As a consequence of the delay arising from the robust nature of the debate during the Order of Business, particularly in respect of recent events at Monaghan General Hospital, there may be insufficient time to accommodate all Members who wish to speak on this matter. I will observe the debate and, if necessary, allow it to be resumed at another time rather than conclude today.
Salmon Fisheries Report: Statements.
I appreciate the opportunity to outline to the House the Government's policy on the national wild salmon resource and to comment on the findings of the report on salmon drift netting, draft netting and angling published by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on Tuesday, 11 October. This is an important forum which allows us to have a fully informed debate on all the facts surrounding the wild salmon fishery and reflecting all perspectives, whether commercial, angling tourism and so on. It is appropriate that the debate should take place at this time.
I welcome the publication of the report and take this opportunity to again thank the joint committee, including Deputy O'Flynn and all the members, for its decision to conduct a review which has illuminated the various and wide-ranging issues surrounding the management of our important natural wild salmon resource. As part of this review, the committee held public hearings in April of this year. When addressing those hearings, I made the point that the management of this natural resource is rarely a simple and straightforward matter. I reiterated the Government's long-held view that our wild salmon stock is a national asset which must be conserved and protected, as well as being exploited as a resource on a shared and sustainable basis. I am pleased to note that the joint committee acknowledges the complexity of this issue and makes "... the unequivocal observation that its report must not be seen in terms of winners or losers and that the debate and focus of effort must be on the survival of the salmon species".
The inland fisheries sector, within which the salmon resource is managed, is characterised by a regionalised management structure with strong involvement by local interests in decision-making, complex issues of ownership, reliance on State funding and tensions between different stakeholders. Within the sector, however, there is general agreement that over-exploitation of salmon stocks poses a significant threat to the long-term sustainability of this valuable resource. Salmon habitats and stocks are under threat from a variety of adverse, environmental and water quality pressures. It is against this backdrop that the development and advancement of effective strategies to protect habitats and stocks, which attract a broad degree of consensus among stakeholders, is therefore essential.
It is the Government's strong view that our wild salmon resource is a national asset that belongs equally to all sections of our community. In striving to conserve, protect and exploit this resource, a delicate exercise is necessary to balance the needs of coastal and rural communities which depend on fishing and recreational users, including tourists. With this in mind, the Government has accepted scientific advice that reductions in the overall fishing effort are required in order to sustain and rebuild salmon stocks nationwide. For this reason, current Government policy has been designed to bring spawning escapement up to the level of these scientifically advised conservation limits.
Since 1996, the Government has introduced a range of measures to reduce fishing efforts and improve the management, protection and conservation of salmon fisheries. It is important to note these measures because a perception seems to exist that the Government has not taken any action over the past years. As part of these measures, the central and regional fisheries boards operate the wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme, which has reduced the total allowable commercial catch of salmon from 219,619 in 2001 to a proposed total allowable catch of 139,900 for the 2005 season. This represents a reduction of greater than 36% over a four-year period. I recognise, however, that we will not be confident that a sustainable management regime is in place until catches are fully aligned with scientific advice.
In this regard, the joint committee's report makes a number of key recommendations, including a move to single stock management of the salmon fishery over a three-year period within which a voluntary compensatory scheme for commercial salmon fishermen would apply. The committee recommends that such a scheme should be funded by the State, the European Union, identified beneficiaries such as tourism and angling interests and conservation groups. Some conservation groups are prepared to make significant contributions.
With regard to the recommendation for a move to single stock management, the committee recognises this would effectively mean a cessation of drift net fishing for salmon. However, the committee also recognises that a move to single stock management will take time, cannot be achieved without further scientific input and that a realistic plan needs to be devised to enable such a move. This is an important point as such a move will also require further infrastructural investment and planning. The impact of such a move will have to be fully examined and understood before it is introduced. We should not make knee-jerk reactions but must investigate the background to the matter.
Senators will be aware that I have already given a firm commitment to aligning the exploitation of salmon with scientific advice by 2007 and that I have asked the National Salmon Commission to advise me how best to achieve this target. While I remain to be convinced that a move to single stock management will necessarily mean an end to drift net fishing in all districts, I expect the commission to examine the issue of single stock management and to advise me in this regard.
In terms of compensation issues, I welcome the committee's acknowledgement that any compensatory schemes should largely be funded by those who would be the main economic beneficiaries if more salmon returned to rivers. Should the State or others pay for the transfer of resources between sectors? I welcome the joint committee's comment that "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". This recommendation is consistent with my openness, since becoming Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, to any relevant proposals whereby stakeholders benefiting from reductions in commercial catches would engage in the first instance with licence holders and indicate a willingness to address any compensation issues that might arise.
As Senators will be aware, the National Salmon Commission is a statutory body established to assist and advise me on the conservation, management, protection and development of wild salmon and sea trout resources in Ireland. The commission, which includes representatives of the commercial salmon fishing and angling sectors and other relevant stakeholders, serves as the primary forum for the consideration of salmon conservation. I attach significant importance to the role of the commission in the management of this important natural resource.
The previous salmon commission played a significant role in advising my predecessors and me on the introduction of a number of important initiatives which resulted in considerable advancements being made in terms of policies for the management of commercial salmon fisheries and recreational angling. During the past three years, we have put in place a regime of increasingly constrained quotas and fishing efforts, a mechanism to manage this on a collective basis and, most importantly, a consensus on alignment with scientific advice. These are not insignificant achievements.
Before the salmon commission was appointed, fish were largely caught at night in traditional nets, a method which put lives at risk. Of necessity, the fishing week was far longer. The introduction of monofilament nets was a significant improvement because small boats could then go more safely to sea during daylight hours. The fishing period has been reduced to four days per week over an eight-week season. While the season depends on weather, an extra day, known as a safety day, may be permitted in extenuating circumstances.
When we set the commercial salmon quotas for the 2005 season, I accepted the outgoing commission's recommendation and gave a commitment to align the exploitation of salmon at national and district level with scientific advice by 2007. The next two years will therefore be important to the management of wild fisheries. When I accepted the commissions figure of 139,900 fish earlier this year, a three-year strategy was already in place to achieve these levels. All stakeholders were involved with the National Salmon Commission. The advice presented to me, which took into consideration socio-economic factors and rural development, was no different to that given in the past. However, I have been vilified in terms of this issue for some reason. It would take a month to read every e-mail I received from Ireland and abroad on the matter.
