Dáil debates

Tuesday, 21 November 2006

Priority Questions

Fisheries Protection.

3:00 am

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 71: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on whether the compensation currently being offered to drift net fishermen is adequate. [38963/06]

Photo of John PerryJohn Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 72: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources whether, in respect of compensation for commercial netsmen, he will reconsider the valuation that has been put on the licence or improvements to the minimum payment, given that commercial quotas declined by approximately 60% in the reference period for compensation, fishermen were penalised by the area based quota system and commercial representatives suggested equal valuation of all salmon licences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39097/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 71 and 72 together.

The Government's primary motivation is the conservation of the wild salmon species, which has long been regarded as one of Ireland's most prized fish. It is vital to afford every protection to the remaining salmon stocks and to clearly prioritise conservation over catch. The current imperative must be to maintain stocks above conservation limits or at the very least halt the observed decline. If we do not take action now, the relentless decline in stocks will continue, leading to the inevitable demise of wild salmon and the loss of a valued cultural, recreational and economic resource.

International best practice for the management of North Atlantic salmon requires the adoption of a precautionary approach and the cessation of indiscriminate mixed stock fisheries. These are the recommendations of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Moreover, if we do not end mixed stock fishing in 2007, the European Commission will undoubtedly proceed in its action against Ireland under the habitats directive. On the other hand, we can expect a reputation bonus from neighbouring countries if we proceed on the proposed course.

In future, the harvest of salmon by any means will be restricted to those stocks of rivers that are meeting their conservation limits. This means there will be no indiscriminate capture of fish. Commercial fishing and recreational angling can continue only on the scientifically identified exploitable surplus. The Government has decided in the circumstances to introduce a hardship scheme for commercial fishermen and others severely affected by the curtailment of the wild salmon fishery on the lines set out in the independent group's report. As the Deputy will be aware, the independent group was appointed to examine the implications of alignment with the scientific advice for the commercial salmon fishing sector in 2007 and beyond. As part of its remit, the group made recommendations to address any financial hardship that may be experienced by the sector. The approach it adopted in determining the hardship payments was robust and convincing.

In its report, the group noted that the level of hardship likely to be experienced would vary both in extent and scale. Taking all factors and available information into account and noting in particular that there is no legal obligation on the State to provide compensation where it is imposing management measures that are fundamentally in the public good, the group proposed to provide a measure of relief to each individual in line with the level of hardship likely to be experienced and recommended that relief should be based on the recent catch history of the individual licence holder from 2001 to 2005.

The Government accepted the recommendation of the independent group and determined that the level of payment should be based on the average net income per salmon in the commercial fishery for the past five years, that is from 2001 to 2005. This income calculation was based by the group on the average price obtained per fish per year and the costs incurred by fishermen. Each individual licence holder who applies to the fund is set to receive six times his or her average catch multiplied by the average net income per salmon. I believe this is a fair and reasonable allocation and does not need to be modified. An additional fund of €5 million will be available for a community support scheme to aid the development of those communities where the impact of the cessation of drift netting will be hardest felt and to provide alternative employment and economic opportunities for those affected.

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will be aware of the presentations made by driftnet fishermen to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, in which they categorically stated they were in favour of sustainability and conservation. Many other groups argued in their presentations to the committee for a voluntary buy-out scheme, with provision for set-aside as an alternative for those who wished to continue in the industry.

Is the Minister aware that the blanket ban on drift netting will affect so many coastal villages, along the west and south coasts in particular, that there will be implications for other sectors of inshore fishing? I refer in particular to lobster and crab fishermen and the added pressures that will be put on that sector when the people who have effectively been made redundant by the Minister's order are forced to partake in it.

Does the Minister accept the proposed compensation package has been described as totally inadequate by the former Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, who speaks with the experience of someone from a coastal community? Does the Minister recognise that the €5 million compensation package for affected rural communities is totally inadequate, considering the size of the sector involved and the isolated nature of coastal areas? Does he accept that the five year reference period he is using effectively represents a considerable restriction for the salmon fishing industry? The term of three to four months fishing was cut to 35 or 36 days.

Given that the package is being portrayed as some type of redundancy package and that there is a five year reference period, does the Minister not accept this is a slap in the face for those who have spent their lives in the industry to sustain their communities and local economies? The proposal is an insult to them. Will the severance package be taxed?

