I wish to share my time with Deputy McGinley.
BIM Seafood Industry Agenda 2000-2006 Report: Statements.
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
(Dr. Woods): I am pleased to have this opportunity to review developments in the fishing industry and to set out for the Dáil my policy objectives for the sector and my strategic approach to delivering on those objectives. My objective is to ensure a sustainable and vibrant future for the Irish seafood industry and the communities which it supports backed up by the necessary level of funding to underpin investment post 2000.
I am pleased to have the full backing and commitment of BIM in the task of delivering on that strategic objective for the sector. The BIM plan for 2000-6 is an invaluable input into the challenging task ahead to deliver a sustainable future for, and with, the industry and coastal communities.
The fleet, processing, aquaculture and ancillary service sectors already support jobs for 16,000 people in areas where there are few alternative employment opportunities. The sector is worth £300 million per annum to the national economy. That is important because it applies in areas where there are few alternative opportunities. Irish seafood exports are now valued at £250 million. The achievements to date underlie the significant potential for further growth in this indigenous natural resource based sector which will deliver jobs and growth, particularly in peripheral coastal communities.
Our existing development strategies have been focused on the modernisation and renewal of the fleet, the continued sustainable growth of the aquaculture sector, expansion in onshore processing and the development of fishery harbours infrastructure and aquaculture landing places. A feature of this year's budget was that extra funds were made available. That was very helpful, although the plans for the future are going ahead. My commitment and that of the Government to the development of the sector is clearly underlined in the delivery last year of funding support and tax incentives for the white fish fleet renewal programme supporting up to £60 million investment in the fleet.
I also achieved, in the context of the budget for 1999, a very major increase in Exchequer funding for fishery harbours and aquaculture infrastructure development. There is still much to be done and the immediate challenge now is to position the sector firmly to deliver on its recognised economic potential and development needs into the next millennium with EU Structural Funds support.
My strategic objective is to enhance the safety and competitiveness of the fleet, the quality of landings and to maximise supply through full and effective take up of available quotas and to rapidly develop non-quota fishing opportunities. A critical commercial imperative for the industry at this point in its development is to ensure that supply is matched to demand in terms of price, quality availability and regularity. In addition, therefore, to improving supply and fishing opportunities, we must tackle the demand side, especially product quality and markets. Achieving these policy objectives will require new partnerships and co-operation between the various players, including the catching, processing and exporting sectors.
In the context of the strategies necessary to deliver on the safety, quality and competitive needs of the industry, I will outline current developments in the industry and set out my objectives for development over the next six years. The whitefish fleet generates most of the employment in the fishing sector and accounts for 65 per cent of the value of fish landings. My first priority in office was to deliver on measures for the renewal of the whitefish fleet in line with the Government's commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium. I am pleased to inform the House that the whitefish fleet renewal programme which I announced last year is already paying dividends with new boats being ordered for the whitefish fleet for the first lime in many years. The tax reliefs secured in the Finance Act, 1998, and the capital grant programme has created a new climate of opportunity and will catalyse the much needed degree of change in the fish sector. My investment support strategy is helping significant investment in the renewal of the whitefish fleet. The re-investment now under way in the fleet will enable full and efficient quota take-up and enable Irish fishermen to develop new non-quota fishing opportunities. Safety and competitiveness will be improved and existing employment maintained with potential for additional jobs at sea and in processing and supply services. Over the medium term we need to build on the progress to date in terms of the renewal of the whitefish fleet, in particular by supporting and fostering the synergies between the fleet and the processing sectors. Linkage between supply and demand is the key to a competitive future.
The parameters governing support for the fisheries sector in the coming six years will be laid down at EU and national level. The terms and conditions governing EU funding for the fisheries sector are decided by the Fisheries Council. It is imperative that EU rules on aid facilitate rather than stifle the continued development of the Irish industry. The actual amount of EU and Exchequer aid for the fisheries sector will primarily be determined at national level. Therefore, decisions taken at the Fisheries Council and in Government in the coming months will be critical to the future of the industry. I am working on both fronts to achieve the necessary investment support for the sector in the next round.
As I have previously stated in the House, I have fundamental problems in principle and in practice with the Commission's proposed terms and conditions for grant aiding fleet renewal under the next round of Structural Funds. At the March Fisheries Council I made clear my total opposition to the Commission's proposals, and with the support of other colleagues secured the German Presidency's agreement to re-examine the Commission's proposals.
The Commission's opening proposals include a 130 per cent tonnage replacement requirement as a precondition for grant aiding the introduction of vessels. The Commission is also proposing a number of other restrictive fleet capacity management measures, including an effective ban on the trading of fishing vessels within the EU fleet. Essentially, the Commission is seeking to set fleet capacity parameters which are much more restrictive than the MGP IV fleet programme framework which was agreed by Council in 1997. It also seeks to pre-empt future decisions by Council about the nature and framework of the next fleet programme, MGP V, for the period after 2001. The impact of this proposal is that 130 tonnes would have to be found to replace 100 tonnes where replacement tonnage has to be found. This would automatically decrease the size of the fleet and is an indirect way of doing so.
We agree the funding for fleet modernisation in the next round should, as at present, be subject to member states meeting their obligations under the MGP programmes. To that extent, the funding proposals should take due account of the existing MGP Council decisions and parameters laid down in the individual fleet programmes of member states. However, it is not acceptable for the Commission to try to rewrite the 1997 Council decision on MGP IV and to pre-empt political negotiations and decisions on the parameters for the next MGP which will be determined in 2001. The German Presidency is consulting with Ireland and other member states on the scope for compromise, but in light of the Commission's very hard line, compromise will be a difficult and very tough battle. The fishing industry organisation has been fully briefed on the Commission proposals and I know I have its full support in opposing these unduly restrictive measures.
At national level, I am seeking a fair share of funding to support the continued modernisation of the whitefish fleet in the next round. Further re-investment in the fleet will be necessary to improve safety, efficiency and competitiveness and to ensure employment is maintained.
Recent years have seen exceptional growth in consumer demand for seafood within the European Union and worldwide. Very significant changes are taking place in traditional seafood markets around the world. Patterns of consumption are changing fast, with a huge potential market for a wide variety of high value seafood as well as for fresh product. Competition is intense and the liberalisation of world trade is adding to the market challenge for the Irish industry. There are significant opportunities, therefore, but also significant challenges.
I am firmly committed to supporting the development of the fish processing sector, to delivering maximum returns from our fisheries resources and to ensuring the economic benefits of our seafood exports accrue to Ireland in terms of value added. Continued strong growth in the fish processing sector is critical for jobs, growth, value added and exports in the Irish seafood industry overall. Fish processing output is on a steady upward growth curve and amounted to 145,000 tonnes in 1997, valued at £213 million. There are significant opportunities for further growth. A buoyant market exists for seafood in the EU and worldwide. Consumption will continue to follow an upward trend creating the opportunity to develop new products to satisfy market need and allowing the industry to move along the value chain.
The further development of the processing industry is critical for jobs, growth, value added and exports in the fishing industry overall. A total investment of £26 million has been supported since 1994 in more than 110 fish processing projects. We need to build on that investment and move to the next phase of development. A thriving processing sector is vital for the prosperity of the fishing industry and the communities in which those processing plants are located. There is still a great deal to be done to realise the full potential of the fish processing sector, particularly in terms of quality, value added and scale. We add some 50 per cent to the value of our fish through processing while other countries achieve up to 200 per cent in added value. We must deliver maximum value from our fisheries resources and ensure the economic benefits of our exports accrue to Ireland. There is no point in having excellent fish if most of the benefit accrues elsewhere. New products, new technologies, first class quality and improved continuity of supply are the key challenges. Capacity expansion, product technology and product development in the processing sector will require a significant level of funding support after 2000. This is a key priority for me. The sound economics of supporting investment in this indigenous, natural, resource-based sector are self-evident. I welcome BIM's solid endorsement and analysis of the potential in its Seafood Industry Agenda 2000-2006 which underpins my assessment and which will be an invaluable input into the task of securing the necessary funding support for the sector after 2000.
There are certain challenges facing the herring and mackerel sector and I have worked in the past year to position the industry to maintain a strong presence and become more competitive in a tough international environment. The EU and global pelagic market is characterised by oversupply, low prices and changing consumer trends. It has also been badly affected by the economic situation in Russia, one of the key markets for mackerel and also an important market for herring. The herring market situation remains difficult. The main underlying global factor affecting herring continues to be oversupply and changing trends on the Japanese herring roe and European herring flap markets which are the key outlets for Irish herring exports.