I wish the House to know that the advice presented to me was a result of a three-year strategy. Partnership, which is the foundation stone of this country, was the basis for the arrangement by which stakeholders gave me their advice. Scientific advice was received and the methodology changed at the last minute. I am pleased, therefore, to have this opportunity to outline to Senators the facts of the case because, as all politicians are aware, perception can be quite dangerous.
The National Salmon Commission has a vital role to play in advising me on how best this alignment can be implemented and in bringing together the relevant stakeholders to ensure agreement on the measures to be adopted to aid the recovery of stocks. To assist in this task, I have provided specific terms of reference to the commission which require it to consider what conservation management mechanisms might be required to achieve the alignment by March 2007 and, in doing so, to propose how an objective balance among competing interests in the salmon fishery may be obtained within the framework of conservation and management mechanisms as necessary. The terms of reference require the commission to engage as appropriate in a proactive dialogue with all relevant stakeholders and to evaluate any proposals they may have taking account of the conservation, management, protection, enhancement and development of the national salmon resource.
The commission must ensure that any recommendations that may be made in regard to any compensatory measure must be predicated on the basis that the State will not contribute to any funding that may be required for any measures that may be recommended, unless a public good is identified that is justified and, more importantly, quantified.
In addition to the Oireachtas joint committee report on salmon, I received a number of reports and papers in recent months relating to the wild salmon resource, which I welcome and which are relevant to the deliberations and work of the new commission under the terms of reference now in place. It was suggested to me in the other House that a national salmon commission be established comprising all the stakeholders but that I am the person who must make a decision on this matter. I have no difficulty in doing that when I get recommendations. It would be an insult to all those representing the various stakeholders if I were to make a decision without recourse to their recommendations or without giving them an opportunity to study all relevant policy documents and papers, not least the report from the Oireachtas joint committee, presented to them.
I refer to the publication, Our Marine Salmon Fishery — Sustainable Vision for the Future, released by the south-western commercial salmon fishermen's organisations and to separate proposals outlining a scheme for the retirement of the holders of drift net licences which I received in late July from the Stop Drift Nets Now campaign. I also refer to the recently published paper by Senator Dardis entitled Saving Ireland's Salmon Resource: A New Policy Approach.
I have asked the commission to ensure that all these documents are fully considered over the coming months. As an immediate first step, I have already asked the salmon commission, which held its first meeting on Tuesday of last week, to ensure that the committee's report receives priority in its consideration of how best the wild salmon resource may be managed, conserved and exploited on a shared and sustainable basis into the future having regard to Government policy.
Since taking up my ministerial appointment a little more than a year ago, I have reaffirmed not my policy but the Government's policy and belief that the current strategy of developing a sustainable commercial and recreational salmon fishery through aligning catches on the scientific advice holds out the strong prospect of a recovery of stocks and of a long-term sustainable fishery for both sectors. I am committed to the conservation of the wild salmon stock in order that in future the resource can provide the maximum contribution to the regional and national economy. In this regard, I will consider the health of the salmon resource and the socio-economic impact on the coastal and inland communities who depend on the resource for their livelihoods. Given the region from which I come and having represented the whole of the west coast for a number of years, I am well aware of the fact that no individual, crew or family can depend entirely on the income from this resource. Such income supplements the annual income of individuals, whether they be small farmers or those in receipt of social welfare benefits; it helps to put bread on the table and educate family members.
I will continue to be guided by the fundamental principle adopted, and adhered to, by my predecessors during the last three years, which is that the exploitation of salmon, by all fishing methods, should be progressively aligned on scientific advice. I have already stated that the Government remains fully committed to this principle as the only sustainable and defensible way forward for salmon management in Ireland.
I am sure that the Senators present also appreciate that drift netting or commercial fishing is not the only issue in this context. Many other factors, notably, pollution, poaching, global warming and interception at sea, to name but a few, affect our natural salmon resource. Seals are another factor that affect this resource, to which it is not popular to allude. No one can quantify the damage to this resource by seals. Notwithstanding that, I condemn outright the actions of some people in the south west last year in regard to seals. All these factors affect this resource. We cannot examine this issue in isolation. There are no simple, straightforward answers and an integrated approach to dealing with it must be taken.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to outline to the House the Government's thinking, view and policy on this matter. I want to find a balance to our approach. I fully appreciate the importance of the salmon resource to the commercial sector, angling, tourism and, more particularly, to our anglers. For every 100 salmon landed by rod, 95 of those are landed by our anglers. I was amazed by that statistic. It is important we know that. It is also important that I take note of the importance of angling and its tourism implications.
I wish to share my time with Senator McHugh.
That is agreed.
I wish to first acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the committee, Deputy O'Flynn, the members of the sub-committee and of the committee in producing this report. It was a comprehensive exercise. In order to establish the findings, they examined 45 submissions and met many interested parties. It is not the first report to be produced on the salmon resource.
I am concerned that the issue might be siphoned off to be dealt with by the salmon commission. References to 2007 and scientific advice permeated the Minister of State's contribution. I take it from those references that it will be 2007 before any conclusions will be reached on this issue.
The debate on this matter has raged for too long. The Minister of State praised himself on the achievement of a 34% reduction from 2001 until recent times in the total allowable salmon catch. However, he must recognise that during that period there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of salmon coming into our waters. If he ignored that phenomenon, we would be at the loss of a large number of salmon. Therefore, he had to agree to a reduction in the total allowable catch over a period. He should not praise himself unduly in that regard.
The blockade of Rosslare Harbour by scallop fishermen received much television coverage during the summer. As a result of the blockade a €45 million package was put in place over a period of four weeks to decommission the fleet in question. The package worked out at approximately €640,000 for each of the vessels decommissioned.
