Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 358: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will review the hardship fund offer for drift net licence holders in view of the effect the closure of their industry will have on them. [41281/06]

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 359: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will increase the hardship fund offer for drift net licence holders in view of the fact that the recent catch history figures are distorted due to the quota system that was in place; if he will ensure that the fund has no tax implications; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41282/06]

John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 358 and 359 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.

The status of salmon stocks in Ireland and elsewhere is well documented and it is evident that these have declined in the years since an historic high in the mid-seventies. Reflecting these trends, conservation measures have been introduced progressively over the past decade. However, the 2006 report of the Standing Scientific Committee confirms that despite recent reduced exploitation, many stocks are still falling well below their conservation limit.

As the Deputy is aware I appointed an Independent Group to examine the implications of alignment with the scientific advice for the commercial salmon fishing sector in 2007 and beyond. As part of their remit the group made recommendations to address any financial hardship that may be experienced by the sector. The approach they adopted to determining the hardship payments is robust and convincing.

In their report the group commented that the level of hardship likely to be experienced would vary both in extent and scale. Taking all factors into account and based on available information, noting particularly that there is no legal obligation on the State to provide compensation in a situation where it is imposing management measures that are fundamentally in the public good, they proposed to provide a measure of relief to each individual in line with the level of hardship likely to be experienced.

They recommended that this should be based on the recent catch history of the individual licence holder (2001 to 2005). The Government accepted the recommendation of the Independent Group and has 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 (2001 to 2005). This income calculation was based, by the group, on the average price obtained per fish each year less the costs incurred by fishermen. Each individual licence holder who applies to the fund is set to receive six times their average catch multiplied by the average net income per salmon. An additional payment equal to 6 times the current licence fee will be made in all cases. I believe this is a fair and reasonable allocation and does not need to be modified.

I have no function in tax matters, as it is the Revenue Commissioners who decide whether an income is taxable. The Independent Group recommended that 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. The Government 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.