I have delivered comprehensively on the concrete recommendations of the task force on the management and marketing of herring since it reported to me in March of last year. The strategies proposed were directed at creating a new partnership approach supporting improved operational efficiency and ensuring better co-operation in management and marketing. A key initiative which I put in place last autumn was the introduction of quality training programmes for the herring fleet and processing sector. There was an excellent take-up of the scheme and I am confident the results will begin to show in improved product handling and processing. I also recently approved the appointment of a pelagic market co-ordinator by BIM who will work with the Irish herring and mackerel exporters on a co-ordinated focused approach to market development in eastern Europe and worldwide. I want to see fish exporters working more closely together on sales strategies and market intelligence. It works well for the Norwegians and the Dutch in the international marketplace. We must aspire to similar high standards of professionalism and teamwork in the overall interests of the industry. It is important for the interests of the catching and processing sectors in the pelagic sector to work more closely together. National co-operation will ensure the maximum return from our valuable pelagic opportunities. Partnership within the industry is the key to moving forward in the medium to long term.
At my request BIM is working closely with the fish processing and exporting companies to maximise product and marketing opportunities on the domestic and export markets. Good progress is being made to develop existing and new markets for Irish seafood worldwide. Fish exports have increased by some 60 per cent since 1990 and were valued at £230 million in 1997. BIM has now completed a strategic analysis of the home market and has put in place a market-led strategy for the future. The strategy aims to reflect modern lifestyle requirements by improving the range and availability of appropriate products while also increasing consumer, retail and catering trade awareness of seafood as an attractive user-friendly product. The secondary strategy will have a long-term education focus where the versatility and convenience of seafood is promoted to existing consumers in the catering and retail sector and future consumers. The strategic focus in the export market will be on sustained development of existing markets and expansion into new markets which offer significant opportunities. The development of value added export product is a key to competitiveness and market edge for Irish seafood companies.
Strong and continued support from the EU for fisheries training is important. Under the current operational programme for fisheries, almost £800,000 per annum of EU funds has been allocated towards fisheries training. In addition, EU funding has been allocated for training from the PESCA Community initiative, the INTERREG programme and the smallscale fisheries programme. I look forward to continued strong support from the EU for fisheries training which is vital to the future of the industry. The demand for fisheries training has grown and will continue to grow as a result of safety, quality, health and hygiene requirements and the impact of the technology revolution, including range and sophistication of equipment, electronics and aquaculture techniques. The implementation of the recommendations of the Fishing Vessel Safety Review Group creates additional safety training requirements. Training is also a vital complement to the whitefish fleet renewal programme. We must ensure that the industry avails of enhanced training programmes to support the new investment in the fleet.
I have taken a number of initiatives in order to meet the increased demand for fisheries training. I have provided the funding for the new regional fisheries training centre at Castletownbere, which I formally opened two weeks ago. This new training centre will serve the needs of the industry in the south-west catchment area. Improved regional and local access to training is a critical part of my objective to enhance safety, quality and competitiveness. The Castletownbere centre represents my commitment and that of BIM to the local provision of high quality service for the catching, aquaculture and processing sector.
The Castletownbere facility will augment the fisheries training programmes at BIM's fisheries training centre at Greencastle and by the two mobile coastal training units which play a vital role in bringing safety training to fishermen in our more remote coastal locations. These units, which are equipped with state-of-the-art facilities, bring safety training directly to small coastal communities. They complement the national centre at Greencastle and the Castletownbere facility. These units enabled more than 300 fishermen and fish farmers to acquire safety and certificate training in their home ports during 1997.
There are two other strategic developments which will impact on future training delivery. First, I am setting up a training and employment task force for the fishing industry. The task force will identify the actions needed to overcome the barriers to local employment in the sector. Through this forum the fishing industry will have an opportunity to bring forward proposals to tackle similar challenges to those which faced the shipping sector. The task force will be led by and will include key representatives of the industry. They will bring their experience and responsibilities to bear on the problems, including working conditions, training strategies and health and safety requirements.
The development of an integrated human resource development strategy is critical to the future development of the seafood sector. I welcome BIM's commitment to a strategic training plan in Seafood Industry Agenda 2000-06. I have asked BIM to begin work immediately on a medium-term training strategy in close consultation with the industry and in light of the INDECON report on fisheries training which has been circulated to all key players. Expenditure on training must be cost-effective, must represent value for money and must meet the development needs of the industry. A clear strategic plan is essential to ensure optimum delivery for the industry.
The fishing industry is critically dependent on berthage and on-shore facilities for landings and services. Investment to date under the operational programme has delivered a substantial volume of improvements and refurbishment at fishery harbours. This investment provided for a new harbour in Kilmore Quay, an upgraded auction hall in Killybegs, the upgrading of the pier in Greencastle and the upgrading of small strategic harbours around the coast. I secured a 300 per cent increase for investment in fishery harbours in 1999. Key priorities include Killybegs, Dingle, Burtonport and Castletownbere, as well as a range of small but vitally important harbours.
There is aprima facie case for further expenditure on fishery harbours and facilities in the next round. The investment is needed to bridge the infrastructure gap, eliminate serious bottlenecks and congestion and improve safety as well as efficiency and competitiveness. The investment in piers and facilities will underpin the planned expansion of the fish processing and aquaculture sectors.
Under the operational programme for fisheries, significant progress was made in upgrading national laboratory facilities, research vessel capability, with the construction of the new research vessel, theCeltic Voyager, and the establishment of a national marine RTD project fund ing mechanism. Ireland's investment in marine research continues to significantly lag behind that of our European partners. It is now time to recognise the commercial return of research and development investment and I will seek a significant increase in the level of funding for marine research in the next round.
With Government agreement I launched the Marine Institute's marine research technology, development and innovation strategy last year. The strategy document provides a detailed evaluation of the research and development strategies needed to underpin all the development potential of the marine resource. We have already made a quantum leap in Irish marine research and development. Further strategies and funding support will be geared to delivering on the widely acknowledged potential for marine research and development to contribute to growth and jobs.
The aquaculture industry has grown exponentially in recent years. It now represents some 30 per cent of the total value of Irish seafood output. The aquaculture sector has the potential to bring much needed further development to our remote coastal areas where economic development opportunities are often very limited. Aquaculture production will supply an increasing proportion of raw material for the Irish seafood processing sector. The support for the sustainable development of this sector is a critical priority in BIM's seafood industry agenda.
My colleague, the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Byrne, has special responsibility for the aquaculture sector. He will address the House on the current state of play in the industry and our strategic economic objectives for its future sustainable development.
I commend BIM for its strategy, which highlights the undoubted economic opportunities which a cohesive and innovative investment strategy can deliver for the sector. The BIM analysis accords with my own and is a critical contribution to the current debate on national investment priorities. I assure the House that I will be working with Government colleagues to secure the necessary investment support.
I thank the Members of the Opposition for their support for this development and for the work which BIM has been doing. This is a major national resource and one in which all parties in the House are interested. It is one which we must develop. The competition for resources is stiff and the national priorities and challenges are many. However, we have set an ambitious and convincing agenda. It is my objective to try and deliver it.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I asked the Fine Gael Whip, Deputy Barrett, to include the BIM document for debate in the Dáil. I did so with the primary objective of focusing on BIM, the fishing industry and its importance. The Dáil has debated Agenda 2000 and the farming proposals on many occasions. Yet, the fishing industry has been regarded as the Cinderella industry and it has not received the recognition it deserves. It is important, therefore, to give the industry proper recognition and have it debated in the House. There is also a need to recognise BIM management who prepared this comprehensive document, almost as a blueprint for marine activities for the future. While I represent a rural community and understand agriculture, I appreciate the importance of fishing.
The last round of funding was disappointing for the marine industry. Successive Governments have failed to get adequate funding to sustain the industry. To highlight this, it is estimated that in 1996 alone, EU and Government funding equated to £14,500 for each agriculture worker while the comparable figure for the fishing industry was £1,500. When it is considered that we have 5 to 8 per cent of EU catch levels, only 2.8 per cent of the tonnage of the total fleet and that we supply 3 per cent of the European market requirement it is clear that the common fisheries policy has not been a success for Irish fishermen.
Under the operational programme for fisheries the fishing industry received only 1 per cent of all EU Structural Funds, or £75 million. This is unsatisfactory and it pales into insignificance when compared with the funding devoted to agriculture. The Irish seafood industry comprises fishing, aquaculture, processing and ancillary sectors employing approximately 16,000 people directly. Other spin-off activities raise this to approximately 25,000. If one allows for family dependence, nearly 60,000 people rely on the industry.