The cost of a buyout of drift net licence holders seems to feature in the debate on this issue. It was suggested it could cost €25 million, equating the cost to that incurred in another country, while the Minister of State said it could cost up to €75 million in certain circumstances. However, anglers and others interested in this area are saying that if it is possible to find €45 million to decommission the vessels under the package to which I referred, why it is not possible to quantify at this stage what it would cost to implement the type of recommendations and findings embodied in this report? The report drew two main conclusions that related to a set-aside over a period of time and a voluntary buyout. My father was a net fisherman for many years so I am familiar with the Shannon estuary. Approximately 86 licensed net fishermen operate in the Shannon estuary, most of whom would agree to a buyout and exit drift net fishing. This is because they have seen their income decline over a period of time, year after year, because of the number of salmon being caught. This situation is replicated in many areas around the country. If there is a willingness and enthusiasm to undertake a buyout, it will happen.
The former Minister, Senator Brendan Daly, will remember the past controversy regarding the rod men. The Minister of State is likely to be confronted with a protest by anglers in Killarney next weekend. Anglers have a certain amount of ammunition on the basis of this report and want action. If there is a cohort of drift net fishermen who are prepared to accept the buyout, the Minister of State will be forced to do something about it. It is not necessary to wait until 2007, the year for which the next general election has been promised, or afterwards to take action. Action can be taken long before then.
A recent article in Innsight, the magazine of the Irish Hotels Federation, carried the heading “Is salmon drift netting harming tourism?”. The article pointed out that salmon fishing is worth €55 million to the economy and that there was a decline in the number of anglers visiting Ireland from 54,000 in 1999 to 27,000 in 2004. A recent article in Trout and Salmon, which is circulated widely in the UK and considered the bible for many people involved in trout and salmon game fishing, described us as international outlaws because of our attitude to salmon. This is a regrettable statement to be made in any publication but the people reading it will be influenced by it and will not be encouraged to visit Ireland. The average number of bed nights spent by an angler coming over from the UK to fish for salmon is over 14 days. The west of Ireland and many other areas which became dependent on this type of angling over the years have seen a decline in their business and are extremely frustrated. Many segments of society are affected by this issue.
People involved in drift net fishing must receive appropriate compensation if they are to exit the business. However, if the Minister of State sets the tone with a compensation package, which was previously achieved over a short period of time to decommission a fleet of vessels, it can be achieved. I wish good luck to the scallop fishermen who received a compensation package.
It was not just for scallop fishermen.
I accept that the package catered for other fishermen as well. The former Minister, Deputy Woods, was hailed as a hero in Donegal a few years ago because of his achievement in getting additional funding to add more vessels to the fishing fleet.
They were modern vessels.
After a few years, the situation changed again. Fishermen were encouraged at that time to fish for deep sea fish. They began fishing for deep sea fish but quotas were introduced at EU level so a contradictory state of affairs exists.
People are waiting for decisions on the salmon issue. I am disappointed that the Shannon Estuary's spokesman was not appointed to the National Salmon Commission, which had its first meeting recently. The estuary, which was represented in the past, was disappointed that its chosen candidate was not appointed to the commission and that the estuary was not recognised. Perhaps the Minister of State received many applications for very few positions. If the commission, under the leadership of Joey Murrin — a respected figure in marine circles — wishes to take action on this issue, it cannot put the matter on the long finger. It must come up with policy decisions in the near future. I will conclude because my time is up but I feel strongly that we need action and that the Minister of State should not procrastinate on this issue.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to the House. I have a few questions about the National Salmon Commission, which has been discussed at length in Oireachtas committees. In respect of the representative group body on the commission, I know the Minister of State intends to appoint a nominee from Fáilte Ireland at some stage. Point 4 of the terms of reference of the commission states, "to engage, as appropriate, in a proactive dialogue with representatives of bodies and organisations prescribed for the purposes of Section 55A(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act 1980”. I hope there will be intensive dialogue between the commission and the local authority in terms of, as the Minister of State just mentioned, pollution.
The Minister of State is aware that many anglers in Donegal fail to mention that rivers are being polluted at an alarming rate when they highlight drift and draft net fishing. This pollution is not the fault of farmers; they keep slurry back from the rivers. The problem arises from the discharge of domestic and industrial sewage into rivers and streams. If we are to have any discussion on salmon stocks in river beds, we must positively engage with local authorities. For example, the local anglers in the village of Glen in Donegal are irate because raw sewage is entering the river. We can have a lengthy philosophical debate about drift and draft net fishing but when raw sewage is entering a river, it is a major problem and can lead to an epidemic of disease among fish.
The Minister of State spoke about the four interest groups in this debate. There are many interest groups — tourism, angling, commercial fishermen and the community. There is a traditional community focus and tradition of drift net fishing in the west and along the coast of Donegal. It was a way of life and has contributed considerably to the economy and wealth of the area. The fact that it was a tradition and way of life must be placed on the record. It is a four-way debate between tourism interests, anglers, commercial fishermen and the local community that must be brought together and concluded sooner than later.
The year 2007 has been designated as the year when a decision will be arrived at regarding the National Salmon Commission's outcomes, conclusions and recommendations. This year is too far away because there is sufficient scientific evidence and empirical data to show us the correct route to take on this issue. There has been a long and extensive debate and 2007 may be too far away.
I congratulate the chairman of the National Salmon Commission, Joey Murrin, who is from Killybegs, on his appointment. He has a great wealth of experience and expertise and is a very good appointment. Hopefully, he will head up a team which will move quickly on this issue. I sat on the Donegal County Council committee on fisheries. To return to a point referred to by the Minister of State, the issue of seals was raised at every meeting I attended for five years. It is a major issue for salmon stocks and it is very important that attention is paid to the effect of the seal population on salmon stocks.
The figures regarding the fishing effort are available and show that there has been a decline of 36% from 220,000 in 2001 to 140,000 in 2005. It proves that there is a serious problem. Fine Gael believes that people in the drift and draft net fishing sector who are interested in voluntary buyout should be facilitated and negotiated with sooner than later. It is a major philosophical and holistic question and must be addressed sooner rather than later. I hope we will not employ a consultancy company to draw up the conclusions and recommendations of the report. I am not saying this simply because it is a trendy topic of conversation in the past few weeks. I hope a consultancy company will not be employed to draw up the conclusions and recommendations of the report. There is enough expertise within the Department to produce a report on the conclusions and recommendations of the salmon commission. There is no need to employ a Deloitte & Touche or any other consultancy company unless, perhaps, the Minister of State can recommend one in Donegal that has expertise in the area.
