As the next two items are being taken together each Deputy has five minutes and the Minister has ten minutes to reply.
Levy on Travel to Offshore Islands.
Tá mé an-bhuíoch don Cheann Chomhairle as ucht an seans a thabhairt dom an t-ábhar seo a ardú. Tá sé ag goilleadh go géar ar phaisinéirí agus ar na comhlachtaí atá ag déanamh iarracht cúrsaí farántóireachta a chur ar fáil do na hoileáin i mo dháilcheantar i nGaillimh Thiar, sin é Oileáin Arann. Tá dola ann don chéad uair ar na cúrsaí farántóireachta as Castletownbere fosta. An rud atá tábhachtach domsa ná an chaoi ina bhfuil na dolaí nua seo á leagan gan cainteanna agus gan a bheith cinnte cén tionchair agus éifeacht a bheidh acu.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. From 1 July 2003 the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, proposes to invoke the powers he has under section 4(2) of the Fishery Harbour Centres Acts 1968 and 1980. There are other relevant Acts which deal simply with the transfer of functions to the Minister and his new Department.
If one thinks of the dates of the basic Act and the amending Act, 1968 and 1980, to rather suddenly announce, after 23 years, that there are going to be charges, passenger levy included, on people travelling to the Aran Islands is potentially absolutely disastrous in its effects. There are a number of charges with which I have no difficulty in relation to the appropriate management of a port. The one I particularly want to emphasise, however, is charge No. 10, which arises in the Minister's list of charges as 10a – use of harbour by passenger or cruise vessels with a permitted compliment of 100 passengers or more – and 10b – use of harbours by passenger vessels with a permitted complement of 13 to 99 passengers. The levy is €1.20 per passenger per departure.
It is quite extraordinary that no opportunity was made to consult with those who regularly use the passenger service for a very short journey from Rossaveal to the Aran Islands. I am sticking with the Aran Islands as an example. Take the example of students, many of whom come to Galway to study and travel home to the Aran Islands. Although some of the heritage aspects of the Aran Islands are under severe pressure from coastal erosion, one must remember that the islands are used as an educational resource by people who bring groups of maybe 40 or 50 students. The idea of a €1.20 levy on such students, children or even islanders themselves, who are not exempt in this order, is an attempt to introduce charges by stealth without consultation with those who are most effected.
Different companies providing the service, including one that I looked at in detail and which has no difficulty in supplying its accounts to the Minister, are facing an enormous decline in their revenues this year. Competition between ferry companies is very keen. Companies have to give groups of students or groups of people studying painting, botany or going to courses on the Aran Islands a competitive group rate. If the companies give a group rate to such groups visiting the islands for educational, cultural and heritage purposes, they have no exemption here. The €1.20 levy falls on each individual participant who is travelling. To introduce the levy without consultation is very silly.
Due to the international respect accorded to John Millington Synge and others and to films such as "The Man of Aran," a great number of the people travelling to the Aran Islands are from the United States. There has been a very serious decline in tourism from the United States – that revenue is gone. When I looked at the accounts for the full year of one of the ferry companies, I could see that a very serious loss is being incurred at present. It is possibly the very worst time to be introducing a levy.
In order to be balanced and fair, and in respect to the Ceann Comhairle's generosity in allowing me to raise this matter, which is also being raised by another Deputy, there are, altogether, across six headings, a whole list of charges, some dealing with the proper management of the provision of water cleaning, the use of the port or whatever, with which I have no difficulty. However, I urge the Minister of State to indicate that he is willing to reconsider the charges, especially with regard to charge No. 10.
I wish to share my time with Deputy McGinley.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an ábhar seo. Tá ar muintir Oileáin Árainn €1.20 breise a íoc gach turas. I am sorry the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is not present. I strongly protest that he can, by ministerial directive, impose a charge on passengers travelling from Rossaveal to the Aran Islands. The last year for which figures are available is 2000, when 150,000 passengers travelled from Rossaveal to the Aran Islands. If the charge had been imposed on them it would have generated an income of approximately €180,000. Prior to this, the boats involved paid an annual charge of €8,000.