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

For all the reasons I outlined during the discussions, which I will not reiterate, a decision was made on whether the scheme should be voluntary. I do not dispute the Deputy's contention at the committee that this might cause difficulties as people try to operate in fisheries associated with other types of fish. However, this is not a reason to allow for the extinction of the salmon. The problem we face is diminishing salmon stocks, partly caused by drift-netting and partly by other factors, some of which we understand and some of which we do not. We made our decision in order to have an influence in an area over which we have some control, and we have done so in the best interest of conserving salmon stocks.

I do not agree with Deputy Ferris that the compensation is totally inadequate. I have outlined how the figure was calculated, which figure is based on a five year period. A net price of approximately €23 per salmon was arrived at after the subtraction of costs, and this was based on salmon above average weight and certainly above the average weight of those caught over recent years. A top price is accepted rather than a medium or low one. The individual payments from the hardship fund do not comprise a slap in the face and are quite generous. They are even more generous given that the State need not provide any payment at all.

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

Is the Minister sure about that?

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

I am absolutely sure. We have legal obligations under both national and EU law, including the habitats directive. There is absolutely no obligation on the Government to provide any form of payment but we did not believe that providing none would be fair. We asked an independent group to make a recommendation to us. It did so and we accepted the recommendation on the basis on which it made it. I had it sanctioned by the Cabinet.

There is some difficulty over the five year period. We were trying to be generous in this regard. The reason some would have done less well in respect of this period is because there are fewer salmon. If we wait for another two or three years, there will be even fewer. The normal applicable period in such cases would encompass the last three years and the application of this period would be even more severe on all concerned. All in all, we have tried to balance the difficulties the period creates for the individuals and communities concerned with the other relevant factors and to alleviate as much hardship as possible.

Photo of John PerryJohn Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The terms of reference given to the consultants were such that there could be only one outcome, that is, a complete ban on drift-net fishing. On the question of increasing the minimum payment, will the Minister consider the methodology for evaluating the licences? Certain individuals will not even recoup the cost of decommissioning their gear.

Given that the tax-free payment is quite minimal in certain cases, will the Minister not consider an option that would minimise the tax element? He said he is not obliged to make payments but the State has made substantial payments to the fishing community in the past.

Will the Minister consider the €5 million in community funding? He indicated at committee meetings that it would be distributed among State agencies. Will he not consider ring-fencing it in order that its benefits would be clearly apparent?

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

The Deputy may have misunderstood me at the committee. I did not say the €5 million in hardship funding would be spread among State agencies but that I expected it could be used to leverage other funds from other Departments and agencies. This is my intention and I have spoken on a number of occasions in this regard with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, who has community funding available to him. This funding could be allocated with a view to leveraging money from various schemes to enhance the value of the €5 million hardship fund.

My Minister of State and the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs have spoken on a number of occasions and I have spoken to a couple of representatives of drift-net fishermen to listen to proposals on alternative employment. When this consultation is finished, we may be able to produce a package. However, it will be very specific to the communities and very visible.

I have no function in tax matters as it is the Revenue Commissioners who decide whether an income is taxable. The independent group made the recommendation that all the compensation be paid in one tranche to assist people to move to a new business as quickly as possible, particularly those who had been deriving a large income from drift-netting. We have agreed from the beginning that if people want to spread the receipt of the payment over a two or three year period, they can do so. This would obviously have tax implications for them.

A radio interviewer told me people's livelihoods were being taken away and that they were only receiving €2,000 in compensation. The only people receiving this amount are those who have had a licence for the past six years and have not caught a salmon. Livelihoods are hardly at stake in such instances. Others are affected more severely.

Consider Deputy Perry's point on the terms of reference. The group was asked very specifically about the consequences and what recommendations it would make in view of us having to move because of scientific advice on which everyone in the House agreed. Most Members said that the Government should have moved in accordance with scientific advice two years previously. In fairness to the group, it met its terms of reference in full and without deviation.

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister answered regarding taxation.

Photo of John PerryJohn Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the equal valuation of salmon licences, the reference years used to calculate the final figures were based on a very difficult period. Will the Minister consider basing uniformity on the payment of licences and the tax element? Why was only €10 million provided in last week's Estimate for the fund, when the original figure was €25 million, with €5 million for the development fund? Will the €5 million in seed capital be retained and administered by the Department with the support of others?

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

I have not made a final decision on that, but my aim is that we should act to maximise the fund. The Deputy's other question concerned the €10 million in the Estimates. There was a cross-over between publication of the report and preparation of the Estimates, but whatever money is required within next year's €25 million budget will be provided, either through the Revenue or by way of Supplementary Estimate.