With the permission of the House, I should like to share my time with Deputy Garland.
Adjournment Debate. - Regional Fisheries Boards Funding.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
There is now an urgent need to provide sufficient money to allow regional fisheries boards to operate as they are supposed to do under statute. The position obtaining under which regional fisheries boards are having to cut back severely on their allocations is totally unacceptable. The Minister must make allowances for boards' increased expenditure so that they may comply with the recommendations of the Ballycotton Tribunal. It would appear now that there are the farcical circumstances in which regional fisheries boards throughout the country are directed by the Department of the Marine to implement the recommendations of the Ballycotton Tribunal from their resources. This will result in inevitable severe cutbacks on a service already cut to the bone.
The report of the Ballycotton Tribunal clearly outlined the fact that no meaningful additional resources by way of staff or funding had been provided for the regional fisheries boards despite the fact that they had been obliged to develop strategies to deal with an extension of their areas of operation. Financial cuts and embargoes, together with voluntary redundancies and early retirements, mean that there has been a severe reduction in the overall staffing of boards. This has meant that fisheries boards have had to operate and fulfil their increased responsibilities with fewer resources.
The salmon industry is worth millions of pounds to our economy. Therefore it is common sense that adequate resources be allocated to the regional fisheries boards nationwide so that they can fulfil their legal obligations to develop and protect this great natural resource. It is pointless to instruct already hard-pressed fisheries boards to comply with regulations while at the same time not providing them with the necessary finance to carry out the recommendations of the Ballycotton Tribunal. The safety measures outlined in the report of the Ballycotton Tribunal — for example, the provision of certain types of boats, survival suits, radio equipment, shore vehicles, training of personnel and extra staff — are matters for and the responsibility of the Minister and his Department. Unless the financial resources to implement these necessary measures are made available the overall objective of the Ballycotton Tribunal, which was to investigate the deaths of four fisheries officers and make recommendations, will have been in vain.
I would ask the Minister to give the House a full commitment this evening to reimburse the fisheries boards for what they have been instructed to spend on the various safety measures recommended by the Ballycotton Tribunal.
I support Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan's plea in this matter. It is very sad that the small additional amount of money needed to safeguard our fisheries is simply not available. It must be stressed that our fisheries, both inland and offshore, constitute a precious resource which must be preserved. I would remind Members that this is a crucial period, a time when salmon, sea trout and brown trout are spawning, a time when they most need protection. Nobody in this House should say there is not money available. There is plenty of money in this country. The pubs are full. Indeed, the amount of tax avoided by some of the Taoiseach's friends would be sufficient——
That is uncalled for.
It is much called for and very relevant. For example, the couple of millions of pounds——
The Deputy should say that outside the House. If he has any courage he should repeat that outside the House.
It is very relevant. Perhaps the Minister would hear me out.
The Deputy is afraid to repeat it outside the House.
The amount of money saved by schemes to end tax avoidance would go a long way to sorting out the problems of our inland and offshore fisheries.
, Limerick West): I agree with Deputies that extremely serious issues are raised by the emerging financial position of some but not all fisheries boards. The total financial allocation for fisheries boards in 1990 came to approximately £5.682 million. This included an exceptional provision of over £400,000 to enable the boards to substantially reduce accumulated deficits and to start with a relatively balanced position going into this year. This allocation was made on the strict condition that boards would take all necessary measures to avoid any overruns in 1991.
Allowing for provision for various pay increases the present allocation for 1991 will be close to £6.5 million, showing a very substantial nominal increase on the underlying position for 1990, but, I would concede, very little by way of a real increase. However, the Deputy must accept that in present financial circumstances the maintenance of real levels of expenditure could not be considered to be unsatisfactory.
I have been alarmed in recent weeks at reports that, leaving aside some exceptional items, a subtantial deficit was emerging in the overall financial position of the boards for 1991. This is an extremely serious matter as boards are required legally to live within the resources they have been allocated.
The allocation by the boards of available resources as between different services is largely left to the boards themselves to decide in accordance with their views of local priorities. It is a matter for the boards to manage their ongoing expenditure in a prudent fashion, allowing for contingencies including risks as regards the timing and level of own resources and the seasonal pattern of expenditure, so that the possibilities of running into significant unavoidable overruns late in the year when the scope for taking corrective action is limited are kept to an absolute minimum.
If boards have difficulties now they are largely of their own making. It is totally unacceptable that they should turn around and seek to blame the difficulties they themselves have created by crying wolf and threatening extreme measures. These boards are in no different position from any other agency financed largely by the taxpayer and must live within their means.
In the light of these developments I have asked for a full report from my Department on all aspects of financial control and management by the fisheries boards.
The Deputy correctly raised the question of safety issues. I agree with him that such expenditures should have a high degree of priority within the boards' expenditure programmes and that services should be curtailed, if necessary, rather than put their staff at any undue risks.
I am very conscious of the difficulties faced by the regional fisheries boards during and after the Ballycotton tragedy and in terms of the expenditure incurred by them in connection with the legal fees associated with the Ballycotton inquiry, following the review of safety and having regard to the recommendations of the Ballycotton inquiry report. However, the legal responsibilities of boards with regard to operating within approved estimates is quite clearly defined in the 1980 Fisheries Act. While boards may not be totally satisfied with the resources available, I would have to point out that similar views are held by most State organisations which are largely financed by the Exchequer.
I am sure that Deputies will accept that a system whereby State organisations could themselves set their own level of expenditure and send the bill to the taxpayer would be a recipe for financial disaster. All State agencies must accept their legal responsibilities to live within the resources they are given. Should these legal responsibilities be ignored the consequences could be extremely serious for the agency concerned.
I am of course not unsympathetic to the pressures of boards and will do all I can to assist them. But as of now I have no funds available for that purpose. I can give no guarantee that such funds can be found. Accordingly, the boards have no option but to take all appropriate steps to reduce as far as possible any excesses emerging.