservation and protection but our nearest neighbour in the Six Counties has developed an approach on Lough Neagh based on restocking. Eel fisherman from my constituency of Clare have ideas for restocking rivers. They contend that the scientific evidence is limited to certain areas of Ireland and is thus not broad enough to inform the entire management plan. I ask the Minister of State to seek a compromise that would allow people to continue this traditional activity while recognising that we have to play our role. Even if we write off our entire catch, we will not contribute meaningfully to preserving European stocks.

Deputy Frank Feighan

I welcome the Minister of State to the committee. These difficulties have been evident for far too long and this committee wants to find out the real truth. I have been contacted by a number of irate eel fishermen who consider the proposals to be unfair and, wearing my objective hat, I think they have a case. French fishermen are allowed to fish for eels, yet Ireland has imposed a 90 year ban. That represents a lifetime for a fisherman whereas a life prison sentence lasts only 12 or 15 years.

No funds are being made available to compensate these fishermen despite the significant amounts raised in financing. The Minister of State referred to diversification but what new activities are available to these fishermen? The ESB should trap and truck these eels. We have not focused on the real issues that have arisen over the years.

The Government often blames the EU for the bad legislation it appears happy to implement. The Minister of State proposes to approve the draft plans. I acknowledge that he is a fair man who is prepared to listen to us but he will make the final decision on implementing these plans. I ask him to heed the concerns of fishermen by refusing to implement this draconian measure.

I do not accept the information provided by the Department. A review of the ban is intended for 2012. The Minister knows what happens with reviews. Reviews are just another word for saying it will never happen. I appeal to the Minister not to implement this 90-year ban. What Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, said here on the cost of implementing this is true. That is another issue.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Were my remarks to Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, answered while I was away?

Chairman

We have the full——

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I have subsequently met Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, on the way up or down on my travels to vote. She repeated it and does not care who said it or what they try to pretend. She had a conversation with the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and he told her they were closing the fisheries because it was too much bother. That was the end of that. There would be no more having to give money for policing or having to watch people or send out surveillance gangs or whatever they are called, and that was the reason it was implemented. They are both reputable people, so wherein lies the truth? I guess I will not get the answer from the people here, nice as they are. I address the Chairman.

Chairman

The Minister was invited to address the meeting.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Would he not come?

Chairman

He sent his apologies.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I thank the Chairman. It is very nice to get apologies from anybody. I am not talking about that but repeating what Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, said to me, hence my little bit of further delay coming down here. I accept fully that she spoke the truth and I have no way of judging how the Minister of State and his officials will rise to that occasion, but let us wait and see how they will.

Thanks to the Chairman's dexterity of action and how he has allowed it, we have had one very full meeting, a second meeting when Ms Marian Harkin, MEP, was here, and now we have this meeting. We have had plenty of time to debate it. I have raised it at every parliamentary party meeting, as the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, will tell the committee, yet we are getting nowhere. The first question I want answered is that on Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP. Was that conversation minuted? Ministers do not get loose in Europe very often without somebody at one's heels or elbow wanting to know what one is saying or doing with people. What is the answer to that?

I have here some documentation on the implementation plan. When is it proposed? Is it proposed to bring it in by way of statutory instrument, ministerial order, draft order or whatever? How and when is it proposed to bring in the 90-year ban? The Minister of State will tell me the ban is until 2012. Down the country we call that "my eye". Those from the west will know quite well what I mean. That is a total fabrication. It might be down on paper that everything will be reviewed in 2012. Nothing will be reviewed, or if it is, the review will produce a document saying nothing further can be done, as the eels are very badly off.

What role did the ESB play in this? In the letter Commissioner Borg wrote to some other MEP he said the ESB was using entrapment measures to trap and kill the eels, so I want to know what role the ESB has played in it. It is printed in a letter, so I am not making this up. It is here in this collection of documents. The role of the ESB is highly sinister in this saga. I was inclined to blame the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, but I do not because he is a very willing person who is willing to do what his senior Minister and officials say, and that is the end of that. He wants it all to go away like a bad dream. He wants to wake up some morning and there will be no more eels left in Ireland and all those troublesome people will have shut up. This is not the way for the Minister to do business. Whether he is a senior, junior or intermediate Minister, he still has a job to do to represent the people of Ireland.

