John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

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.