The sales of Irish seafood are worth approximately £300 million annually with exports accounting for £228 million. The BIM document has proposed that £153.7 million should come from the EU and £44.8 million from Government funding. It also envisages private investment of £166.3 million. If one divides £44.8 million over seven years it becomes apparent that the level of Government funding required is small.
The investment is to be focused in different areas. In the case of fishery harbours a total investment of approximately £60 million is envisaged. This is of vital importance for the long-term sustainability and development of our fishing fleet. Insufficient funding has been provided in the past and the infrastructural requirements of other fishery harbours have been neglected.
The BIM document outlines the necessity of providing this funding over the next seven years. For example, the two harbours of Killybegs and Castletownbere combined will require approximately 50 per cent of the funding to cope with appropriate infrastructural requirements. Killybegs is the premier port in pelagic fishing and Castletownbere is the premier port in white fish or demersal fishing. Killybegs, located in south- east County Donegal, has an estimated 2,500 people depending on its fishing and related industries. It has approximately 44 vessels with approximately 24 in the pelagic fleet and 20 in the demersal fleet.
The pelagic fleet is comprised mainly of modern and efficient vessels, but the demersal fleet is old and until recently there were no strong financial inducements to modernise it. The pelagic vessels have the scope to land their fish not only in Killybegs but also in Norway and Scotland. The location is often dictated by where the vessel is fishing at the time, the weather and price considerations. Pelagic vessels fish mainly for herring, mackerel and horse mackerel. The multi-annual guidance programme, under which the objective is to reduce EU tonnage, places severe restrictions on when new vessels are required and the equivalent appropriate gross tonnage must be taken out. As the Irish fleet is small, it is regrettable that this punitive regime operates where Irish vessels are concerned and it is only fair and equitable that this should apply to those who do most of the damage to our fish stocks. I hope the Minister takes this into consideration when the next multi-annual guidance programme is being negotiated.
Although the Killybegs fishing fleet has improved considerably, there has been no significant improvement in the harbour facilities. Congestion is obvious and, as the quays are not designed to accommodate the current fleet, the quay space is inadequate for safe berthing and available water depths are not sufficient to accommodate large vessels in all tides. Estimates of the overall cost of these structural improvements range from £20 million to £25 million. This is vital to the Donegal region, much of which qualified for Objective One status. Appropriate funding for Killybegs harbour is required if it is to remain Ireland's premier fishing port.
Castletownbere in County Cork is Ireland's premier whitefish port. While many parts of Cork are economically vibrant, the Castletownbere region is regarded as economically disadvantaged. My colleague, Deputy Sheehan, spoke on many occasions about the urgent necessity for parts of south-west Cork, which are economically disadvantaged and met the criteria, to be included in the Objective One area. He must be disappointed the area he represents was not considered for Objective One status. This is a glaring example of the injustices and anomalies that existed in setting the criteria to meet that status.
Fishing is a vital economic activity in Castletownbere, where up to 500 people are employed in fishing and related activities. It is also a congested port with insufficient berthing facilities. Up to 80 per cent of fish caught are shipped, whole and fresh, directly to France and Spain. The remote location of Castletownbere was one of the factors that militated against the siting of a large processing industry in the area. The harbour is also used by Spanish, English and French traw lers. It is estimated that up to £10 million will be required to fund the port's structural requirements.
It is obvious, therefore, that at least 50 per cent of the £60 million sought under this programme will be required for these two ports alone. Other fishing harbours also have justifiable claims for improvements in their harbour infrastructures. While £60 million might seem a large sum on paper, will it be adequate to cope with the developments which are required for those harbours, on which sufficient development funds have not been spent by successive Governments? As a member of Foynes Harbour Board for many years, I am familiar with what is being achieved by investment in commercial ports but, regrettably, that investment has not been mirrored in fishery harbours.
The future development of the fish processing sector is linked to the future of the sea fishing sector. It is estimated that about 72 per cent of the Irish catch is brought ashore in Ireland. Most of the processing undertaken is of a primary nature and the opportunity to add value is reduced. The processing sector is plagued by poor availability and continuity of raw materials as a result of the common fisheries policy quotas and seasonality. Uncertainty as to availability of supply is a disincentive to innovation and investment. It is imperative that sufficient funds are made available to support added value production in the fish processing sector and for marketing and research and development to develop future market penetration abroad.
On many occasions I have focused on the marketing of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, as I am confident that with closer liaison between BIM and Bord Bia, which is responsible for the marketing of other food products, there could be greater market penetration for our fish products. I am pleased there are positive indications that these talks have been initiated and that they will bear fruit for fishermen in the future.
In the past 15 years there have been great advances in the aquaculture area and it is now worth about £60 million to the economy. It is imperative to deliver on the commitment to provide funding of more than £27 million under the programme. This, along with private investment of more than £35 million, will give a great stimulus to aquaculture developments. Sources within the aquacultural industry indicate that it could be possible to have funding of up to £100 million for aquaculture over the next seven years, so great is their confidence that, between private, State and EU investment, even £60 million may not be satisfactory.
In the outgoing round of Structural Funds, in which Fianna Fáil played a pivotal role, more jobs were created in the areas of fish processing, fish farming and added value products for each ECU invested than for any comparable sector. It was regrettable, therefore, that sufficient funding was not provided for all these marine activities. As a result of the Govern ment's attempts to advance this document, I hope we will get sufficient funding for the industry over the next seven years.
The Irish fishing fleet has about 2,100 vessels. When Deputy Barrett was Minister, he carried out an excellent review of the safety of the fishing fleet and revealed that there were safety deficiencies in up to 64 per cent of the vessels, about 60 per cent of the vessels were more than 20 years old and about 10 per cent of them were more than 40 years old. In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Woods, a successful fleet modernisation programme for the whitefish fleet is being implemented. It is imperative that the next round of funds provides for the continuation of this programme. I am pleased the BIM document recognises this is essential. I often wonder if there is a contradiction between trying to stimulate the industry with investment and continue the work the Minister has started and what the EU is trying to achieve in the multi-annual guidance programme in regard to restrictions on the fleet. I suppose the jury is still out on that. I wish the Minister well in the discussions. What the EU tried to achieve at the meeting in March would have had a severe impact on the Irish fishing fleet. The Minister must be extremely careful when the multi-annual guidance programme is being discussed in the future to ensure, as far as the Irish fishing fleet is concerned, the good work we have attempted in the past to bring the fleet up to par will not be undermined by what is being discussed at EU level.
The fishing industry must operate under the EU common fisheries policy and the restrictions it imposes. The history of the CFP makes interesting reading. In 1973, the six original EEC states included fisheries in the agriculture brief. It was on 1 April 1976, April Fools Day, that fisheries got its own department in Brussels. It was only when Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark, all maritime countries, applied for membership that the EEC woke up and suddenly realised the importance of the fishing industry. Ireland suffered as a result of the regulations that were put in place which allowed equal access to all member states to each other's fishing waters. Norway has refused to join the European Union over the years, mainly because it would lose sovereignty over its waters. It appears to be a wise move on Norway's part because it has good fishing grounds, is renowned for its conservation policies and has a thriving fishing industry.
In 1994 when Spain made it a condition for new members that it would have access to the Irish box off the south coast. Ireland, along with Great Britain, was hauled over the coals in Brussels and as a result we had to allow Spanish vessels access to our waters. Approximately 114 flagships fish off the coast. We have often asked how serious the Government was in its programme for Government when it promised to ban all flagships. If it is not serious, it should say that while it made that promise in its manifesto, it will not meet it.
Spain is probably the dominant fishery, with 20,000 vessels, and fishing is a central plank in its economy. Fisheries Council meetings are futile given that one expects all Ministers to have an interest in the fishing industry. However, Austria, which does not have fisheries or a navy, has voting rights in negotiations. I am sure Austria horse trades and barters with other member states for concessions in other areas of its economy. In December we will probably have the annual ritual preceding the fisheries meetings to agree the total allowable catch designated by scientists. Successive Ministers stated that they were going to Brussels for a hard battle.
And they had.
When they returned, they hailed the negotiations as a success because the total allowable catch was retained or there had been minor improvements. There usually is a little give and take so that Ministers can return with concessions. However, that is par for the course and must be accepted.