Why was there no proper consultation? There was pretend consultation when finally, at the very last meeting when the report was ready, some eel fishermen representatives were invited to the Radisson Hotel in Athlone for the very last meeting when it was all done and dusted and packed up in suitcases ready to go to Europe. We are being fed the idea that Europe is so important, that everybody is consulted.

Why is there no compensation? It is easy to say they are part-time jobs. In this day and age a part-time job is often the only meal ticket a person has. It would be different if there were abundant farming or other jobs people could take up, but there are not. There is no abundance of jobs. An eel fisherman, albeit part-time, is often earning the meal ticket for the family. There is no compensation. This reminds me of how the turbary rights on bogs was conducted. It had to happen, but now the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has turned around and the turbary rights are preserved on the bogs. Suddenly it is no longer a crime to cut one's own turf on one's own bog. These people have licences and their fathers, uncles, grandfathers and, in many cases, great-grandfathers handed down the licences, one might say, to pursue eel fishing. Suddenly, at the stroke of a pen, Ireland is not brought, but leads itself, like a sacrificial lamb to Europe. We ask where is the signpost to Europe, we want to get there quickly so we can get in our plan for a 90-year ban with no compensation or consultation. One often hears the phrase "led like lambs to slaughter"; I have never heard the phrase "they led themselves like lambs to slaughter".

I come around to the very first point I made, the assertion here by Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, said to her it was too much trouble to police eel fishing, give compensation or consult, and that he wanted to shut down eel fishing and shut them up.

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power. This situation is very serious and I compliment Deputy O'Rourke who has led this campaign from the very start when people were not aware of the proposals. As the Minister knows, Deputy O'Rourke put down a motion at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting and there was general support for the proposal that this issue would be resolved and the 90-year ban would not be imposed on eel fishing in this country. If we could announce 200 jobs in Roscommon in the morning we would be very proud. To put 200 jobs in jeopardy is not the right direction.

Some 2% of the eels caught in Europe are from Ireland. I have looked at all the submissions from other countries. Most countries have submitted plans. No other country has proposed an overall ban. Why Ireland? Why are we putting this forward? This is one of the reasons the Lisbon treaty was rejected. If this persists, it will be fuel to those who oppose the Lisbon treaty. There has been much serious consideration on this and the repercussions of proceeding with this proposal. Dr. Russell Poole seems to have given much information on this. I am not sure if he is here today. He has two hats regarding advice. I am not sure about the role of the Marine Institute in Galway and what advice it is getting. I would like clarification. It seems to have great difficulty in delivering a letter to the Minister which I cannot understand as the postal service is good.

I request that this proposal be withdrawn and that further negotiations take place between the eel fishery sector and the Oireachtas. We should discuss these issues in a calm and enlightened way. Conservation is a possibility. I know the ESB is responsible for the destruction of millions of eels in Limerick and this has caused the problem. Nobody seems to be prepared to take action to prevent this. The Ardnacrusha power station is mushing them up at a tremendous rate.

Bearing in mind that a reshuffle is under way and that circumstances for everyone might change, I suggest the Minister delegates responsibility and I hope he has done so. I worked in a few Departments and in some responsibility was delegated and in others it was not. I expect the Minister of State has delegated responsibility for this matter and I hope he will make a decision and inform Brussels that because of the situation here he wants the matter fully reviewed and that he will withdraw the proposal to ban eel fishing in Ireland for 90 years.

This proposal brings the committee into conflict with the Department. It puts us in a position of lobbying against what the Department proposes. In a calm and collected manner, I propose that the Department withdraws the proposals on the table before the Commission and that meaningful and worthwhile negotiations take place between the interested parties and Members of the Oireachtas.

Chairman

I want to bring to the attention of the meeting the document prepared for this debate by Mr. John Hamilton which shows the various regulations proposed in other EU states and includes correspondence on the matter.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I ask the Chairman to thank Mr. John Hamilton on behalf of the committee.

Chairman

It is an excellent document. Mr. Hamilton's documentation includes a letter we received from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food in Slovenia on its proposals and a graph of the various fish catches made by Slovenia throughout the European Union from 1986 to 2003. This shows the dramatic reduction in the eel population, the eel catch and the weight of the eel catch.

