Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on recent strong criticism from anglers and the media that his Department is again failing to align the catches of commercial drift netting with the alarming reality of scientific advice on the decline of salmon fishery and that the total allowable catch for 2005 may be almost 40% higher than the precautionary advice of the scientific committee of the National Salmon Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8394/05]

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if, in setting the commercial catch for wild salmon in 2005, he will accept the clear scientific advice that the catch be limited to 95,000 fish to meet conservation limits; and if he instead intends allowing for a catch of 139,900, as recommended by a majority decision of the National Salmon Commission. [8460/05]

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 5 together.

My Department relies upon the advice of the National Salmon Commission and the national fisheries managers executive — the regional fisheries boards' managers — in determining the terms of the wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme which, inter alia, sets out district quotas for the commercial wild salmon catch annually. The salmon commission is advised in its work by its standing scientific committee, which includes scientists from Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Central Fisheries Board, the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Loughs Agency and the Marine Institute.

The chairman of the salmon commission has advised that the standing scientific committee, in presenting its recommendations to the commission on the precautionary salmon catch advice for the 2005 fishing season, has recommended that the total number of salmon to be exploited by all fishing methods in 2005 should not exceed 124,571 fish. This advice was given for the first time in 2005 based on the adoption of a 75% probability of reaching the conservation limits. The scientific committee does not make any recommendation, however, as to how many of these fish should be allocated to the commercial fishing sector as opposed to the angling sector. Having considered this scientific advice from a fisheries management perspective, the fisheries managers have recommended that the total catch of wild salmon in 2005 should not exceed 173,854 fish, of which the national commercial total allowable catch for 2005 should not exceed 146,174 fish.

The National Salmon Commission met on 22 February 2005 to consider the scientific and management advice available with a view to finalising its recommendations on the management of the wild salmon fishery in 2005. In his letter of 1 March 2005 to my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, the chairman of the salmon commission advised that the commission was unable to reach a consensus on adoption of either the scientific or management quota proposals. He advised, however, that the salmon commission did endorse, by a majority decision, a compromise proposal that the national commercial catch of salmon for 2005 should not exceed 139,900 fish and that this recommendation was made on the basis that the commission would adopt the scientific committee's advice by the 2007 season at the latest.

We are carefully considering all the advice offered bearing in mind the necessity to balance the needs of all beneficiaries and users of the salmon resource and, in particular, the overriding requirement to ensure the resource is preserved and protected according to the best scientific data. My colleague the Minister of State will make a decision in this matter shortly. In approaching this decision, the implications for the health of the salmon resource of setting the national and district total allowable catches at levels higher than those recommended by the scientists will be carefully considered. In that context, the Minister of State will continue to be guided by the fundamental principle adopted and adhered to by previous Ministers over the last three years, that is, that the national total allowable catch should be progressively aligned over that period with the scientific advice. The Government remains fully committed to this principle as the only sustainable and defensible way forward for salmon management in Ireland.

I recognise the divergence of advice from the National Fisheries Managers Executive and the National Salmon Commission in respect of when full alignment on the scientific advice is to be achieved. While it is appreciated that the scientific advice for 2005 is based on a revision of the methodology used in previous years and therefore results in a much lower proposed total allowable catch than would otherwise have been the case, we are still strongly persuaded of the case to move to the national conservation limits sooner rather than later.

The Minister of State expects to publish draft wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme regulations setting a national total allowable commercial catch of salmon for 2005 shortly. Under the requirements of the Fisheries Acts, the draft regulations are available for a 30-day consultation period to allow interested parties an opportunity to submit any objections they may have. Following the receipt and consideration of these, the Minister of State will then make a final decision on the scheme.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have spent more than two hours going back over a great scandal in our political and administrative history in the form of charges for patients in nursing homes. Is it possible that the Minister is presiding over another desperate scandal given that we have become an international pariah throughout Europe? Ireland is the only country that still allows drift netting. Only 14% of our major rivers, such as the Nore, Suir, Boyne and Shannon, have an adequate salmon ecosystem. Given that is the case, it is time the Minister said he was strongly persuaded of the case to move to the national conservation limits sooner rather than later. The Minister may not be in Government after 2007. The results of the by-elections this week might impinge slightly on that. Is it fair to say, therefore, that the Minister, his predecessor, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Browne, have failed to address the significant issue of wild salmon stocks and prevent a total disaster?

