Brendan Kenneally (Fianna Fail)

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.