The Senator is a national figure.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to the House. He has been in the House frequently in recent times and is always welcome.
Since becoming the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on communications, marine and natural resources I have been anxious to do something about the vexed question of salmon fishing. I was delighted when the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy O'Flynn, and the committee decided to pursue this subject through the formation of a sub-committee which would fully explore everything involved in this industry. I was glad to serve on that committee and, being the only Member of the Seanad who was on the committee, I would like to think I had a major input into the formulation of the report published last week which is intended to be a blueprint for salmon conservation in the foreseeable future.
Since 1989, when I first became a Member of the Oireachtas, this has been a problematic area. Year in and year out I have continued to face complaints whether because of the perceived zealousness of fisheries officers, the curtailment of the season, arguments on the use or non-use of monofilament nets, the introduction of a tagging regime, conservation matters, set-aside, quotas and so on. There have been myriad problems over the years and nobody was happy with what was going on, whether commercial fishermen of whatever type, anglers or those involved in the tourism industry.
This report is an honest attempt to bring about change and I think it strikes the correct balance across the various interest groups. Human nature being what it is, no one will be totally happy with the proposals we have made but I am confident also that no one will be totally unhappy. Politics, we are continually told, is the art of the possible. I consider we have reflected the realistic position of the fishing industry in these proposals and that they are the best possible combination taking the many different interests into account.
The committee received 48 submissions and 45 organisations or individuals made presentations to the committee. We are often criticised not only in this House, but in the other House, for the length of time we are in plenary session and the lack of Members in the House at any given time. The point is often made in explanation that Deputies and Senators are elsewhere in the committee rooms and this report, which is the result of lengthy debate, consultation and evaluation, is evidence of the huge number of hours we work largely out of sight of the public or the cameras. This is happening across a wide range of committees and delivers positive and practical results for the hours invested, which are often unpublished, unseen and unnoticed. Our work in tackling the salmon problem and the production of this report was necessary as we are faced with the result of declining salmon stocks in recent years, which has largely been blamed on drift netting. Much of the criticism was unfair and there were other factors at play which contributed significantly to the position in which we now find ourselves. One of these is predation, mainly by seals and cormorants. We recommend that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government investigate the whole issue surrounding seals, as this matter is outside the remit of the committee and that of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources generally.
Pollution is another factor in the diminishing stocks which we took into account, as is global warming. Another possible cause may be disease. Recently we have heard of diseased fish appearing in the River Blackwater. We do not know as yet how widespread is this disease or if it has affected fish in other rivers. It is, therefore, simplistic to say that drift netting is the sole or even the main cause of the drop in salmon stocks. I wish to quote from some of the contributions made to the committee, the first being from Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation who said:
Let me point out that this activity occurs for 6.2% of annual time. This means that for 93.8% of the year there is no man-made impediment at sea to fish arriving in rivers. The supposed damage being done by commercial fisheries suggests that the vast majority of fish are arriving in precisely the two calendar months when the State allows fishermen to operate during the day four days per week in order to commit voluntary suicide.
Furthermore, Mr. Michael Connors, East and South-East Netmens Association told the sub-committee that:
For the last 40 years I was free to fish from 1 February to 15 August, five days per week, 24 hours per day. Now, the season is restricted to June and July, four days per week, from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. ... The angling representatives, in particular, as well as those who spoke against commercial fishermen should explain what happens to spring salmon. We do not fish in that season anymore as we begin fishing on 1 June. However, despite the absence of fishing in February, March, April and May, stocks are still down, which is not the fault of commercial fishermen...
Not enough scientific information is available at present. I am not trying to get at anglers or anyone else in respect of the comments I make. We simply need more information if we are to manage the fishery properly. I shall touch on that issue again later.
In regard to the recommendations of the report, particularly where it is stated there should be a voluntary buyout or set-aside for a three year period. It is the belief of many members of the committee, from the conversations they have had with fishermen in their own areas, that there is a substantial number of licence holders who would avail of a voluntary cessation. In his contribution Senator Finucane referred to that issue in regard to his area.
To further underpin this matter, I undertook my own survey of the 171 licences that exist in the Waterford estuary. I got replies from 132 of those which represents a 77% return, an extraordinarily high response to any survey that shows how great is the interest in this issue from those affected by it. It is hardly surprising considering their livelihood is at stake, in an area of endeavour that goes back generations in many cases. Of those who replied, 90 returns, or almost 70%, indicated they would avail of any voluntary cessation and only 13, representing 10%, wished the status quo to remain.
In the questions I posed to them, I did not put forward any figure in regard to what money might be available. I firmly believe that if hard cash was on the table, representing a fair, realistic and equitable offer, even more of the fishermen would be encouraged to take up this option. The committee deliberately decided not to put a figure on what the level of payout should be as that would only serve to tie the hands of the Government in the future. If it acts on our recommendations, it will have to go on to negotiate with a number of different bodies before arriving at a final figure.
In its report the committee has also recommended that the Government explore the possibility of a system of financial assistance from the EU, together with contributions from anglers and tourism interests, who will be the main beneficiaries from any moratorium on netting. Assistance from the North Atlantic Salmon Fund might also be sought. The anglers, in particular, have given every indication on many occasions that they are prepared to play their part in the process and to help fund any scheme of compensation. I have met also with members of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund and they are also willing and anxious to participate, as they have done in the case of other European countries.
We further recommend a move to single stock management but there is a lack of scientific evidence to fully enable this to happen. One interesting, though disturbing, item of information which emerged in our research is that there are only 15 fish counters on our rivers. This is grossly inadequate and will have to be substantially increased if we are to form any overall picture and gather realistic information on the number of salmon entering our rivers. We recommend this be done as a matter of urgency. We also recommend a review of salmon fishing activity in three years time and it is essential for this information to be available for that review. In the interim, we expect a number of fishermen to leave the industry, which will lead to reduced fishing activity and consequently a reduced quota in each district as the number of participants declines.