Also included is documentation sent from Commissioner Joe Borg to Marian Harkin, MEP, relating to the regulation, documentation on various questions raised by parliamentarians on visits to Brussels and on Commissioner Borg's answers to parliamentary questions asked by Marian Harkin, MEP, Jim Higgins, MEP, Seán Ó Neachtain, MEP, Kathy Sinnott, MEP, and Colm Burke, MEP. The documentation also includes a letter on eel fishing to the Commissioner from Marian Harkin, MEP.

An interesting item is correspondence from Commissioner Borg to Marian Harkin, MEP, which thanks her for her e-mail of 21 January concerning the proposed ban on eel fishing in Irish waters. It states that the European eel stock is in a very bad state, a statement which Commissioner Borg repeats throughout his correspondence, and that this is why Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2007 was adopted which allows member states to choose from various measures to help the stock recover.

The Commissioner explains that one of the possible measures is to limit or close eel fishing and Ireland chose this measure in its national management plan on eels, in five river basin eel management plans, in one transboundary eel management plan and in the national report on eel stock recovery as a way to help eel stock recovery. The Commissioner also states that the Irish authorities recently sent these plans to the European Commission and that it should be noted that according to his information the Irish authorities undertook a public consultation in August and September 2008 and received 16 submissions from eel sector representatives recognising that eel stocks are threatened by collapse but asking for measures other than complete closure.

The Commissioner states that in his view the Irish Government is taking into account that water turbines are killing off eels——

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Yes.

Chairman

—— since a catch and transport operation is foreseen in which adult fish are caught upstream of turbines and released downstream of the turbines. The Commissioner states he understands the Government has launched a public tender to this effect for which eel licence holders may apply and, if they are awarded the tender, eventually be paid to undertake the trap and transport operation.

I am not sure about the relevance of this element of it, but from the point of view of moving on the matter the committee has a number of options. I do not want to put the Minister of State in a spot but I am sure he will want to reply to one or two of these points. The Minister of State can return to the Department and inform his colleagues that the committee has particularly trenchant views on this issue and ask the Minister for a review. Alternatively, the committee can pass a resolution if it so wishes. As members will readily recognise, the passing of a resolution is only as good as it is. These are the options I see as being available to the Minister, the Minister of State, the committee and the eel fisheries. To be fair to everybody, in the first instance the Minister of State should give a short reply.

Deputy Seán Power

I will try to deal with the questions raised. I did not hear the committee's previous discussion and with regard to the conversation which took place between Ms Mairéad McGuinness, MEP, and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, I was not present and did not hear what was said. I have no difficulty in accepting what was stated and I stated more or less the same thing when I spoke earlier. I indicated that the option of reducing rather than closing commercial fishery was considered in the plan but we decided against it for several reasons. I mentioned that the required traceability scheme would be uneconomical and the monitoring and enforcement effort would be disproportionate to the value of the activity.

We estimate the value the eel fisheries to be between €500,000 and €750,000 per annum. The number of licences was capped at 259 and approximately 150 people operated them. This activity is confined to a few months of the year. It is not a full-time occupation. The Minister and I have discussed this matter and there is no difference of opinion in what we pursued. We will have to police a closed fishery to avoid any illegal activity. Money must be a consideration in everything we do and this is not a great secret.

Deputy Costello mentioned that we have approximately 2% of the European catch but it is no less important for this. The regulation applies to all member states. To be successful in achieving the targets requested by Europe every country will have to play its part and submit its plan, whether it has 2% or 20% of the catch. All of the plans must comply with the regulation. Other countries may decide to take different options. The regulation has flexibility and it is up to each country to submit its own proposals in this regard.

Lough Neagh is a special case as it has had a restocking policy for several years which has worked extremely well. Because of this, it is in a different position. This plan has not been proved and it will depend on the continued availability of glass eels. For a number of years these have been taken from the Severn and used to restock. There were four actions aimed at reducing eel mortality and increasing the silver eel escapement into the Irish waters which we felt were important, and they were recommended in the plan. The first of these was the cessation of the commercial eel fishery. The second was the mitigation of the impact of hydropower. We are very conscious of that and we have been working with the ESB in developing a scheme. Trap and transport has been operating in Killaloe for eight years. There will be possibilities.

We did not decide on this plan to insult or offend people or recreate difficulties in their lives. We appreciate that our proposed plan will create difficulties and certain hardship for anyone who has been working as an eel fisherman. The main reason we acted as we did was to ensure that the eel population survives. All the scientific evidence we have would indicate it has reached a critical stage and there is no guarantee, regardless of what plans we put in place, that we will rescue the situation, but we are making the best possible attempt to do so.

