Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

Tá áthas orm an seans a fháil labhairt sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo ar an mBille Iascaigh Mara agus Dlínse Mhuirí 2005. Cé gur Bille tábhachtach é, beidh Páirtí an Lucht Oibre ag vótáil ina choinne ag deireadh na díospóireachta seo ar an Dara Céim; míneoidh mé cén fáth ar ball. Tagaim ó dháilcheantar a bhfuil an-bhaint aige le cúrsaí farraige agus iascaireachta. Tá calafoirt iascaigh againn, ina measc, Rinn na Síóg, An Pasáiste Thoir, An Dún Mór Thoir, Dún na mBreatan, Heilbhic agus cinn eile beaga nach iad. Ag dul siar, sa 17ú aois bhíodh 5,000 fear ag fágáil slán leis na céanna i bPort Láirge gach Feabhra chun dul a dh'iascaireacht thart ar Thalamh an Éisc. Tá an bhaint sin ag an dáilcheantar le cúrsaí iascaireachta. Dá bhrí sin, tá an-suim ag muintir Phort Láirge agus, ar ndóigh, ag Teachtaí Dála, Seanadóirí agus comhairleoirí an cheantair i gcúrsaí mar sin.

The Waterford constituency has a very long tradition in fishing. In the 1700s there was a significant connection between Waterford and Newfoundland, which was discovered in 1497 by John Cabot. It has been said that if one put down a bucket tied to a rope into the sea at the time, it would catch cod because that fish was so plentiful at that stage. It is also said that at one stage, 25% of the European population was fed on cod from that general area.

There has been scientific indication that the stocks were in trouble some years ago and in 1992 the cod fishery was closed. The result was that 40,000 jobs were lost in an economy where alternative employment is difficult to provide. My information is that there has been no recovery in the stocks which are holding their own but no more than that. An interesting point in this regard is that the female cod traditionally tended to breed in year seven. Nature has its own way of dealing with problems and owing to the current pressure on stocks, the female cod is breeding from year four on. However, there has been no recovery in the stocks.

I wish to relate this issue to the situation pertaining to Irish stocks of Atlantic salmon. A story from the 19th century tells that apprentices in Limerick won a concession from their masters to the effect that they could not be fed salmon on more than three days a week. The obvious indication is that the stocks were strong at that time. However, stocks in Ireland are now in serious decline. Since 2002 the sector has failed to reach its own quota. In 2002 the quota was 219,649 tags but only 208,982 were used. In 2003 the quota was reduced to 182,000 but the catch was just 168,819. The scientific advisory group recommended 124,500 tags for the 2005 quota, although the National Salmon Commission later increased this to 139,900 tags. However, what concerns me is that just over 70,000 fish were caught, based on the number of tags used. This is less than 50% of the catch in 2004 when 145,453 salmon were caught from a quota of 161,965. The sector is failing to reach its quota.

The time is more than ripe for the introduction of a buyout system for drift net, draft net and snap net commercial salmon fishermen. In his most recent reply to me, the Minister of State indicated that he is considering a proposal that was put to him. However, to date he has not shown any great enthusiasm for a buyout.

Salmon licences are important in my constituency. While the fishermen who hold those licences do not earn their whole income from salmon, their salmon income is in decline and many would voluntarily opt for a buyout system provided it is fair. I emphasise that it must be fair. A buyout would be an important way of ensuring the maintenance of salmon stocks which are a major part of our history, heritage and tradition through the years, particularly an bradán feasa — the salmon of knowledge.

The Stop Drift Net Fishing Now campaign has proposed the methodology for a plan that would cost €25 million over a five-year period and which would be partially funded by the recreational salmon fishing licence holders paying an extra €50 for their annual licences. The anglers lobby has a legitimate place in this debate. Indeed, the tourism industry is very much to the fore in promoting salmon fishing.

The tagging system must be carefully considered in all its aspects. Older fishermen often continue fishing because it helps to finance the third level studies of their grandchildren. Particular individuals and families feel a great sense of history and heritage in their involvement over many years in salmon fishing and they would be reluctant to withdraw. For any buyout system to be successful, it must be voluntary. If some fishermen do not want to avail of the buyout, they should be restricted to the sort of quota of tags they would have had if no buyout had been introduced. The bottom line is to stabilise and conserve the stocks and give them the opportunity to recover to a level where sustainability is possible in the context of some level of salmon being caught each year.