In commending this report to the House, I trust that it will be useful, not only to the Minister of State, as he attempts to solve a long-standing problem in the industry, but also as part of the Irish contribution to the solution of a genuine and serious ecological problem of worldwide proportions. I trust our research and recommendations will help to provide an equitable and fair option for those in the fishing industry, who may not see a future there and who may wish to leave in favour of another career with better prospects. The report contains valuable information which will make a positive contribution to the debate on what has been a traditional source of income for seafarers since time immemorial.
I hope the forthright manner in which we as a nation are facing a genuine crisis in an important aspect of the international fishing industry will serve as an example to others who must also act responsibly if salmon is to survive as a species. The problem of netting during the now short season is by no means an insurmountable one, as a great deal of goodwill exists among the various interests towards taking action which will help to conserve stocks of salmon, a fish traditionally associated with this country. They and we would like salmon, the foremost of our fish to continue to thrive, not just in fable and legend, but also in our rivers and territorial seas. The ball has been passed to the salmon commission and the Minister of State and we await their deliberations.
I wish to share my time with Senator Ross.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I suspect I might be a lonely voice in this debate. Rugadh agus tógadh mé i measc iascairí i nDaingean Uí Chúis, which is Dingle in English. I do not like the idea of a buyout, which was the approach taken to the Native Americans and Aborigines — buy them out; put them out of work; put them into reservations; and forget about them. This is not the correct approach. While many different views exist, we need to be realistic. Based on my calculations and what I have heard more salmon were landed after the season this year than during the season. While I might be wrong, somebody must know the answer.
During the summer, I drove through the area where the Acting Chairman, Senator Finucane, lives and I stopped my car in awe close to Glin. I watched two people on a boat ten yards from me with a fine drift net floating along and nobody took any notice of them. While in my boat coming from Dingle to Kilrush I met the Bradán Feasa vessel which was trying to cover the whole area from Dingle to the Aran Islands and back down in one day. It is clear that the elimination of licences will not solve this issue. Some 40 licences are held in County Kerry. If the Minister of State suppressed them tomorrow morning it would change nothing. Many people talking about this subject believe it would make a difference. While I am opposed to it, buying out all the drift net people would not stop them fishing. This is the oldest activity in this island and we need to be realistic about the matter. I have heard that anglers blame fishermen but in my experience fishermen blame anglers.
During the week I listened to former Senator Ken Whitaker having a go at the fishing policy. When Mr. Whitaker was Secretary of the Department of Finance he produced two national economic plans in the late 1950s and early 1960s, which were the basis on which we entered the EEC. Not one paragraph in either plan dealt with fisheries. Mr. Whitaker could have done us a favour in the 1950s and 1960s so that we did not sell out our birthright when we joined the EEC in 1973.
The fishermen point to the pollution in the rivers, which means that the salmon cannot live when they swim upriver. The point made by the Minister of State is correct. In many cases the take from the rivers is higher than the take from the sea.
I have seen Spanish trawlers in Dingle with a quota of 20 tonnes or 30 tonnes per week and beside them were Irish boats tied up with a quota of 2 tonnes or 3 tonnes per month. It is no wonder the industry is falling apart and it is time we did some rough negotiations with Brussels. This is dealt with in different ways. I do not believe it is an issue of licensing. I do not believe it is just about drift net fishing. I disagree with the point the Minister of State and other speakers made about seals. In Canada no drift net fishing is allowed until sufficient salmon have swum upriver to refresh the stocks and to feed the bears. Seals have always been in our seas and the problem is pollution in the rivers.
Another problem relates to the rivers being considered. The real problem does not lie just in the big rivers like the Shannon, but in the small rivers. I looked at those small rivers in the summer and not only were the levels down by 1.5 m or 2 m in the Shannon, but at points in small rivers where the salmon seek to come upriver, dead salmon were lying in front the dams and weirs. As the river levels are down, the salmon have in some cases only a foot of water in which to propel themselves upriver and they are dying there because nature will not allow them to go back. We need to look at our rivers. Money needs to be invested into restocking the rivers. We should stop drift netting while salmon are coming upriver. We should implement the laws on domestic, farming and commercial pollution and should reconsider drawing off water to fill reservoirs.
We need to consider how to deal with the late run of salmon upriver. We should seek the support of fishermen on land and at sea on the first run to stop drift netting and on the second run to help the salmon go upriver. Some 95% of the salmon returning to a river do not survive, which is nature's way. They come, lay their eggs and go back downriver. Some 90% to 95% of them never make it back to sea again. They need to be helped and in some cases this means taking the eggs from the salmon and reinserting them in the river.
We do not need the matter dealt with by bureaucrats; it can be dealt with by the fishing people at sea and on land. Heads need to be knocked together. I have made three or four suggestions today which I believe to be more effective in the long term and which fishermen will police themselves as they do in Canada and elsewhere. I would like to hear more from the Minister of State on how countries like Canada deal with the matter. It can be done. We do not need to suppress the fishing industry as we have done too many times before. We do not need to buy out fishermen or put them out of work. We need to consider what is happening in the industry with boats from Spain landing 30 or 40 tonnes of hake and john dory per week while Irish boats remain tied up. This is part of the problem. There is nowhere to go if the licences are suppressed. We need to take a broader look at the matter
We are paying the price for what happened years ago. Has anyone looked at a map and wondered why Kenmare River is called so when it is clearly a bay? It is because those people who ran this country for 800 years decided that fishing rights belonged to the owners of the land and a law was passed in Westminster to declare Kenmare Bay to be Kenmare River. Fishermen have come across such obstacles all their lives. Tonight on the Adjournment, I will raise the matter of the fishing rights on the river at Clahane. While I will not deal with the matter now, it is an issue we need to consider and I would like to see money invested into the development of such areas.
I find myself in the strange position of taking the side of the national interest against the position of Senator O'Toole who takes the interest of the private enterprise buccaneers——
The Senator has paid for that sort of response before.
—— which he has served so well here.