The Common Fisheries Policy has not been a success for Irish fishermen. Ireland is currently preparing for the next review of the policy in 2002 and it will be vital for our fishermen. There is already unanimity among many maritime states, with the possible exception of Spain and Portugal which do not have a proper coastal shelf, that a greater degree of regional control should be allowed. It is imperative for Ireland's sake that a fairer and more equitable system is achieved as the current regime is unjust and unfair. A great deal of discussion is taking place with regard to 2002 and, indeed, many organisations have made submissions. I want to be optimistic but Ireland did not do particularly well in previous reviews. Countries such as Spain and Portugal will adopt a strategy whereby they will probably look for even more concessions.
I wish to digress slightly and refer to oil and gas exploration offshore, which comes under the Minister's remit. I accept his argument that under EU rules he cannot dictate policy on labour and services on rigs off the coast. We went over the jumps last year with regard to this argument. It appears that the battle with Enterprise Oil on the issue has been lost. The company began drilling in 1996 and hired Irish rig workers, whom it seemingly found satisfactory. Traditionally, these workers operated in a weather window which meant their work was seasonal and they worked out of certain ports. They are grievously disappointed that Enterprise Oil appears to have turned its back on them. It adopted a hardline attitude but could have given catering concessions which would not have made a great demand on the company and would have been a step in the right direction.
I abhorred what happened in Foynes last year when pickets were placed on the port. It received a great deal of publicity because it was a nationwide SIPTU dispute, which was unfavourable to this commercial port. I very much regret the pickets were placed and a service contract was lost. Enterprise Oil is drilling again this year and the Minister is very optimistic about its exploration work. The Financial Times reported that the last gas find off our coast was enough to service Ireland's gas needs, with enough left over to export to the UK via the interconnector. In September 1997 the Minister said that the find comprised the highest level of gas ever recorded in Irish waters. Enterprise Ireland is using Ayr as its main service base. I do not expect any change in its attitude to Irish rig workers who worked with the company in the past. I understand it will possibly use Killybegs to a limited degree and I hope that works out satisfactorily.
I am concerned because Enterprise Oil is a multinational company with partners such as Saga Limited and Statoil. Statoil is Norwegian and in that country it would not be allowed to get away with what it did here. Because Norway is outside the EU it can dictate that 70 per cent of a company's goods and services must be sourced there. A tax of up to 70 per cent is applied to exploration subsequently. As a result of Ireland's licensing terms, the equivalent tax here is 25 per cent. However, if the exploration is a success subsequently, companies will be able to divert their capital investment for tax purposes. I envisage that not alone will Enterprise Oil not use Ireland as a service base, it will also not pay taxes on the gas it finds because of the concessions that are in place. That is a regrettable scenario and I am surprised that Statoil, which has a thriving business, does not ask Enterprise Oil to move in a positive direction on this issue in order to create goodwill in Ireland, which is sadly lacking.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt don Teachta Finucane ar dheis a thabhairt dom cúpla nóiméid a chaitheamh ag cur fáilte roimh an phlean seo atá fógraithe ag BIM fá choinne tionscail na hiascaireachta a fhobairt agus a fheabhsú sna blianta amach romhainn. Déanaim comhghairdeas le BIM agus molaim an bord as an phlean chuimsitheach seo a chur romhainn.
I come from Donegal and fishing plays a hugely important role in the economy of the county. It provides more employment than most other industries there. If fishing is going well, the economy of the county is buoyant and if fishing is depressed or in difficulty, the county's economy suffers. I compliment BIM on publishing this plan. It is a comprehensive and imaginative blueprint for the future development of the fishing industry, which plays such a crucial role in the economy of peripheral areas of the west, including my county. This is the only plan to emerge for many years and I hope it receives the full support of the Government and the Minister. If the plan is implemented over the next five to six years it is estimated that it will create 3,400 much needed jobs in the marine sector, in areas of high unem ployment in the west. It is significant that 62 per cent of the total envisaged investment of £365 million will go to the Objective One regions of the west, the north-west and the Border counties, where it is most needed.
The plan has a number of different headings. The first is fisheries development, which means the modernisation and renewal of the fishing fleet. This is essential because we have one of the oldest fishing fleets in Europe and it is in urgent need of renewal.
The second heading is the development of our fishery harbours and it goes without saying that this too is urgently needed to provide the infrastructural requirements to underpin this development. I spent last Friday in Killybegs, viewing the port from the land and the bay – I went out in a small boat as far as St. John's Point Lighthouse. There is serious congestion in the port at present because it is not able to facilitate the existing fleet. The Minister is well aware of the plans to develop the port, which I have seen also.
Not alone will the plan sustain the fishing industry and aid its further development in Killybegs, it also has a commercial dimension. There are reserves of gas and oil off the north-west coast and Killybegs would be ideal for supporting off shore energy exploration. The cost of the plan is estimated at £20 million and we await a commitment from the Government and other agencies so that the development can go ahead as soon as possible. The plans are detailed and a great deal of work has gone into them. All we are waiting for is the green light from the Department.
The third part of BIM's plan is the development of aquaculture. This has tremendous potential and contributes considerably to employment and income in the west. I hope it can be further developed because we still lag far behind other European countries. I went to Scotland last year to see what was happening there and we are well behind them, not to mention the Scandinavian countries. Aquacultural development should be balanced and responsible and we should not overlook the environment. We can learn from the mistakes of others when developing that sector.
Under the fourth heading, fish processing, the plan recommends the use of the most modern technology from the viewpoint of safety and hygiene. Everyone would agree with that. The fifth heading is market development and the sixth is human resource development. There are many long-term unemployed people in the west and if we are to develop the sector we should draw on this group. Some of them would have a natural affinity for this area and would possess the skills. They are brought up in coastal areas and it would not take much training to make them sufficiently skilled to participate in any new employment created.
The seventh heading is the ice plant programme. It is essential to have a well-equipped, modern ice plant in every port, in the interest of hygiene and to provide the best quality fish for the international market. A huge market is avail able. In Europe we are used to having a surplus of most commodities – beef, butter, milk, cereals, etc. – but we were only 74 per cent sufficient in fish supplies in 1988, and that fell to 52 per cent sufficiency in 1998, a huge drop over that period. There is growing reliance on fish imports into the EU, which shows the potential of the industry. No matter how much we produce we will never be subject to quotas because there is a huge deficit and demand greatly exceeds supply.
If this plan is to be effective it must get Government support. It will generate investment of £365 million, £199 million of which will come from the EU and national Governments and the rest from private investors. If that level of money is spent in our peripheral regions, from Donegal to Cork, it will provide a great economic boost. I ask the Minister to give the plan total support for the sake of our peripheral areas, which have endemic high unemployment.
On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome the BIM Seafood Industry Agenda, 2000-2006. This is probably the best document in the history of the Irish fishing industry and I record our gratitude to the authors of the report. One can imagine the hours of research and work which went into it. The report is practical, simple and effective. If this Minister or one of his successors were to succeed in developing the industry this would be the blueprint for its future, even beyond 2006.
One could virtually read the report into the record and not need to say much else but I will mention one element. We tend to be parochial in our contributions but my example is parochial because it is the one I know best. Clogherhead is the main fishing port in my constituency, County Louth. The village and surrounding area depends on not only fishing but fish processing. For as long as I have been a member of Louth County Council, more than 25 years, we have tried to encourage various Ministers to take an interest. Ministers from all parties came to Clogherhead by sailing boat, helicopter and aeroplane, usually prior to elections, and all promise to do various things for the port. Nothing has happened yet, and the reasons for this are in the report. That port, like many others around our coast, is controlled by a local authority and harbour development is low on the council's list of priorities. Local authorities can only provide funding for harbour development by levying it from ratepayers and few of these people live in rural coastal areas. Therefore, the general population of each county would be obliged to fund harbour development because the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources refuses to take responsibility for it.
I met officials from the Department on a number of occasions in Clogherhead. I discovered that they held a simple view of the situation when they informed me that they could not spend £2 million on developing the harbour – it would cost £8 million if the job was to be done properly – because the tonnage of fish landed at the port was insufficient to justify the cost. How can the industry increase the tonnage of fish landed at Clogherhead or harbours in Cork and Donegal if adequate facilities are not provided? It is a chicken and egg situation; the tonnage landed cannot be increased if the requisite facilities are not in place.
The Minister and I are neighbours and he is aware that the fishing fleet from Clogherhead is obliged to dock in Drogheda – I made arrangements in that regard when I served as chairman of the port authority – or in ports in north County Dublin. The fleet cannot dock at Clogherhead because the necessary facilities are not in place and the boats are obliged to travel 30 miles to Drogheda or to dock on the west coast. The industry cannot be developed if the necessary tools are not provided. I accept that I have offered a parochial example but it is the one with which I am most familiar. I am sure Deputy Sheehan will highlight similar situations in County Cork.