A number of people have referred to this 90 year ban. We did not state at any stage that we were introducing a 90 year ban. In trying to be helpful, we indicated, given all the scientific information available to us, that if we were to introduce the ban and everything was to fall in line with our expectations, we would expect the target for recovery of stock would happen in 90 years' time. However, built into the plan is an undertaking for a number of surveys and sampling right around the country and the regulation will require a review every three years for consideration, not by the Government but by the Commission. We merely make the following point about 90 years. If one was to impose a reduction rather than a closure of the fishery, naturally, it would take a great deal longer.

On the compensation, we would acknowledge that it is a part-time seasonal activity. It certainly will create some difficulties for the fishermen who have been involved in that activity for a number of years, but I simply do not have money at my disposal to provide for a compensation package. As I stated, we were looking at other opportunities that might be available in trap and transport.

There was widespread consultation on what we were doing here. Apart from involving the fishermen and their representatives in the process, there was a public consultation exercise. As a result, a number of eel fishermen made their own submissions and representatives on behalf of eel fishermen made submissions as well. To think that people were purposely kept in the dark is simply not correct and there was no intention to do so.

We have submitted the plan, as requested. The plan was supposed to be sent to the European Union by 31 December last. We did that, not on 31 December but in early January. The matter was considered at Cabinet level before being submitted. It is intended that the plans from all countries will be evaluated in Brussels and that the new plans will take effect from 1 July this year.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

According to communications coming to the committee from the inland fisheries division of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, 90 years is the stated time.

Deputy Seán Power

Will Deputy O'Rourke read what it states?

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Nine-nought in any language.

Deputy Seán Power

What is Deputy O'Rourke reading? Does she wish to read it?

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

It states that the successful adoption of all of those measures will lead, according to the model, to a recovery of stocks and achievement of the escapement target specified in the regulation in 90 years.

Deputy Seán Power

That is exactly what I said.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Ninety years.

Chairman

The point being made by Deputy O'Rourke is that 90 years seems an abnormal reaction to save the eel population. The committee agrees the eel population requires to be conserved. The Deputy is saying, as the Minister of State would agree, that it seems an extraordinary sacrifice to make. When we fish 2% of the catch, it seems 100% of the penalty is imposed. If a ban had been imposed on all eel fisheries right across Europe, the committee would probably accept that because it would indicate that everybody was being treated equally. That did not happen.

I do not want to harp on about the matter but it has come up before the committee on several occasions. We have received presentations from the interest groups. We had all of the main players — the fisheries interests and the Department — before the committee.

It seems to the committee that there is an extraordinary action on the part of the Government to kill off the industry for almost 100 years. At the end of that 100 year period, for all we know there will be no eel fisheries anywhere in Europe. According to the scientific evidence, if studied closely and carefully, the impact on Ireland will be considerable and the degree to which Ireland's conservation measures will affect the totality of the situation is minimal.

Deputy Joe Costello

We agree with the Minister of State in virtually everything he states, except his solution. We consider his solution is over-kill, if that is the correct term to use. Ireland has 2% of the eel catch but is given 98% of the solution. We propose that the other 98% plus ourselves impose a ban through the operation of an eel management plan.

I am sure other countries that are not putting forward a similar proposal will hardly thank the Minister of State for deciding that the 98% should go down the same road. Is the Minister of State just speaking about a ban for Ireland? My understanding is that this ban, if it is accepted by the Commission and introduced in terms of the eel management plan, will be a Europe-wide ban. Is the Minister of State saying that it only applies to Europe?

It seems that the Netherlands, in its response, has come up with a rational approach whereby its fishermen release 157,000 tonnes of silver eel caught in inland waters into the sea annually, of which at least 50,000 tonnes are clean female silver eel caught in selected unpolluted inland rivers, and it has an integrated approach to its obligations as commercial fishermen. If we are dealing with only 2% of the eel, I would have thought that we would come together with an integrated approach of trap, transport and release in the same fashion. Consider what has been done on Lough Neagh. They are already moving down that road.

Is it because we have been so negligent in the past that we are in such a dire situation? No doubt what the Minister of State proposes is so drastic that no rational person can comprehend it in the manner in which he presents it.