Most of them are Trinity College graduates.
I welcome that in certain areas he sees the light. Most of the time he does not, but on this occasion he seems to have taken a dash into the universe which others of us enjoy more readily. What is happening in this debate is very simple. We are seeing a very obvious problem, which has been emerging over a period of time and which it is patently obvious has damaged the national interest, being defended by vested interests — I include political vested interests in that statement. That is healthy. It is something on which politics is often debated and I do not see anything wrong with it provided we know what it is.
The Minister of State comes from a constituency where it is imperative that he defends these interests. It is clear from his contribution that he is trying to procrastinate. Those who are pro drift netting seem to be saying they are prepared to muddy the waters and that there is not as big a problem as those of us who say there is.
The Minister of State said he is seeking a consensus and for what he terms a realistic plan. He seeks to be advised and to examine. This spells only one thing to me, it spells 9 April 2007 and the hope that the Government will get to that date by referring the problem here, there and everywhere. It will pretend to be tackling the problem, and to look after the vested interests in County Donegal and the western seaboard and keep everyone happy. It will also pretend to the rest of the country that it is not as big a problem as it is——
Let Fine Gael——
I agree. It will hand it over to someone else while it goes into the next general election having fooled everybody.
This is a serious national problem and it is not good enough for the Minister of State to obfuscate with soft and sweet words of reassurance of the kind he use in his contribution this evening. Both he and I know there will be hundreds of people picketing the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis this weekend about this problem. Are we complaining about something which does not exist or is it a realistic problem? It is a problem which affects the tourist industry, anglers and anybody peripheral to those interests. It is doing the country immense damage abroad.
The Minister of State stated he could paper the walls with the number of e-mails he has received, many of which are from abroad. This suggests a form of xenophobia. There is nothing wrong with e-mails from abroad because the country depends upon e-mails and communication from abroad and upon tourism, mobility and public opinion from abroad.
The Minister of State will be aware that many of these communications come from Europe. In terms of drift netting Ireland has the worst reputation and is the worst performer within the European Community. I am mortified to hear the Minister of State is on the receiving end of so much flak even though I am also delighted. It shows that Ireland's image is worse than I thought——
It is an orchestrated campaign of vilification.
——as is its reputation.
It is an orchestrated campaign.
Senator Ross without interruption.
The Minister of State cannot say it is an orchestrated campaign as they do not all have him in their sights. People are frustrated because they cannot come to Ireland to fish. The Minister of State is responsible for this situation because he is looking after his own vested political interests and that is fair enough because that is what it is all about.
The Senator is not familiar with the country.
The Senator has one minute remaining.
The Senator may have my time.
I thank the Minister of State.
I refer to the issue of the buyout which Senator O'Toole so eloquently addressed as did the Minister of State. There is nothing wrong with a buyout of this sort, particularly if it is voluntary. I have contacts within the angling industry, the tourism industry and the hotel industry and they are prepared to pay their share of the buyout.
(Interruptions).
It should not be argued this will be a drain on the taxpayer. The Minister of State will be aware that the hotel industry, the anglers and others are also prepared, ready and willing to pay their share of the buyout because it is in their interests and it is only fair this should be part of it.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to the House for this important debate which I thank the Leader of the House for arranging.
I welcome the report which is being considered by the House. It is a useful addition to what has become a very public and loud debate. I do not doubt the bona fides of any of the members of the sub-committee or the joint committee. I thank the Chairman, Deputy O'Flynn and Members of this House who are members of the committee — Senators Finucane, MacSharry, and O'Meara. I thank in particular Senator Kenneally who is a member of the sub-committee, for his work and for his explanation to the House this afternoon.
The Progressive Democrats wish to protect and preserve the salmon stocks and therefore the party actively seeks the cessation of drift netting at sea. We mean a cessation, not a set-aside, not new quotas, not new management schemes——
Hear, hear.
——but a cessation.
My party and I have been attacked for having the temerity to put forward our own view on this important issue and for allegedly having come to it late in the day. I have no apology to make for our intervention. It is untrue to say that we were some sort of "Johnny come lately" to the debate. We considered the issue well before some of the parties which criticise us had given any thought to the matter. We have not been among the representatives from the Government side on the Joint Committee for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, which is to be regretted, but this has been the situation since its inception. I also note there is no representation of Independent Members from either this House or the other House so it is not accurate to describe the committee's report as an all-party report, as it has been described.
The Independent Members are not a party.
The Progressive Democrats policy position was arrived at following careful consideration and consultation and adopted by its general council in March 1999, six years ago, contrary to what has been alleged in some quarters. At that time the general council of the party endorsed the policy for the following five reasons: first, because of the continuing decline in wild salmon catches in Ireland for almost 25 years prior to 1999; second, the recognition that offshore drift netting of migrating salmon was a primary cause of that decline; third, Ireland's increasing international isolation in allowing the practice of drift netting; fourth, the acceptance of the overwhelming economic and tourism arguments; and fifth, the recognition that a compulsory buyout and appropriate compensation was the best and only way to achieve the objective of saving Ireland's salmon resource.
Hear, hear.
The fact this has not happened means the situation has deteriorated further over the intervening six years. Frustrated by failure of the strategy of developing a sustainable commercial and recreational salmon fishery through aligning catches on the scientific advice, the Progressive Democrats revisited this issue during the summer recess. The current strategy, it is claimed, holds out the strong prospect of a recovery of stocks and of a long term sustainable fishery for both sectors.
There are almost as many opinions as there are contributions to this debate, as underlined in the House today and in the 48 submissions to the Oireachtas sub-committee on salmon drift netting. We sought to pull together all the disparate national and parochial views into logical categories such as fish stock levels, the economy, tourism and the international context. By synopsising the evidence supporting a cessation of salmon drift netting into one reference document and in logical categories, the policy advocated by the Progressive Democrats in 1999 was shown to be undeniable in 2005.