I reiterate what I said during Question Time recently, namely, that sufficient money is not being invested in our secondary ports. Our efforts have been concentrated on developing the fishing industry and fish processing in the major ports and their smaller counterparts are treated as second class.
As stated on previous occasions, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources is the Government's "Cinderella" Department. The Department of Defence used to hold that honour but it has since been upgraded, and the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources has taken its place. I intend to cast no reflection on the efforts of the Minister, Deputy Woods, who has put his heart and soul into his work. However, successive Governments have totally neglected his Department for many years.
The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources lacks the financial resources, adequate personnel and expertise required to deal with a modern industry that holds great potential, particularly in terms of creating employment. At a recent meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts I stated that the Department requires a huge injection of capital and manpower to bring it up to standard and ensure that it is promoted from the second to the first division of Government Departments.
In current circumstances the Department is not in a position to deliver the services which will guarantee the further development of the marine and natural resources industries. In the interests of developing a lucrative marine industry which would create jobs and contribute to the further expansion of our economy, the Government must provide adequate funding and treat the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources seriously. Given half a chance, the Department has the potential to make a major contribution to the economy.
The BIM report on the fishing industry offered a number of heartening predictions and stated that the industry would move from strength to strength, provided it is given proper support and resources. It has been estimated that fish farming will outstrip global beef production in 12 years' time, which illustrates the importance of supporting the industry in Ireland. If it was the IFA who represented the fishing industry, fishermen would be protesting on the streets of Dublin every week and the Government would listen to their demands. With the exception of the IFO, its representative body, the fishing industry does not have the same kind of muscle or offer the kind of voting potential as the farming community. If it did, we would not be discussing under-resourcing.
If Ireland is to gain its fair share of worldwide fish production, action must be taken to support the industry. As it stands, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources has only one fish pathologist who is charged with inspecting the entire fish production industry. A guarantee of quality produce is an essential marketing point, but we simply cannot offer any such guarantee because we lack the manpower to do so.
In terms of wider maritime issues, it is not only the fishing industry which is important. Sea transport, heavy industry and tourism have major potential. We must adopt a co-ordinated approach instead of concentrating on one element. Last month, the Dáil passed legislation extending Irish coastal waters by a further 200 miles. In light of this, it is crucial that we have the ability to ensure that our seas are not left open to pollution and mismanagement. It is also vital that we should be in a position to deal effectively with pollution, which will become an even more important issue in the future. As it stands, the only surveillance of our coastal waters is carried out by the Navy and the Air Corps. That surveillance is not sufficient, particularly in light of the growth of the fishing industry and the plundering of this natural resource by the bandits of the sea. This matter must be addressed.
I could speak at greater length on this issue but our paramount concern today is to discuss BIM's excellent report. I again commend and congratulate BIM on its publication. As long as I serve as my party's spokesperson for the Marine and Natural Resources, the report will be my Bible. I hope the Minister will also treat it as such.
Like previous speakers, I welcome the opportunity to discuss BIM Seafood Industry Agenda 2000-2006 and congratulate BIM on a very fine publication. This is an excellent and timely opportunity to review recent important developments in the sector and to update the House on our strategic approach to developing the acquaculture industry.
I congratulate BIM on its seafood industry agenda. This strategy highlights the tremendous potential for the development of the seafood sector of the economy. It is noteworthy that the vital role acquaculture is playing and will play in the future in terms of jobs, growth and value added is particularly evident.
The industry has come a long way to a point today where it has established itself as an international producer of very high quality products that are competing successfully in the very competitive European market. The industry is now poised and eager to undertake further expansion and to play a key role in the development of the seafood sector in Ireland.
The Government's overall strategic objective for acquaculture is to deliver sustainable development that will maximise the industry's contribution to the national economy and, in particular, to jobs and economic activity in coastal communities. I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of developing this economic potential in our isolated coastal areas. Living in such an area and having visited many such areas, I can assure the House the people of the county involved are very pleased to see economic development in areas where otherwise jobs could not be created. It is very difficult to attract foreign industries to remote rural coastal areas.
In 1980 total acquaculture production in Ireland was under 6,000 tonnes with a value of only £1.9 million. These levels have increased exponentially over the years to a position in 1998 where total acquaculture production amounted to more than 39,000 tonnes with a first sale value to the economy of more than £60 million.
This level of production now accounts for 30 per cent of the volume of Irish fish production and it has established aquaculture as an increasingly important supplier of raw material to the processing sector. This increase in production in a period of less than 20 years, which is in the region of 3,000 per cent in terms of value, was underpinned by a number of EU assisted programmes.
Sometimes we take the operational programme for granted. I, the Department and the fishing industry are pleased these programmes have given such assistance from 1990 onwards and I hope that will continue up to 2006. The Operational Programme for Fisheries 1994-1999 is currently in place. The programme's aims of strategic growth, development and job creation are being achieved through supporting continued sustainable expansion of output, increased productivity, improvements in competitiveness, marketing support and technology transfer. Under this programme to date, almost £11 million of EU grant aid has supported £31.5 million in total investment involving 117 projects encompassing all facets of the aquaculture sector. A further final tranche of projects under the programme will be announced shortly.
Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Údarás na Gaeltachta are the implementing agencies on the ground in terms of supporting and driving projects under the programme.
Take up of available funding has accelerated significantly since the new legislative framework for licensing came into effect. At this stage demand outstrips the remaining funding available under the programme. This in itself is indicative of the substantial scope and capability for expansion and highlights a new level of confidence in the Irish aquaculture industry.
The comprehensive licensing regime now in place to regulate the operation and development of the aquaculture industry has been a key development. This new framework is already facilitating a reduction in the backlog of licence applications that had accumulated over many years. The new licensing arrangements have given the industry stability, a firm legal footing and created a solid basis for the aquaculture sector to realise its full productive potential.
Sustainable development of the acquaculture sector is predicated on best practice in terms of environmental standards. The new licensing arrangements are obviously critical to underpinning those high standards and confidence in the industry. I am confident that the backlog will be dealt with by the end of this year. Much attention is being given to licensing arrangements because of the difficulties experienced over many years.
Many challenges and opportunities are facing the acquaculture sector. To ensure a cohesive partnership approach to tackling these challenges, I established the Aquaculture Forum, which brings together all key players from the sector, the agencies and the Department. I am pleased to advise the House the forum is delivering, in a businesslike and constructive way, in terms of progressing the key strategic issues confronting the sector.
Last year I commissioned a strategic study of the Irish aquaculture industry to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and to make recommendations on future strategies for the medium term. This in-depth analysis of the sector was undertaken in consultation with the industry and all relevant agencies. The analysis is now being finalised and I confirm it complements the recommendations and targets identified by BIM. Key considerations for the future are the importance of achieving critical mass in annual production, which is essential for competitiveness, value added and market penetration. This study, which I intend to publish shortly, will critically inform thinking by the sector as well as the agencies on the medium to long-term development and investment strategies.
BIM highlighted the case for technical and advisory support to underpin continued sustainable expansion of the aquaculture sector to deliver jobs, output and exports and best practice in environmental and quality management. The objective of the strategy is to underpin incremental growth to 68,000 tonnes with an output value of £123 million per annum by 2006. The target is to generate more than 1,700 new jobs in the sector. This will be vital to retaining the economic well-being of coastal communities. I cannot over stress the necessity to provide jobs and to keep alive the fabric of rural life in such communities.
The main focus of the development of the Irish aquaculture sector to date has been to grow production levels and exports of the traditional economic species of salmon, trout, mussels and oysters. We are now moving into the next phase, which will see increased focus on value added, diversification into new species as well as reaching critical mass. This is in line with global trends in the aquaculture industry.
The market for seafood is at an all time high worldwide and all indications are that market demand for seafood products will continue to increase over the coming years. I want to position the aquaculture sector to maximise those growth market opportunities with all necessary investment support. I am firmly convinced of the potential and that the aquaculture industry will truly come of age in the next few critical years.
I applaud BIM's excellent strategy document which is grounded on commonsense. It was produced by an organisation that has an acknowledged expertise of the sector in addition to a genuine understanding of the needs of coastal communities. Kilmore Quay in my constituency has first hand experience of this. It has a new ice plant and refitted mobile training units where training is provided in regard to imports. Added to that, there are about 400 people involved in the industry directly and indirectly in the Kilmore Quay area. Kilmore Quay is alive and well, and is an example to many other areas around the coast.
Thanks to the Minister of State.