Deputy Seán Power

We had to put forward our plan as every other country did. I would consider myself to be negligent if I took any action other than what I have done. It is purely on conservation grounds and with the scientific evidence available to us, and it cannot be ignored. It would be lovely if we could let the practice continue and assume in 20 or 30 years time there would be plenty of eel to be fished again.

I was only trying to be helpful to the committee in telling it about the 90 years. The scientific advice at European level was that if we were to bring in a blanket ban of eel fishing in Europe, it would take 80 years before the stock would recover.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Eight countries have not submitted plans.

Deputy Joe Costello

Many of those countries do not have eel.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Belgium has eel.

Deputy Seán Power

The overall eel stock has been in free fall. It has been in decline since the early 1980s. Deputy Costello mentioned restocking and if that was the policy we were to pursue now, we might not enjoy the real benefits of it for approximately 20 years. Restocking might be part of the review, and we will have plenty of data available in three years time. If it is decided then that the eel population had increased substantially, and that is highly unlikely because it will not happen overnight or in a short period of time——

Deputy Joe Costello

Is the Minister of State saying the Netherlands plan is not viable? It talks about restocking.

Deputy Seán Power

I am not saying that. I have not seen the plans from other countries but none of them has got the all clear yet. They have to be evaluated before an overall plan is put in place.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Eight countries have not submitted plans according to Mr. Hamilton who got the information for us.

Deputy Seán Power

As a minimum requirement, even if no plan were to be submitted, the Commission would have insisted on a 50% reduction in the catch in the first instance.

Chairman

Will that address the conservation issue? How long will it take?

Deputy Seán Power

On its own that will not be sufficient but as an instant measure the Commission will insist on that. We must submit a plan.

Chairman

I accept what the Minister of State is saying. Let us assume that Ireland bans eel fishing forever. To what extent will that affect the stocks all over Europe, if at all? There is scientific evidence to suggest that there may be other factors such as the electricity turbines and perhaps industrial issues throughout Europe. The members do not want to see a repetition of excessive punitive treatment of the Irish fishing interests when there will be stocks of eels all over Europe such that if anybody goes to a restaurant in Europe they will find plenty of eel. The committee is asking that particular attention is paid to local needs. This is a small group of people. It is neither wealthy nor influential but is part of a tradition. Eel fishing is traditional in several places in Europe.

The committee wants to emphasise the point that the fishermen do not seem to have a problem about conservation measures but they have a problem with being the only victims of these measures. That is where the problem seems to be. Several options are available to the committee. We could ask for the proposal to be postponed.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

What is the instrument the Minister of State will use to give legal effect to this measure?

Deputy Seán Power

Fisheries by-laws.

Chairman

The Minister of State will make the by-laws.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Are they under existing fisheries Acts?

Deputy Seán Power

Yes.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

When does the Minister of State propose to make those legal instruments?

Deputy Seán Power

In advance——

Deputy Joe Costello

How does he propose to get Fianna Fáil on his side to make them?

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

He will not do it.

Deputy Seán Power

In advance of the season's commencing.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Are we to wake up some morning and hear the nice man on the radio who does the fishing reports from Cork, Tom McSweeney, telling us that the Minister has now signed the legal instruments? When does the Minister of State propose giving legal effect to the instrument? I really want an answer to that question.

Deputy Seán Power

I will give an answer. It will be done by the end of next month.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

It will be done by the end of May.

Deputy Joe Costello

Is this a statutory instrument? Therefore we have 21 days——

Deputy Seán Power

It is a by-law.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

It is a by-law under an existing Act that was passed a long time ago. I understood that the Minister of State was waiting until the end of June or July. I forget which month.

Deputy Seán Power

The first day of July.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Will the Minister of State move ahead of that date?

Deputy Seán Power

Last year, in view of the scientific advice I received we had to take action when we capped the number of licences. The season has been curtailed. The Chairman referred to our bringing in a ban. We suggest introducing a ban but that has to be evaluated at EU level and will be reviewed every three years until 2018 and every six years after that.

Chairman

We are aware of that but we worry about the review of bans.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Exactly.

Chairman

I do not think the committee accepts that there will be any change in policy. Once it is introduced it will become a fait accompli.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

That is only a mar-dhea.

Senator Terry Leyden

The Belgians said in their submission that there is no efficiency in exclusively regional competence. This would be shot down under the Lisbon reform treaty because we could sign with five or six other countries to have this written out.