I wish to thank publically all those groups and individuals who have made submissions to the joint committee. Most will agree that all the views were represented among the submissions and when taken in conjunction with parliamentary replies, Department and agency statements, etc., a comprehensive assessment of the issue is discernible. The Progressive Democrats concluded that the 1999 policy objective remained the correct one and that the issue was now more pressing. I thank the Minister of State for his undertaking that the report will be considered by the salmon commission. The report was endorsed by the parliamentary party in September and confirmed by the party's general council which stated that the Progressive Democrats will actively seek the cessation of drift netting at sea, together with a fair and appropriate compensation scheme.
I endorse what Senator Finucane said with regard to the nets men on the Shannon and my own experience, having consulted with the nets men, is similar to his. Many of the nets men are quite prepared to leave the industry, given a reasonable offer. On the issue of a buyout, we must remember that we have buyout schemes in other sectors. We have a buyout in farming, called the Common Agricultural Policy.
I accept some of the arguments made about tradition, particularly with regard to nets men on the Aran Islands and offshore islands. There are certain areas which could be accommodated within the overall scheme to allow fishermen to continue in small boats, while recognising the difficulty of doing that on the open sea.
The subject of today's statements is the report of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I heartily endorse the words of the chairman of that committee when he launched the report earlier this month. Deputy O'Flynn stated that "the survival of the salmon species is too important to the Irish people". He went on to say that "the debate must be about the public good and the joint committee believes that the public good is the survival of the salmon species". These are admirable sentiments and no one could disagree with them. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, said he welcomed the comment in the report that "public moneys 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". Again, that is something to be applauded. The question, of course, is how it can be done. Some have said there should not be an argument about who will kill the salmon. The argument should be about who will save the salmon.
I find it confusing that the first recommendation in the report states that the "Joint Committee is adamant that public policy must be dedicated to the survival of the salmon species" yet it does not go on to recommend the cessation of drift netting. The report advocates single stock management to achieve this public policy aim. While such a measure is very welcome, I do not know how it can work if mixed stock fishing is allowed to continue because such fishing does not make a distinction, in its catch, between salmon returning to rivers with sustainable levels and those going to rivers where there are very few spawning fish. I do not know how a three-year review of the proposed set-aside scheme can establish if it has been successful, given that it takes a grilse four years to grow from an egg and a spring salmon five years, as explained to the sub-committee by Dr. T. K. Whitaker.
The sub-committee was "clear that salmon stocks are declining rapidly" and I agree with that analysis. I also agree that the issue is a complex one, as reflected in the report prepared by my party. Predation, pollution, poaching and climate change, which have all been referred to today, are some of the factors involved but drift netting must go to the top of the list because it is the only thing that is under our direct control. The major increase in the proportion of fish caught in nets confirms that view and the statistics also back it up.
The Minister of State spoke about monofilament, which is also a matter of concern. Anyone who fishes for salmon knows that it is possible to catch very small grilse, of only three pounds in weight, with net marks on them. I saw a net on the jetty of one of our ports and when I picked it up, I could not believe the size of the mesh. It was incredibly small and the net was left there, in broad daylight. As I examined it, two heads popped up from below the harbour wall to look at me. I put the net down pretty quickly and moved on.
The economic argument is firmly in favour of angling. A rod-caught fish is worth over 20 times more to the economy than a net-caught one. There may be arguments about the exact figures, but the difference in value is of that order. Internationally, Ireland is completely out of step with other countries in allowing drift netting. I have seen a letter from the EU Commission stating that Ireland is to be issued with a formal warning because it believes we are in breach of the Habitats Directive.
The various arguments add up to a case of everyone being out of step except my son Johnny. Even if we were to ignore all the arguments, I cannot understand how we could let a species disappear, much less a species that is so central to our national consciousness, a part of our mythology, folklore and culture and which has graced our definitive coinage. The risk is too high and that is why we must adopt a precautionary approach.
My credentials to express a view on this issue have been called into question. I have spent all of my adult life, and much of my youth, going to some of the most beautiful and remote parts of this country and have observed, at first hand, a natural catastrophe. I watched the sea trout disappear and I heard the lies that were told to defend practices that were indefensible, that would not be tolerated in agriculture and that the Department of Agriculture and Food has successfully rooted out. However, because such practices happen at sea, they seem to be acceptable and allowable. I have seen good people trying to build a tourism industry in their own places in remote areas, when they could have done much better elsewhere. I have watched some of them fail because there is no sport for their clients. Their guests, including Irish anglers, are going to Russia, Canada, Iceland, Alaska and South America. Some have referred to Trout and Salmon magazine and I have read articles in that publication that advise anglers not to come to Ireland to fish. Trout and Salmon is the most influential angling magazine in these islands, if not in Europe.
We have marvellous State fisheries, including Burrishoole in Mayo, where the Salmon Research Institute, now the Marine Institute, is located. One of the lakes has been closed for many years because of what has happened there. We have the Moy, a highly productive river, the Galway fishery, the Erriff, the Kerry Blackwater, the ESB, the Shannon and so forth. We have a major vested interest, as a State, in this issue. I have seen what has happened to the River Liffey, my own local river, and am devastated by what has happened over a thirty year period. I can remember when the salmon went up the weirs at the back of Newbridge College. One does not see them anymore — they are not there.
We must save the species. We cannot let it die. That is why I appeal to the Government and the Minister of State to do the right thing, not the political thing, and stop drift netting at sea.
The report of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources does not solve the problem and I do not underestimate the difficulty that more decisive and direct action presents for the Minister of State. However, for once the phrase used by Senator Ross, "in the national interest", has real meaning and resonance. I do not condone anybody sending an offensive or vilifying e-mail to the Minister of State. Whether its origin was domestic or foreign, it is not acceptable.
By all means let the National Salmon Commission deal with the committee's report but ultimately, the responsibility for the survival of this wonderful creature, with its amazing story of going to sea and coming back to spawn in the river in which it was born, rests with the Department, the Minister of State and the Government. I wish them well in their task.
A word keeps cropping up which disturbs me greatly, that is, "exploitation". We must stop nets men, anglers and anybody else exploiting salmon because that is what has got us where we are today. I do not see how balance will solve the problem either. Balance will not solve the problem because it is not possible to take everyone's interests into account, however desirable that may be. Finally, science, of which I have some background knowledge, should not be a refuge for preventing things happening that should happen.