I will take the credit for that, Deputy. However, we are also looking after Cork. I congratulate the excellent hands-on chairman of BIM, Mr. Patrick Ridge, who has a background experience in the food industry and Mr. Pat Keogh, the chief executive of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, who is a very committed person. I also commend the board of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, which comprises very committed people, all of whom have a tremendous interest in the industry. BIM's aquaculture development staff are led by a very dedicated manager, Mr. Donal Maguire.
Further major investment is necessary to develop the aquaculture sector, as has been mentioned by all speakers so far. We are in a difficult funding environment with many competing demands being made for various levels of funding. However, the case for aquaculture has been identified by BIM. The Minister, Deputy Woods, I and BIM are determined to get a good deal for the sector because of its potential.
The EU is only 50 per cent sufficient in fish food, which is a remarkable statistic. Developments are taking place, however. Only recently I was in Deputy Sheehan's constituency, laying a foundation stone for a factory for Bantry Bay Mussels, which I am pleased to say will be opened in a few months' time. Next week I will travel to Fastnet Mussels to open a factory there. It is a time for good news of such developments. In conjunction with the forum, licensing provides clear indications of my intent to ensure that aquaculture will provide jobs and wealth in areas where jobs might not otherwise be created.
Aquaculture is a positive development. It is people friendly and environmentally friendly. However, we need to promote this message and we are doing so. Recently I unveiled an interpretative sign in Bantry which tells of the history of the bay area generally, including the history of fishing there and the location of aquaculture enterprises. It emphasises the role that such bays have played historically in the economic development of such coastal areas. More such signs are on the way and in the near future I hope to unveil one at Bannow Bay in County Wexford.
Aquaculture is a good news story. I look on the problems facing me as challenges that can be overcome because the prospects are so great. Like the rest of the fishing industry, aquaculture has enormous potential for wealth and job creation. I assure the House that as long as I hold this position – and I expect to be in office for another 15 to 20 years, at least – I will drive the industry towards achieving its full potential.
I support Bord Iascaigh Mhara's seafood industry agenda for the period 2000 to 2006. It calls for the commitment of £153.7 million funding from the EU, or 42 per cent of the total; £44.8 million from the Exchequer, or 12 per cent; and £166.3 million from private enterprise, or 46 per cent. The breakdown of this expenditure is as follows: £65 million for vital infrastructure and project development relating to harbours and on-shore facilities; £104 million for fishing fleet renewal, fisheries development and diversification; £63 million for aquaculture development; £100 million for fish processing; £9 million for market development; and £14 million for training. The total investment proposed over the seven year period is £365 million, or less than 1 per cent of the national plan. It is a very modest and prudent request for a natural industry with such vast potential. The combined State and EU funding sought is only £28 million per annum for the seven year period. I regard this as peanuts. It is not enough to keep the fishing industry afloat.
Without the proposed investment the industry will not survive. This is the last chance we have to safeguard the one and only natural industry that has no quotas and no production limits. It has a huge market, both national and international, as well as a big future in terms of the economy.
I am dubious about the amount of money we are seeking – only £28 million per annum – from the EU and the Exchequer over the next seven years. Ever since we entered the EU the fishing industry has been treated as the hind tit industry as far as EU aid is concerned. Subsidies or grants of any consequence were not allocated to it. We have the oldest fishing fleet in the European Union. We have 13 per cent of the EU's fishery waters but only 5.8 per cent of its catch. All this must change if our fishing industry is to survive.
Of the 60 main aquaculture locations around the coastline of the Republic, 30 are situated in the Objective One area, while the remaining 30 are located in the Objective One region in transition. Some 68 per cent of the £365 million envisaged for the next seven year programme from 2000 to 2006 will be spent in the western Objective One region. That amounts to £250 million of the total. The remaining 32 per cent, or £115 million, will be spent in the eastern region which embraces an area from the Aran Islands to Bannow Bay in County Wexford. This is the greatest injustice perpetrated on the Irish people, particularly those in the Aran Islands, Clare, Kerry and south-west Cork, since the Cromwellian era. There is not one affluent area on that coastline. How can any Government impose such a harsh division on a disadvantaged region with a poor, struggling population? That region has 50 per cent of the country's aquaculture locations and has the most natural waters in the country for aquacultural production because it is washed by the warm waters of the Gulf Stream.
I have brought more good news to the Deputy's constituency than any other constituency.
The plan before us does not bear that out. We are getting only £115 million of the £365 million, and that is for a stretch of coastline from the Aran Islands to Bannow Bay in Wexford. The Minister of State should know where Bannow Bay is.
The waters in that region are the most suitable in western Europe for aquaculture production, yet it is not getting the recognition it should get. I am dubious about the effect this plan will have on the development of aquaculture in my area. Bantry Bay, a happy hunting ground for me, is the recognised capital of the Irish mariculture industry. However, the diversification of the proposed funding to the Objective One area during this seven year period will have a negative effect on the aquaculture industry from the Aran Islands to Cape Clear.
I recognise the contribution of the Minister of State to the aquaculture industry since taking office. He has at least focused attention on a worthwhile industry and I do not doubt he has the spirit and determination to redress the anomaly I have pointed out. I call on him to allocate an extra £35 million over the seven year period in order to bring our share of this development up from £125 million to £150 million. I call on him to ask the Exchequer for an extra £5 million for each year of the seven year period. That is a very modest sum. The Minister of State has the power and the means to influence the Minister for Finance and to get that extra funding for the area designated Objective One in transition. That area will be stifled and starved for lack of finance for this valuable industry. It is only £5 million a year for the seven year period, and given the remarkable growth we have had with the Celtic tiger, I cannot see why any Government would not allocate that extra funding to the region which has the brightest prospects of keeping aquaculture alive.
If the Minister of State does that he will restore confidence in the seafood industry in that area, which includes such remote areas as the Beara, Muintir Bháire and Mizen Head peninsulas, the peninsulas of Kerry and Clare, Wexford and the Aran Islands. I fear that those areas will not be catered for by this plan when 68 per cent of the funding is to be derogated to the Objective One area and the remaining 32 per cent is to go to the Objective One in transition area.
What are the Minister of State's plans for the expansion of tuna fishing? This is very valuable for fishermen on the south-west and Donegal coasts, and it is important that we get the best deal possible from the EU to explore and expand tuna fishing. The development of ports such as Castletownbere and Baltimore is also of paramount importance to the fishing and aquaculture sectors. Since being elected 18 years ago I have asked those in the Department of the Marine, Taoisigh on the Order of Business and Ministers in debates for one modest act: the removal of the Bardini Reefer from the mouth of Castletownbere harbour. It is a small matter and £200,000 would have done the job, yet after 15 years of my pleading for its removal, that wreck is still there. It is a danger to life and limb. What can one expect from a Department that has failed to remove a serious obstacle from the mouth of one of our premier fishing harbours? It is only by the will of God that a serious accident has not occurred there.
Baltimore harbour is classified by the Department of the Marine as a recognised port for herring landings, yet the demands of the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Board for adequate funding have been ignored by the Department. I impress upon the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the need to upgrade Baltimore harbour in keeping with its position as an official herring-landing port. The development of Baltimore harbour would cost less than £7 million, a small amount compared with the levels of EU money spent on harbours in France, Spain and Portugal. The Irish marine industry does not seem to be getting its fair share of European funds.
Deputy Woods says his strategic objective is to ensure a sustainable and vibrant future for the seafood industry and the communities it supports, backed up by the necessary level of funding to underpin investment after the year 2000. I hope the Minister will put his ideas into practice. He is an energetic Minister but when negotiating in Europe, he must emphasise that fishing is our second most valuable industry. We have only three natural industries, agriculture, fishing and tourism. We do not contribute to the wine lake, the citrus mountain or to any other European production excess.
Since the construction of the Channel tunnel, we are the only island nation in the Community. It costs us 100 per cent more than it costs other member states to place our food produce on the tables of Europe. Therefore, we should demand additional funding for our natural industries. Ireland has been a member of the EU for 26 years and in that time our fishing industry has not received its rightful share of Community funding.
Since my childhood, I have seen Spanish, French and German trawlers marauding our fishing stock off the south west coast of Cork. It is disgraceful that this has been allowed to happen for so many years. We appear to be powerless to stop this practice now, because we did not use all the power at our disposal to protect the marine industry when we negotiated our entry into the EU. The Minister has received the report of the task force on the herring industry. What is the future for herring fishing in Ireland? Is the Minister aware that German producers are selling herrings in brine, in wine, in beer and in mustard on Irish supermarket shelves? We have failed to capitalise on the potential of the herring industry. What are we doing to market our smoked herring fillets?
They are called kippers.