Another important issue arises in this regard. As the Minister knows, the feeding grounds for Atlantic salmon are off Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Northern fishermen have gone down the road of not fishing in those grounds to protect the stocks. I understand there is impatience among these fishermen and that this restraint may not continue. If the northern fishermen decide to fish for salmon in the feeding grounds, a catastrophe would face us all. While I am not suggesting this will happen, it is a strong possibility that has been indicated to me by one person who should know.

As good Europeans, we should accept that the Irish catch is having an adverse affect not alone on Irish salmon stocks but also on the stocks of England, Wales, Spain, France, Switzerland and Germany. While this is not my major consideration in this debate, it is an important consideration nonetheless.

Fishermen who make a poor income from salmon fishing and who would be happy to leave the industry should be given an opportunity to do so by way of a buyout system. I see nothing wrong with the State putting resources into such a system. While I do not have exact figures, the Stop Drift Net Fishing Now campaign suggests a figure of €25 million and the Minister of State suggests a figure of the order of €70 million or €80 million. Whatever the cost, this is a very important resource and one we must protect soon. I understand that successful compensation programmes to end the commercial exploitation of salmon have been introduced in Canada, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Wales, and work in progress in Northern Ireland and England is moving ahead effectively. The North Atlantic Salmon Fund told me it spoke to some Irish commercial fishermen, 70% to 80% of whom were ready to surrender their licences permanently. The remaining 20% to 30% would agree to stop fishing but were reluctant to accept a permanent buy-out. Of them 5% to 10% opposed the buy-out and remained to be convinced of its merit.

All fishing enterprises involve sustainability and profitability. Our stocks are depleted to a critical point. There is the horrible prospect that what happened to the Newfoundland cod stocks will happen here. We do no service to commercial salmon fishers by not buying them out to protect stocks. If the stocks fall below a certain point they will not recover. That is what happened to the cod stocks off Newfoundland, although the fishery there is closed. No one would have believed such a large fishery could be fished out but that happened.

We need to protect the stocks of North Atlantic salmon as much in the interests of the fishermen, as of anybody else. The fishermen should be allowed to exit the industry in a dignified and fair way to protect this part of our resources.

The Labour Party is concerned about various aspects of this legislation. We were concerned when the Government came into power that it dropped the word "marine" from the title of the Department. This indicated an unwelcome attitude. That omission was rectified and I do not in any way question the personal commitment to, or knowledge of, the industry of the Minister of State with responsibility for the marine. Prior to the last general election a commitment was made to appoint a Minister with responsibility for marine affairs to sit at the Cabinet table. This was to have been a senior Minister of State but the proposal never bore fruit.

A significant part of marine responsibility is to be transferred to the Department of Transport. While I do not oppose change I remain to be convinced that responsibility for marine affairs is divisible because there are many interdependent areas in that brief. For example, there is an obvious need to ensure ships do not dump in fishing grounds and that activities surrounding ports or marine development are carried out in a way conducive to protecting fish stocks, particularly when fish are breeding.

Another minor but important point concerns section 17(3) covering the powers of sea fishery protection officers and the inspection and detention of sea fish. The section states:

Where a sea-fisheries protection officer detains in his or her custody under this section any sea-fish and the sea-fish is likely to become unfit for human food before the matter can conveniently be dealt with by any court, he or she may produce the sea-fish to a designated officer (where he or she is not a designated officer), and, if authorised so to do by the designated officer, shall destroy, sell or otherwise dispose properly of the sea-fish.

The idea of fish being destroyed is repugnant. It is wrong to destroy food in a world where there is hunger and famine. The civilised approach would be for the Minister of State to reconsider that section and eliminate the word "destroy". If fish is unfit for human consumption it should be destroyed but there should be procedures whereby fish fit for human consumption taken into custody is not allowed in any circumstances to become unfit for human consumption. We should preserve all aspects of this scarce resource wherever possible. I urge the Minister of State to deal sympathetically with that point on Committee Stage.

The Labour Party also believes there should have been more consultation with the stakeholders and their political representatives in regard to the Bill. It is not too late for that process although there are differing views on how Committee Stage will proceed. However, within the short interval between this Stage and the next the Minister of State should consult with stakeholders to hear their views and so improve the legislation.

I was about to move onto the business of harsh fines which other Deputies have raised but will conclude on this point. As a democrat and a Member of this House I wish to see this Bill made as effective as possible, for both a vibrant fishing industry, and for enforcement. That is important but it must be a profitable and sustainable industry.

See this speech in context