Well said, Senator.
I wish to share my time with Senator Norris.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to the House and am pleased that we are debating such an important issue. It has received some attention in media circles in recent times for very good reason. One can see that it is not as simple as it might initially appear.
I ask Senator McCarthy to pause for a moment. The Leader of the House wishes to make a change to the Order of Business.
There are many more eminent speakers who wish to contribute to this debate so we will not conclude it today. The Minister of State has kindly agreed not to conclude this afternoon and we will conclude the debate next week, if the Senators are agreeable. We will have Private Members' business at 5 p.m. today.
That is agreed.
The issue is not as simple as one might assume, although no one in this House has suggested it is simple. It is a fraught and complex one. I am not going to lecture the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, who comes from a strong fishing constituency and has vast political experience on the finer details of the issues.
The committee referred to a perceived imminent and ongoing threat to salmon stocks from commercial netting, a decreased survival of salmon at sea, the taking of salmon destined for other rivers, especially east coast rivers, by drift nets on the west coast, the management system based on quotas, the economic benefits of commercial fishing vis-à-vis angling, the social and cultural value of the commercial fishery and the advisability of a compensatory or set-aside scheme. We are all aware that salmon stocks are declining, and declining rapidly. It is important that the Minister of State should endeavour to secure the survival of the salmon species. There is no fear of contradiction or lack of consistency in this regard. We are being warned by marine biologists, anglers and all those involved in the industry.
We know from experience that the plundering of thousands of species of fish in other areas was rampant. Entire species were wiped out in some parts of the world, including cod in one area. The North Atlantic Salmon Fund took a lead in this regard. It sought to protect the stocks in Greenland, around the Faroes and in areas where boats from different seafaring nations were hoovering up what salmon was available. Due to this fund and a number of initiatives by people who were extremely concerned about the issue, it has now been halted. It leaves us in an undesirable and lonely position because this is the only country which has yet to deal constructively with the matter.
Science is very accurate in this regard. I was struck by the amount of information and figures available from people involved in salmon science. I am advised that 20% of salmon waters have sufficient spawners, but the difficulty arises in the remaining 80% where, for a number of reasons, these areas are not conducive to good spawning because of poor water quality, habitat and, in particular, non-human predators. The Minister of State referred to seals. I join with him in condemning the outrageous behaviour that took place recently in this area. It is a very sad facet of any society which allows this type of activity to prevail and where this type of cruelty is inflicted on animals. It detracts from the issue.
I wholeheartedly endorse the first recommendation of the committee, namely, single stock management. It is one of the ways forward in dealing with the issue. We are aware of the numbers of people involved in the industry who make very little money during June and July. The number of people who make a living from the industry is extremely small. What could make the decision in regard to compensatory schemes easier is the various voluntary compensatory deals between the European Union, the State and those involved in the tourism sector who would be willing to contribute.
With regard to the National Salmon Commission, there is a school of thought that this comes down to a Government initiative in dealing with the issue because there are layers of bureaucracy involved. To put it simply, there is no broad consensus on the part of most political parties on the issue. The stance taken by the Progressive Democrats is particularly well considered. One can see the level of detail involved. Other parties are considering the thought process that exists in regard to the recommendation. I looked at the Labour Party's website in the UK on the matter, including the number of people of note and experts involved in the sector. They have compiled a UK anglers' charter which touches on the various issues. I made inquiries about the Conservative Party which appears to have taken no interest in the matter. The issue is too important to neglect to have an official policy on it.
I referred to bureaucracy. There are 12 different organs of State involved in this area. These include the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Central Fisheries Board, the seven regional boards, all of which are autonomous, the Marine Institute, which deals with scientific research and the National Fisheries Management Executive, comprising of the CEOs of all the fisheries boards. However, ultimately, the decision rests with the Minister of State. While I am aware he is awaiting a report from the commission, he must take a lead in the issue and make a decision. No one wants to see this being a problem leading into a general election year in 2007. While the matter can be dealt with clearly, it cannot be dealt with easily, because it is a complex matter. I urge the Minister of State to examine the committee report and to take on board in a practical way its recommendations.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few points on the joint Oireachtas committee's report. As the House may be aware, I am a member of the committee but not the sub-committee. I would like to pay tribute to Senator Kenneally, in particular, who was a member of the sub-committee and did tremendous work going through 40 submissions and listening to 45 individual people and organisations at the hearings. It was very comprehensive and I do not think it could have been any more inclusive in terms of the people involved in drawing up the report.
This has resulted in a representative report and a set of balanced recommendations, even though Senator Dardis disagrees with the issue of balance. Before I refer to the central issue, I would like to rebut something that was said earlier. Senator Ross's scurrilous attack on the Minister of State and his intentions is unprecedented in my short time in the House. It is disgraceful that any Member would accuse any Minister of this Government, or any Government, of overlooking the issues at hand or the national interest in pursuit of their own political gain within their constituency. The record of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, as a Deputy, an MEP and as a Minister of State with responsibility for this issue and others in his brief, speaks for itself. Senator Ross's attack is disgraceful and I would like to completely disassociate myself from his comments against the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, or any Minister.
On the salmon issue and on the issue of the report, it is clear from what everyone is saying that we all want to achieve the same end result, that is, the protection of the salmon species. The only disagreement here is how we get there. The recommendations in the report are ideally placed for us to achieve our ultimate goal. It is the best way forward. The Minister of State's action in referring it to the salmon commission, the most representative body, is correct because it is the best place to digest the recommendations in the report and to make recommendations to the Minister of State on the appropriate action to be taken. Everyone is represented on the commission, from the Loughs Agency, to the industry itself and the tourism industry. There is an imminent appointment from Fáilte Ireland, which I welcome. It is the best way forward.
As Senator Kenneally said earlier, we are not dealing with a full deck here. We do not have all the facts and, as the Minister of State rightly pointed out, we do not, therefore, take knee-jerk reactions. More scientific research is what is required in this area, and there is also a wide variety of other issues with which we must deal. If the Minister presided over the abolition or cessation of draft and drift netting today and we examined the issue again this day next year, there would be no difference.
Debate adjourned.