asked the Minister for the Marine if he has made any final decision regarding the use of monofilament nets for salmon fishing; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

18.

asked the Minister for the Marine if he is to introduce a quota and a tag system for salmon; and if so, the basis for establishing individual quotas.

29.

asked the Minister for the Marine his views on the Salmon Review Group report; if he accepts its recommendations; and when he intends to implement them.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 18 and 29 together. I have accepted the objectives as included in the report and am of the opinion that they will form a firm foundation on which the development of the salmon industry can be based. Salmon is a national asset which must be developed in the national interest with a view to creating sustainable employment, better income distribution and improved recreational amenities.

I recently published the report of the Salmon Review Group, and in view of the many far-reaching recommendations made by the group, I invited interested parties to submit their observations on the report as soon as possible. A number of interested parties indicated that the original timetable of end February was not sufficient. I, therefore, extended the date for replies to 31 March 1988. I will, on considering their views, arrange for implementation of those recommendations in the report which I consider will best achieve the objectives which I have adopted.

The report covers a very wide range of issues. This area is notorious for the conflicting interests between anglers and draft net fishermen on the one hand, and drift net fishermen on the other. Any strategy which I adopt would endeavour to maintain that balance. I do not, therefore, envisage the lifting of the monofilament ban in isolation from implementation of alternative conservation measures.

I have also accepted in principle the introduction of a tagging and quotas system for dead salmon which is one of the alternative conservation measures recommended by the group. In relation to the tagging and quota system, all the recommendations will be discussed together and a decision taken as soon as possible. My Department are currently formulating detailed arrangements for its early introduction following consultation with fishing interests. These details will include the fixing and distribution of quotas.

May I ask the Minister, in relation to the salmon review group, why it is now necessary to receive submissions in the wake of the report being published and why submissions from these various groups were not received by the body who were set up to publish the report we received recently? For example, has the Minister received any submissions on behalf of the fishermen? Why were they not included as part of the original terms of reference of the body who sat to formulate this report? While I am on my feet, may I also ask the Minister to make it clear once and for all whether, as part of the recommendations of the salmon review group, he or the Government intend to set up a single fishery authority, and I use the words the report uses? Can we please hear from the Minister what his intentions are in this area and what the future of the regional boards will be?

Hear, hear.

The reason for inviting submissions at this stage is that we are anxious to hear the views of the industry on the recommendations. The initial submissions were in relation to the problems in the salmon fishing industry and, therefore, we felt it would be very wise and sensible to request the industry's views to give them an opportunity to give their views before any final decision is taken in relation to the recommendations of the salmon review report.

This is not a final report. There will be a further report subsequent to the submissions the Minister will receive.

When the submissions are received at the end of March we will study them and make a decision on the recommendations, which we will either accept or reject. I think all of us, irrespective of our interests in whatever field, fully accept the objectives of the report which are to exploit the potential for substantial employment, maximise net income on a long term basis, optimise income distribution, which I feel is very important, optimise the amenity and recreational value and conserve and develop individual stock quotas. We are reviewing at present the question of regional fisheries boards and at this point it would be wrong of me to give any views here while this is under active consideration within the Department.

I am sceptical when the Minister talks about interested fishing bodies throughout the country. Every Minister who comes in here says the same thing. I wonder why people are protesting in the street every other day of the week. Do the Minister's discussions encompass all the different views around the country from the south-east to the north-east to the west to the south because the views are very different? The problems pertaining to the west coast of Ireland are radically different from those on the east coast or the south-east coast. There are no salmon left in the rivers and there are no spawning grounds left. My question specifically asked the Minister what he intends to do about monofilament net fishing and I have not got an answer to that. It has been couched in vague language that it is being looked at in relation to conservation measures and all sorts of other things. This is March 1988 and the season is upon us. Is the Minister telling me at this stage that he does not know what he is going to do about it? May I have an answer to those two specific points?