It is clear that this measure is a means of generating finance and taxing the hard-pressed taxpayers in the Galway area who use the ferry between Rossaveal and the Aran Islands. It is also a tax on the tourism industry because many of the passengers using the service are tourists. It effectively amounts to a tax of €1.20 per tourist and will act as a great disincentive.
Most passengers travel to the Aran Islands from Rossaveal rather than Galway because of the shorter journey. In 2000, only 5,000 passengers used the Galway service. One of the boat owners providing this service, Inishmore Ferries, is doing so without any subsidy while the other boat owners are heavily subsidised by the State. For example, Island Ferries had a contract for €603,000 and it received an extra once-off payment of €127,000 after signing the contract plus an additional €95,000 per year. Will it and other subsidised operates receive an increase in their subsidy?
Inishmore Ferries had agreed to bring Special Olympics visitors on a trip to the Aran Islands. Is the Minister to impose a €1.20 charge on those passengers? How can services operate in such circumstances? I ask the Minister to reconsider this measure and bring it before the Dáil rather than sneaking it in as a ministerial directive.
I approach this issue from a different angle. It affects Killybegs not in the context of ferry operators, but because of the negative impact it will have on the fishing industry. The Minister of State is aware of the crisis in the fishing industry. A number of years ago, between 1,500 and 2,000 people were employed in the fishing industry in Killybegs but current numbers are only one third of that. This measure will have a negative impact on the industry, the economy of Killybegs and south-west Donegal.
This measure was a bolt out of the blue. It amounts to another stealth tax. The Minister's predecessor established a committee to assess the impact of transferring responsibility for the major fishing ports from the Department to the local committees. However, rather than waiting for the committee's views or report, he announced this tax. The entire fishing community from Donegal to Castletownbere is up in arms.
I appeal to the Minister of State and the Minister to reconsider this measure. It is a draconian levy and a penal tax and it could not have been imposed at a worse time. If it is implemented it will drive people out of fishing. They are existing on a knife edge at present and this will be the final nail in the coffin. In view of this I ask the Minister of State to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this drastic measure before irreparable harm is done to small fishing communities along the western seaboard, where unemployment is rampant and where fishing is often the only viable livelihood available to many communities.
I thank Deputies Michael D. Higgins, McCormack and McGinley for raising this issue. I apologise for the absence of the Minister. He asked me to extend his regrets for not being in the Chamber but he is in Luxembourg to attend tomorrow's meeting of the European Fisheries Council on the question of the Irish Box.
The charges at the five fishery harbours located at Howth, Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Rossaveal and Killybegs were last increased in 1990 and are clearly in need of upward revision. The operation and management of these harbours are provided for in the Fishery Harbour Centres Acts 1968 to 1998. The harbours are owned and managed directly by my Department and the employees at the centres are Department employees.
The operation and management are administered by way of the fishery harbour centres fund, which is provided for in section 9 of the 1968 Act. All income received by way of harbour dues, rents, etc., is paid into the fund and outlays in respect of the management of the harbours are also paid out of the fund. The 2002 draft accounts for the fund show an operating deficit of €544,990 and an aggregate deficit of €1.2 million. Without a significant increase in income, the deficit will increase rapidly as staff and other operating costs, such as the costs of maintaining the facility, electricity, telephone and waste disposal, increase.
The Exchequer meets the total capital costs of developing the five fishery harbour centres through the national fishery harbour development programme and is providing €28 million in 2003 for those purposes. Proposed new charges at the fishery harbour centres were published on 21 May 2003, with the statutory consultation period of 21 days provided for until midnight on 10 June. Included in these proposals are a proposed flat rate charge of €1.20 per passenger per departure from any fishery harbour centre by vessels permitted to carry 100 passengers or more, instead of the current flat rate charge of £4,000 imposed in 1990. Increased charges are also proposed for smaller passenger vessels. The proposed charges set out in draft order are designed to reflect costs.
A number of detailed submissions were made regarding the proposed increased charges for passenger vessels. The Minister will need time to consider them carefully and the outcome of the public consultation process before making his decision regarding charges at fishery harbour centres. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this aspect on his behalf at this time. However, I assure the Deputies I will communicate their views to the Minister, particularly regarding some of the issues dealing with charges for teenagers and children and group charges.