I know they are, but what are we doing to promote them? Our fishermen dump most of their herring catch and it is used for fishmeal. This is outrageous. We should explore the possibility of developing a herring canning industry because unprocessed herring commands only rock bottom prices.
I hope the Minister and the Minister of State will show the spirit, the courage and the initiative to develop this important natural industry. I hope my plea to them does not fall on deaf ears. I ask only for an extra £7 million per year for an area which has been neglected because it has not been granted Objective One status.
This is one of the country's most important issues. It is now understood that when we joined the EEC in 1973, we vastly underestimated the value of our coast and many feel that our fishing industry was sold out at that time. The role which fishing should have played in our economic development was hindered from that time and although Ireland has 13 per cent of EU marine territory, compared with 2.2 per cent of its land territory, we have only between 5 and 8 per cent of total allowable catches. Irish fishermen were casualties in 1973 and even now, the question of fishing is rarely given its appropriate place in the House or outside.
I congratulate the Minister and Minister of State on securing time for statements on this subject. I concur with the sentiments expressed by Members. I congratulate Bord Iascaigh Mhara on the great work it is doing for the fishing industry and particularly on the report before us. Much time and effort has been put into the preparation of this concise, yet comprehensive document.
I support the objective of BIM, set out in the report, to achieve a major increase in EU and national funding for the development of the Irish seafood industry in the new millennium. As BIM points out, the long-term prosperity of the industry, its unique ability to sustain regional and coastal communities and its ability to generate added value is dependent on critical supply-chain and infrastructural weaknesses being addressed and the development of market-driven processing enterprises of scale. We must look to the new millennium with a positive attitude. If we look to the past, we see only neglect.
The present team of the Minister, Deputy Woods and the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne have done more than previous Ministers by, for example, establishing the £3 million fund to deal with the infrastrucural weaknesses of small piers, harbours and slipways. Much remains to be done because the fishing industry must move from its present extremely low level. This is particularly true of the areas of deprivation outlined in the map on page 4 of the report.
It is essential that investment be made available. While finding money is always difficult, the amounts outlined in the report are justified or even, as an earlier speaker remarked, possibly underestimated. Investment of the level outlined in the report is justified for many reasons.
In an island economy such as ours, the development of fishing and aqualculture is fundamental to balanced regional progress. In County Donegal, where fishing, farming and textiles are our three core resources, we rely on a variety of marine-based enterprises. Fishing has generated essential employment opportunities, as can be seen in Figure 2.1 on page 22 of the report, and economic wealth for many people. The map on page 4 shows Greencastle to be one level above most of the rest of Inishowen in the deprivation score, although it is still only on the second lowest level. The marine sector has massive potential for job and wealth creation if investment is encouraged.
By their nature, fishing activities are coastal based. On the day the report was launched there was talk of bringing product inland to be processed to spread jobs around. This would result in extra costs. The necessary facilities are available along the coastline. There is an advance factory in Moville which has been vacant for well over 20 years. It was adapted specifically for fish processing, but has never been occupied. It could be used to add value to product.
When I look at the coast of Donegal I see a startling picture of deprivation. It is an area in which the people must rely on marine enterprise. As a person who lives on the coast, investment is justified as there are so few economic alternatives. Increasingly, farming is incapable of providing a livelihood. We are struggling to retain existing textile factories and attract alternative sustainable industries. I trust this will change.
Ireland deserves a dispersion of socio-economic development. Much of the thrust of policy appears to be directed at the main centres. We are all aware of the difficulties in Dublin, including the shortage of accommodation and traffic congestion. If we continue as we are, we will have a number of "small Dublins" at the expense of the rest of the country. This cannot be allowed to happen. Support for marine activities is the way to address the severe imbalance to ensure rural Ireland does not suffer the difficulties of depopulation and the cycle of deprivation it creates.
The issue can be examined in two ways. One can decide the fishing sector has a future and invest in it to enable it realise its potential. In doing this one would help to create jobs. To this end one should support the expansion of the national training centres to ensure a supply of highly qualified and safety conscious skilled workers to match those in any other country. In this context, the fishery centre in Greencastle seeks support. One should also rebuild piers, harbours and slipways that are scars on the countryside and turn them into vibrant and attractive locations for marine activity, be it commercial, social or tourist related. In this way one would ensure the long-term development of road infrastructure and that schools, shops, post offices etc. remain viable. The second option, which is easier, is to say there has been too much neglect to turn things around. We could turn our backs on coastal communities and, in turn, the many supporting structures reliant on the marine sector. The Minister and Minister of State have taken the first option. They recognise the potential of the sea and deserve our support in pursuing vigorously the case of rural Ireland.
For many years people have talked about what could, should and will be done. The Minister has produced the goods and delivered on the critical issues – the age profile of the fleet and the renewal of the whitefish fleet. The fact that so many boats were in the 25 to 50 year old category should not have gone unnoticed for as long as it did. The response to the scheme is appreciated. It does not provide a hand-out for those who have their hands out to receive it. It demands entrepreneurs within the trade who have not been found wanting.
As BIM points out, the response to the scheme – investment of £60 million has been approved in the past six months – shows the industry has the enterprise and skills necessary to capitalise on new opportunities and is willing to invest in its long-term development. I wish all those involved with the six new boats in Greencastle every success and hope they have a safe and profitable future at sea, leading to continuity of supply of quality raw material which, in turn, will have a positive impact on onshore activities.
Fishermen are responsible and forward-looking. By proper management of our waters we have the potential not only to maintain what we have but to ensure an improved supply of raw material. The majority of fishermen in my area are part of the whitefish fleet. There is potential to maintain and expand the onshore facilities available in places such as Greencastle. I appreciate the employment that these plants offer.
The development of aquaculture offers regions, such as the one I represent, great opportunities. There is a need to update the Foyle Fisheries Act of the early 1950s. For years those involved in the sector have waited for new legislation to meet their needs. The Foyle Fisheries Act makes no provision for the shellfish sector. Those who have tried to be enterprising with seed mussels have been kept on tenterhooks because of the lack of supporting legislation. I commend them on their patience.
I realise the furtherance of this issue depends, in part, on the establishment of the Executive in the North. I hope there is a speedy conclusion. My constituents have a future in aquaculture and seek the Minister's active support in ensuring its potential is realised, not only in terms of the primary product but also the value added aspect. There is a great need for a Foyle Commission office in Inishowen given, among other reasons, the cross-Border nature of the endeavour and the fact that the vast majority of fishermen who use the river are from east Inishowen.
I thank the Minister for providing support for Carrickarory Pier which until recently remained in the hands of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Authority and was a blight on the landscape. The relatively small sum provided will ensure the pier will be operational again by July providing a base for the aquaculture sector. Moneys have also been provided for Portmore, Portronan, Bonagee and Portaleen, some of the most deprived rural communities in the country.
While the Minister may, justifiably, rub his hands and feel satisfied, this should be only a start. We are starting from a low base and there is substantial room for improvement, whether in Moville where a 200 year old pier was replaced by a modern Office of Public Works cement structure and collapsed within a year, Queensport where there is an urgent need for blasting and dredging to accommodate the vast array of activities being pursued in Greencastle not to mention the proposed car ferry or six new boats, Leenan Pier which is in a state of bad repair or Buncrana harbour where many proposals for development are being pursued. A number of slipways equally deserve a mention. The investment will mean that produce can be handled and landed much more efficiently. This links in with BIM's vision of the future.
I look forward to the resolution of the licensing issue on the Foyle. I also look forward to the planned and balanced development of the Swilly. I believe, as does BIM, there is a possibility of doubling the value of the aquaculture sector in the immediate future. BIM cites the way forward as being through developing largescale value-added businesses capable of operating in the international marketplace.
Although this is an island, it is surprising that the consumption of seafood is not higher than it is. When one visits a country such as Spain, one sees real seafood consumption – possibly much of that is our exports. We see a variety of products and various presentations and uses of such products, whether as small appetisers in a local pub or as part of a full seafood menu in a restaurant or hotel. There is considerable potential for the marketing of seafood in Ireland.
The BIM report states that it considers the market buoyant and levels of consumption are on the increase. Surely, through a well delivered marketing plan, the healthiness and nutritional value of seafood, not to speak of the ease with which it can be prepared – although I am no chef – could be delivered to a population which is ever more conscious about health, nutrition and convenience. While Irish fish exports may have grown by more than 80 per cent to reach £228 million in 1997, we are not fully exploiting the home market. There is still room for a considerable blitz on that market.