In his reply the Minister did not explain adequately why he has not accepted the advice of the standing scientific committee which was based on the precautionary principle in regard to the future of salmon stocks. Would it not be appropriate to embark on that in 2005? Should the Minister not still take the initiative in 2005 to protect salmon stocks for our anglers and major rivers? Will the Minister look again at the possibility of a buy-out of the drift net fishermen in the lifetime of this Administration? We heard on the previous day that parliamentary questions to his Department were taken that the Minister had set his face against such a buy-out. Reference was made to Mr. Joey Murrin. Why has the Minister opposed local buy-outs, such as on Erne river? Is it not time to address this issue in a significant way and estimate the costs that would ensue, given the experience of Scotland, Iceland and many other countries with important salmon fisheries? Ireland is the most important country in this area of the environment. The Minister has a key responsibility to ensure that in ten years' time we will not ask what on earth did the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, do and why did he not listen to the scientific advice of the day.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The difficulty is that we have three different sets of advice, all of which are contradictory. If the Deputy is advocating that we take just one set of advice and act on it, I note his position. The clear policy decision of the Labour Party is that we take the advice of the standing scientific committee. However the Government must balance all the different interests, move as quickly as possible towards an agreed position and is trying to do so over the next two to three years.

In regard to the buy-out of drift net fishermen, my colleague, the Minister of State, made it clear on the last Question Time that if he had that amount of money available from taxpayers, he could think of better uses to which to put it in the context of angling, the development of the fisheries industry and tourism. I agree with that position. The figures vary from €80 million to a few hundred million euro. If that amount is available, it could be probably better spent. We are trying to balance the various interests such as the conservation interest and the interests of all the beneficiaries of the salmon resources. The resource is currently being preserved and this will be continued for the next number of years.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister say why the Minister of State is not present in the House to answer this question? Who makes the decision? Does the Minister make the decision or is it left entirely to the Minister of State?

The Minister refers to balancing of interests. How can it be possibly in anyone's interests, fishermen, conservationists or anglers, for us to ignore the scientific advice? The Minister stated he has three pieces of advice. The only advice which is based on reasoning and rational preservation of a species which will be of benefit to the fishing community, those interested in conservation and anglers, is for the Minister to accept the advice of the scientists. How can he possibly believe that anyone's interests are served by ignoring scientific advice? I ask the Minister to explain.

Will the Minister agree that at present a small number of fishing communities are catching a multiple of their conservation limit but fishermen, drift net fishermen and draft net fishermen in other areas on the east and south-east coast have nothing left? This is not a precautionary principle but rather a crisis. A serious problem exists in rivers such as the Nore, the Liffey, the Corrib and the Shannon. How can the Minister say there is conflicting advice as if one holds the same sway as the other? The only advice which any rational Government can follow is the scientific advice which is based on scientific study of the numbers needed to repopulate those rivers. How can the Minister ignore that advice? In whose interests is such a disregard for the survival of this species?

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ryan is asking me to do precisely what he is accusing me of, namely ignoring advice. I have three different sets of advice and the adoption of one means I must ignore the others. The Minister of State is responsible for considering the advices available. He will make decisions based on all the advice at his disposal rather than on one piece of advice. He is out of the country and cannot be present in the House this afternoon.

We are well aware of the need for conservation and are trying to balance that need. We hope to reach a situation over the next few years whereby a balance will be found between the conservation interests and the needs of all other interests.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to the debate which was held this afternoon for two and a half hours. The key point of that debate was reference to legal advice. As the Minister who could preside over the effective extinction of wild Irish salmon, an historic symbol of our nation for thousands of years, is it not incumbent on him to follow the scientific advice and to make that difficult decision? I commend the Minister for taking a number of initiatives since we last met in respect of broadband and other issues.

Is the Minister definitively stating that the precautionary catch level, what could have been achieved during 2005, will be achieved in 2007? Why is it not happening this year?

Anglers and others with an interest in the environment have repeatedly asked me about the local schemes such as local set-aside and local buy-out. Is the Minister prepared to support those schemes? The response of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to my colleague, Deputy Ryan, a few weeks ago seemed to suggest that the total cost of buy-outs was based on the north-east of England, which is an incredible choice on which to base the calculations of cost. Clearly, local interests are prepared to contribute.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister agree that the long-term interests of fishermen depend on the fish being there to catch? Will he agree that science clearly shows that if we ignore the long-term sustainability issue and catch more than the scientists recommend, there will be no fish to catch? This would be lunacy on the part of the Government. It would be the worst policy for the fishing industry and for everyone else in this country. It is bringing shame on this country because this is the last country allowing this drift net fishing. We are permitting this fishing and managing the system above what the scientists say is sustainable. This is pure lunacy.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the general question about the precautionary principle, this underpins policy in this area and it will continue to underpin it in future——

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Minister accepts the scientific advice.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The policy in respect of moving towards the scientific levels in 2007 is still intact.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We now return to Question No. 1 in the name of Deputy Perry.