I was also on the Council of Ministers for international trade and regularly got derogation. I suggest respectfully that the Minister of State at least have a review of this issue and return to it in 12 months. I am sure that if he explains to his colleagues in Europe that this will have a detrimental effect on the Lisbon reform treaty referendum they would be more than anxious to accommodate him.

Is this a Green Party agenda? I do not recall its being agreed at a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting. In addition to being Minister of State Deputy Power is also a competent and loyal member of the Party. Let us call a spade a spade. I would like to know if that is the case.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I am concerned that no date has been set. The EU date was either 30 June or 1 July.

Chairman

It is 1 July.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Are we to take it that legal effect will be given to these closures before 1 July, before the date set by the EU? I need to know because if so, it is a gross violation of what has been set down.

Chairman

I am going to bring this discussion to a close.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Can we get an answer?

Chairman

We are going to examine the options. We do not want to hector the Minister of State. Our intention is to bring to the attention of the authorities whether here or in Brussels, or elsewhere, the concerns of the members of the committee as expressed to them by the fishing interests in their various constituencies. This may be a small body but size matters in many situations and in this one the miniature size should be taken into account because these people have a right to be heard and have made their case. It is important in the context of the European debate in the past 12 months because as Senator Leyden said if the treaty had been approved we would not have to have this discussion, we could bypass it and freeze the process in its path.

Can the Minister of State indicate whether he could defer his proposal to take effect at the end of May until the Minister or some other body is prepared to decide on other less severe conservation measures.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

If the measure is brought in by the end of May it will transgress the EU directive which named 1 July as the date. I do not understand that point and we have not received an answer on it yet.

Chairman

We will ask the Minister of State to wrap up now.

Deputy Seán Power

The member states shall implement the eel management plans approved by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1 from 1 July this year, or from the earliest possible time before that date.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Will we be earlier than anyone else?

Deputy Seán Power

We have different opinions——

Deputy Joe Costello

What is in the plan?

Deputy Seán Power

I have tried to be as clear as I can with the committee.

Deputy Joe Costello

Is the Minister of State telling us that the Commission's plan will be the Irish plan?

Deputy Seán Power

I did not say that.

Deputy Joe Costello

Will we implement our own plan or the Commission's plan?

Deputy Seán Power

Our own plan but the Commission has to approve it.

Deputy Joe Costello

Our plan is for a total ban and the other main fishery countries do not plan a ban at all.

Deputy Seán Power

Every plan is in place simply to meet the regulations as set down. We have presented our plan as the best way forward to do that. It will be reviewed every three years.

Deputy Joe Costello

It does not make sense. It is a different plan.

Deputy Sean Power

If we were to do nothing there is a possibility the species will be extinct shortly. We are trying to ensure the opportunity people had to fish eels for generations will be afforded to future generations. It is that simple.

Chairman

The only problem is that the proposed total ban in Ireland will protect 2% of the catch.

Deputy Seán Power

It is a shared stock, it is not like salmon. We must play our part as all other countries are asked to.

Deputy Joe Costello

The other countries that have no ban will fish the stock we are protecting. What sense does that make? None.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

The others are not putting forward any plan.

Senator Terry Leyden

Is this a Green agenda or a Fianna Fáil agenda?

Chairman

That is not a fair question.

Deputy Seán Power

I have worked with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for the past year, so there is no difference of opinion between us on this matter. It was approved by the Government

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Will this be signed into law on 31 May? Can I have an answer to that question?

Chairman

The committee can draft a motion now calling for the various bodies to defer further action until a more comprehensive response can be provided. That might take a month or it might take six months but from the debate the Minister of State will agree that there is no agreement on the methodology proposed.

We appreciate that the Minister of State appeared before the committee and thank him. We also appreciate that the Minister was invited and sent his apologies. That is fine. It would be unfair for the Minister for State to be pilloried. In the final analysis, however, the committee does not accept the proposed measures or their extent based on the information we have available and having regard to the correspondence received from Commissioner Joe Borg by way of answer to questions in the European Parliament, the committee is not happy with the proposal and asks that it be deferred until a more comprehensive response can be achieved. We talk about reciprocity and subsidiarity, so let us put it to the test. We will draft the motion and e-mail it to each committee member.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.35 p.m. and adjourned at 4.05 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 April 2009.