David Norris (Independent)

I compliment the Minister of State on the gracious manner in which he dealt with the previous Adjournment matter. I hope he will be equally gracious in dealing with the matter I am raising. He is the most appropriate Minister of State to deal with the subject of eel fisheries because he is involved in determining Ireland's approach to the issue. I have been approached by representatives of the eel sector from the the North Western Regional Fisheries Board, the Northern Regional Fisheries Board, the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board and the Shannon Eel Fishermen's Association. They have complained to me about the over-zealous implementation of an EU directive.

Eels are a naturally occurring species in the Irish fish stocks. The River Dodder at Ballsbridge was full of eels when I was young, until one day the Dartry dye works allowed some effluent to flow into the river and caused a massive fish kill. Masses of trout and eels were killed. It was quite astonishing. It was interesting because eels are fairly resistant to pollution. When eels start to die, it is a significant indicator of the strength of a pollutant.

It is worth pointing out that in negotiations during Ireland's early years of membership of the EU, we gave a massive bonus to the Union by handing our fish stocks to Spanish and Portuguese fishermen, in particular. We are always being told how much we have gained from being in the EU, but people rarely point out how much we have given to the Union. According to some computations, we have given the EU at least as much as we have gained in grants, subsidies and farm payments under the Common Agricultural Policy.

I want to look at this situation. The eel is an interesting fish, although it is hardly like a fish. It is somewhere between a fish and an animal such as a snake. The life cycle of the eel lasts 90 years. Irish eels breed in the Sargasso Sea before their elvers come to the rivers of Ireland.

It is obvious that the Union is trying to protect this resource. Eel fishermen want to protest against this drastic measure. Not only will it destroy their livelihoods, but it will also prove to be ineffective from the perspective of eel stocks. They accept that what is known as "elver recruitment" is experiencing difficulties in Europe. If elvers do not arrive in Europe in sufficient numbers, eel stocks will decline. Eel fishermen accept that action needs to be taken on a Europe-wide basis.

Why, given that the directive issued by the European Union required a reduction of just 40% in the catching of eels, has Ireland decided to eliminate 100% of its eel fisheries? There is an extraordinary contrast between the position being taken here and that being taken North of the Border. The authorities in the North have decided to allow the Lough Neagh eel fisheries to stay open. It is extraordinary that we are penalising people on this side of the Border while people on the other part of the island are not being penalised.

What can eel processing plants do to avoid going out of business? I understand some of them have explored the possibility of importing eels for processing from Europe or China. If they were prepared to do that — I understand it will not happen — it would be absurdly cost-ineffective. If the Government had not introduced a proposal to eliminate the eel industry entirely, the EU would have automatically required it to reduce by 50% the number of eels being caught. The eel fishermen could have lived with that, but instead the Government has decided on a 100% cut.

In the run-up to the taking of this decision, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, where the Minister of State is deployed, quite appropriately established a working group to examine this matter. At the outset, however, it did not provide for any representative of the eel industry to be represented on the group. It was only at a late stage that representatives of the industry were included on the group. The major decisions had already been made at that stage, without any input from those who are professionally involved in eel fishing. That is an extraordinary attitude. In addition, there has been no recent comprehensive survey of eel stocks in Ireland. We are dealing with this in the absence of solid and scientific evidence.

Severe restrictions, including the introduction of a closed season, were imposed on the Irish eel fisheries in 2008. The working group I have mentioned invited submissions from interested parties. Various submissions were made by eel fishermen and their representatives. They were prepared to reduce their fishing levels for 2009 to a point that would satisfy the requirements of the EU, but this proposal was ignored. I understand that attempts to secure meetings with the Minister have been similarly rebuffed. The Minister of State is shaking his head. I will accept what he says. Has he met representatives of the eel industry? If not, will he give the House an undertaking that he is prepared to meet them?

The Irish commercial eel fishing industry comprises just 2% of the total EU eel fishing industry. It is relatively insignificant. The member states that are responsible for the other 98% of the EU industry are reducing catch levels by just 40%. It seems that the entire industry on our section of this little island needs to be destroyed even though it comprises just 2% of the EU industry. In other words, Irish eel fisheries will be closed while other fisheries remain open. Virtually all the regional fisheries boards have passed resolutions opposing the introduction of a total ban.

The only eel fishermen in the EU to be affected in this way will be the Irish eel fishermen. We are discriminating against our own fishing community at a time of economic recession. While the number of jobs that are at stake is not huge, it is significant for the local communities affected. Why has the Government chosen to put people out of work at this time? By closing an indigenous industry, we will cause great hardship to many decent fishermen without achieving any real or scientifically validated increase in eel stocks.

I understand that no package of financial compensation is to be provided. Even if we were to accept this catastrophic decision, the least we would expect is for some degree of compensation to be offered. If people's livelihoods are to be swept away from them by a directive from on high, the least they should be given is some compensation for their investment in boats, stock and equipment. That is not being done, however.

I ask the Minister of State to revisit this decision and address this situation. Perhaps limited eel fishing could be allowed, in line with the best scientific advice. Alternatively, or in addition, compensation could be provided to people who are being flung out of their jobs, at a difficult economic time, as a result of the over-zealous implementation of an EU directive. The EU requires each member state to close 40% of its eel industry, but we have decided to close 100% of our industry. There is something almost masochistic about this that I do not understand. I look forward with great interest to hearing the Minister of State's reply.