Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I would like to say a few words as part of this important debate. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to the House. I recognise that he will have a difficult job in trying to resolve this issue. Ireland spends billions of euro each year, in the form of direct grant aid or tax incentives, for example, on trying to attract enterprise and industry. We need to ensure we protect our natural assets and resources, such as our salmon stocks, which help to create jobs and wealth.

The Irish salmon, which is as old as the nation, is synonymous with this country. It continues to be one of our greatest resources, despite the pressure on it. Our tourism industry, which employs tens of thousands of people, is another of our great natural resources. Earlier this afternoon, I attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, which featured a presentation by our counterparts from Australia, who mentioned that some 125,000 Australian people visit Ireland every year. The Irish salmon is a magnetic attraction to the many tourists from Australia and other countries who come to this country to do some fishing on Irish rivers. We have an absolute economic duty to ensure that our angling industry is maintained. Like the Minister of State, all Senators need to reflect on whether angling tourism is compatible with the drift net fishing sector. The report under discussion attempts to resolve this difficult matter.

Senator Cummins and I are familiar with the important angling tradition on the River Blackwater. We have read many reports over the years about the decline in salmon stocks on the river, which is having a negative impact on tourism in the Blackwater Valley. As I am not an expert in this field, I cannot claim to know all the reasons for the pressure on salmon stocks. However, we cannot ignore the fact that drift netting is playing a major role in reducing salmon stocks on our rivers. Action must be taken. We must also recognise that many people are employed in the drift net industry. We cannot expect them to simply go away without an adequate level of compensation. I hope the Minister of State will give serious consideration to the recommendations in the report.

I agree with Senator Daly's point in regard to a buyout, be it long-term, temporary or with a set-aside option. A voluntary buyout or set-aside scheme may not work satisfactorily because it will be taken up by those who are least successful in the industry. This happened when the possibility existed for farmers to sell their milk quotas in that it was not the large farmers who sold their quotas but the less economically developed ones. A voluntary scheme would be costly for the Department and the State to operate but would not produce results because the larger drift net fishermen would stay in business.

If we see a buyout as a way out, it will have to be undertaken on a basis other than a voluntary one. We must bring all involved within the net, if Members will excuse the pun, but this will be costly. We cannot expect drift net fishermen to simply wind down operations. We must be prepared to invest funding in a proper, attractive scheme with a good financial package because, if it works and we help the conservation and further development of salmon stocks, it will produce significant benefits from a tourism and angling perspective.

In my former constituency, I know people from the drift net community and those involved in angling. I appreciate that the issues involved are not simple ones. It is not easy to square a circle and, in this case, it cannot be done. However, while a difficult choice faces the Minister, we must put at the top of the policy agenda the need to conserve salmon stocks and allow them to flourish, and to ensure that the tens of thousands of domestic anglers and tourists who come to fish our waters continue to do so. The statistics highlight the large variation in value to the economy between a salmon caught by an angler and a salmon caught in nets. Given those figures alone, we know what we must do. It is a question of putting in place a fair system. The idea of the system being introduced on a three or four-year trial basis should be considered.

I concur with Senator Daly's point with regard to a voluntary versus a compulsory scheme. While we in this country do not like the word "compulsory", a voluntary system will cost money but will not produce results. If we are in the business of spending money, we must implement a proper scheme and move towards a system which will remove the nets and allow salmon to be re-stocked in rivers, allow the angling industry to thrive and the tourism industry to recover and grow. That would be a big reward at the end of the line. However, there will be a significant cost element to compensation and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, and the Minister for Finance will need to be willing to come up with the necessary funding. We cannot expect those in the drift net industry, who have been in the business for generations, to disappear without fair and equitable compensation. I hope the Minister will try to put a fair package in place.

No matter how long this debate continues, there is only one question, namely, whether we will take tough measures to conserve salmon stocks. We must be willing to do so. It is one of our oldest and greatest natural resources and we must ensure it is available for coming generations, as it has been for all generations past.