I was told earlier in the day that we are not accepting the views of representatives in relation to, for example, Dún Laoghaire harbour and now I am being told that we should not be asking the industry for their views. The review report was made available to us early in the year and we felt there was not sufficient time between then and 29 February for the industry to make a submission to us in relation to the recommendations. I fully accept what Deputy Cullen said about there being great difficulties in respect of the final decision. We must reach a decision which ensures that there is equal distribution and which optimises the amenity and recreational value right throughout the country. There are difficulties but I think the Deputy must accept that we have been talking since I came into this House about problems in relation to the salmon industry and this is the first time we have had anything concrete. As soon as is practicable and possible after 31 March both I and the Minister, together with officials of the Department, will give full consideration to the submissions made by the industry.

Could I ask the Minister, if it is intended to introduce a salmon quota system, if he will ensure that each drift net licence holder will have the same laws applying to him. In other words, a quota should apply equally to each licence holder and there should not be any variation and also in relation to the length of drift nets, the same length of net should apply to each licence holder.

There should not be the type of discrimination that is proposed in the report which, of course, takes into account the larger catches in certain areas where we know that the monofilament net has been largely in use and where there are much larger boats. Is it the Minister's intention to have the conditions applying equally to all licence holders, including size of boat size of net and size of catch?

The questions asked by Deputy Molloy are being fully considered, and will be fully considered before the final report is made available. The situation at present is that a currach can have a licence and a 46 ft. boat can have a licence and the same length of netting applies to both boats. I do not envisage — and this is a personal opinion——

That is not so. The same length does not apply to both boats.

Does it not?

No. Different fishery districts have different lengths.

I do not envisage any change there but my personal view — and I should like to emphasise that it is a personal view — is that the length of net that is being proposed, whether it is accepted or not, should be the same for all licence holders. On the point that the number of salmon for each boat will be the same, if the quotas are accepted, I certainly would not be as adamant on that question as I would be in relation to the other question. I want to re-emphasise that I believe the most important of the basic objectives is to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of income right across the board.

In view of the fact that the report envisages a single fishery authority right through, until we know the Minister's mind or the mind of the Government in that regard the rest of the report falls. Will we have the final report when the Minister has received the final submissions? I still do not accept the reason given by the Minister. Perhaps he can explain why all submissions were not received before this report was published. He could continue receiving submissions and making additional reports forever if he wanted to postpone action. May we have an answer, please, to the question put, which is, whether the Minister intends to legalise monofilament nets?

Bí misneach agat.

The basic answer is that we are now requesting submissions and obtaining the views of the industry in relation to the recommendations. There is no grey area. It is either black——

The Minister will have to be courageous.

This is unsatisfactory.

It is either black or white.

This is putting the cart before the horse.

Bí misneach agat.

Let me remind the Progressive Democrats that there had been absolutely nothing done and Deputy Molloy was perhaps on this side of the House for too long.

Deputy Molloy is now being told he was on that side of the House for too long.

A little too long, now that we see the other side of his coat.

Now the Minister is getting cross.

Deputy Molloy was on this side of the House as a Minister in the seventies and at the end of the seventies Deputy Molloy had made no impact whatsoever. There is no case in relation to that. I must say in fairness to the Labour Party, that Deputy Kavanagh did set up the guidelines and we expanded on them. Some action is being taken and after 31 March, when all these submissions are made available to us, we shall not be found wanting when a decision has to be made.

I am now proceeding to priority questions.

What about my other two questions on monofilament nets?

I wish to ask the Minister a question on a subject already covered.

It must be a very brief question. I have already encroached on time for priority questions.

Is it the intention of the Minister to have any new regulations, whatever they may be, in place in the 1988 season which is about to start, or is he talking about the 1989 season? I also ask the Minister, when he returns to his Department, to look at the files for 1968 and 1969. He will see that I called a public fishery inquiry into salmon drift-netting off the Galway coast in the Connemara, Galway and Balinakill fisheries districts. It is not correct for him to say that I made no contribution to this subject. I played a very major role in it in those years.

I was going back to 1970, but I shall refer back further.

The Minister does not know what he is talking about. He should stick to his brief. He does not know what happened in my time.

I have a fair idea.

Deputy Molloy was given a fair chance to put his supplementary. Let us hear the Minister's reply before we proceed to deal with priority questions.

There is no answer required.

We come to questions nominated for priority.