As was seen in the response to the renewal of the white fish fleet, many see the marine sector can offer a sound business venture. As BIM states, unlike agriculture, the seafood industry operates in a free market without price or direct income supports. As such, the fundamental business economics of the industry are sound.
As an aside, I commend the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs on the introduction of fish assist for those on a particularly low income. It is most welcome to many families who are not yet in a position to expand their fishing earnings.
The report is encapsulated in the words "the proposed development programmes place strong emphasis on sustainable, regional and coastal development, on employment protection and creation, on coastal environmental protection, on resolution of supply side structural weaknesses and on the creation of vital supply change linkages with distributors and retailers." These objectives mirror the economic and social objectives of Agenda 2000 at national, regional and EU levels.
In this respect, the logic of the argument jumps off the pages at people who have spent time in coastal Ireland. It will take people, groups or individuals, State or non-departmental, to work together to secure the aims and goals. I know the value of working together and that true success can be achieved through people, who are attempting to attain a common goal, communicating, planning and moving forward simultaneously.
I take this opportunity to thank the National Training Centre, individuals working in the marine area and the various fishing co-operatives on Inishowen which, as experts in their field, have been in the main fair about their needs and the manner in which they express them. They faced years of frustration in trying to get their message across.
I congratulate officials in the local authorities such as the marine engineer in Donegal County Council, Frank McDonald. He has reacted to the wishes of the members of the council and the people of the county. People like Frank have ensured a full audit of the marine needs of the council were undertaken. He systematically pursued the compilation of reports so the message could be clearly sent to the Department on our immediate requirements.
I look to the continuing help of the Department and the Minister for the future needs of Donegal and such counties. This report is clear in its presentation of areas of deprivation, areas reliant on fishing and those found to fulfil the criteria for Objective One status. The strength of the case we, as a county, have must surely be undisputed.
I fully support the case for substantial funding to advance the BIM seafood industry agenda for 2000-06. I see justification for the investment which has been requested to provide infrastructure, including harbours, onshore facilities, fleet renewal, fisheries development and diversification, aquaculture development, fish processing, market development and-or training. It is the Minister's wish to see the advancement of the sector and while many others would be daunted by the scale of the work that needs to be undertaken, we can rely on the Minister and the Minister of State to do their best on national and European fronts because they have a vision of the potential that exists within the marine sector. We have the potential to save rural communities, challenge successfully for real shares in the market and deliver quality added value product with which the growing discerning customer will only be too delighted.
Fishing is a tough life. It would seem to be almost a vocation when one watches boats head off for days at a time to the perils of the sea, leaving families behind. We in Donegal have had our share of tragedy. I sincerely want to see continued support so that fishing families who dedicate themselves to this most difficult job are, as far as possible, safe in their endeavours while at sea and accorded proper facilities to which to come home. In many cases, that is not there at present. I hope there will be a better future for the marine sector.
It is the time of day when one's thoughts turn to food. In one of Deputy Healy-Rae's more memorable comments, he pointed out that they have dinner in the middle of the day in Kerry, as do all the plain people of Ireland. In Dublin, however, people have dinner at 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. That was a very down to earth statement.
I do not know if anyone referred to the desperate winter which fishermen have had to endure. Some did not earn a shilling for three or four months because the gales started in early October and did not stop until early March. Some fishermen did not get out for months – I refer to people with trawlers and not half deckers. In November I was asked by Dunmore East representatives to ask the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources to give them some badly needed financial assistance, which farmers get when there is a problem with fodder or in the marketplace, but lo and behold they got nothing.
A manager of a fishing co-operative society in Dunmore East said on local radio that Waterford needs a Deputy like Deputy Healy-Rae. The fool did not realise there is a much larger port than Dunmore East in Deputy Healy-Rae's constituency, that is, Dingle. The landings at the various ports are outlined in some detail in the Minister's document. Killybegs is by far the largest port and Castletownbere is considerable. Dingle is a sizeable port and Dunmore East is some way behind. When people make comparison, they should know what they are talking about. There are a few other smaller ports in Kerry South.
The essence of the fishing industry centres around conservation – conserving existing stocks and building an industry on what is in our waters and, if necessary, further afield. That was not referred to in the Minister's speech. While we might criticise the European Union at times, it has made efforts to conserve stocks in recent years. Its scientific approach to the fishing industry is bearing fruit and achieving results. Certain fisheries need to be closed down or curtailed for the industry to survive.
About 20 years ago the situation as regards herring stocks was so critical that herring fisheries were closed. There was uproar but as a result of the closure and conservation measures taken, fisheries have recovered considerably. Herring stocks, for example, are much stronger now than previously. We must be very vigilant in terms of conservation.
In recent times in the House I have said I cannot understand what has come over the Spaniards. Perhaps nothing has come over them and they have not changed. From time immemorial the Spaniards have been destroying fishing grounds in this country, killing undersize young fish, fishing with undersize mesh and fishing illegally. The Spanish have many licences to fish in our waters, but many more unlicensed boats are more often than not fishing in Irish waters. Some weeks ago I made a point to the Minister that in the first three or four months of 1998 literally dozens of Spanish boats were apprehended and prosecuted for illegal fishing while this year hardly any have been apprehended or prosecuted. I find it very hard to believe that the Spaniards have changed their ways. They are notorious and with due respect to the Navy, which with limited resources does an excellent job, I wonder what has happened. It is like the big black hole we talked about years ago in terms of the economy. Have the Spaniards, the greatest sinners of all time in respect of fishing, repented or has somebody cast a spell over them and made them goodie-goodies all of a sudden? I do not believe they have changed. Our greatest problem is over-fishing and the damage being done consistently for many years to our fisheries by the Spaniards. The Spanish fleet is a multiple of the combined fleets of the other EU countries with probably ten times as much fish catching capacity as the combined capacity of all other EU fleets. One can imagine the extent of the damage done when Spaniards start illegal fishing and poaching in our waters. I wish somebody would tell me what has happened.
A person in Brussels at this time of day would head for a fish restaurant where the fish is cooked so beautifully and presented so well that it would melt in one's mouth. Here one is hoping for a dinner of bacon, cabbage and potatoes, or perhaps stew. Children rush off looking for burgers, mixed grills, sausages and chips or food in McDonalds. Why is there such an extraordinary divergence in eating habits? We do not look for a fish product here but pursue it avidly when we go abroad. Unfortunately, fish is regarded almost as a secondary food by many people in this country. I know this is partly the result of Friday having been a day of abstinence. Many children served with fish would almost throw it back. A peculiar habit has developed in regard to our attitude to fish.
Many restaurants, including the Dáil restaurant, have made great efforts to produce very high quality seafood meals. There has been a big improvement in this context in recent years, but McDonalds and other take-aways continue to prosper. We go abroad to Brussels and Paris on what the public call junkets, but what Members know as tedious hardworking trips when they will be on the go from 7.00 a.m. until 7.00 p.m. or 8.00 p.m. The one thing I always looked forward when I went abroad was the magnificent fish in fish restaurants. Most of the seafood was caught off our coast, be it shell fish, lobsters or the lowly periwinkle. Much of the time we are reluctant to eat such seafood, probably as a result of tradition. However, an improvement in the situation is evident.
I wish to raise the issue of harbours. Every harbour in the country is a potential industry. In the 1960s and early 1970s four major harbours, namely, Howth, Dunmore East, Castletownbere and Killybegs, were designated for development. These harbours were built up and generated many jobs. People bought huge fishing boats and the capital programme was a great idea. However, there has not been a significant capital programme of harbour development since then. We live in much more affluent times and we are not doing enough in this regard. Most of the harbours we are using are relics of the British occu pation. Some were built during the famine while others pre-date that time.
Good quality harbours right around the coast would generate many more jobs in the fishing industry. Dunmore East, one of the harbours included in the capital plan of more than 30 years ago, is far too small for modern needs. It is absolutely full when there are 70 or 80 fishing trawlers in the harbour. The people in Dunmore East want a sizeable marina, another huge money spinner. Ordinary people want to go out in sailing boats and pleasure craft and there is a sailing club in the area. A variety of activities must be facilitated in harbours. Harbours which were quite suitable 20 years ago are no longer suitable as they are far too small. Therefore, a capital programme is necessary to build new harbours and extend existing ones.
Deputy Sheehan is seeking £6 million or £7 million to get rid of the Bardini Reefer from Castletownbere. I am talking about a couple of billion pounds in terms of harbour development. Building a harbour probably costs £100 million or £200 million. However, harbours are necessary. Also, marinas are all the go nowadays. They attract tourists from Britain, the Continent and the Americas. We must facilitate these tourists and the development of marinas. We need facilities for a variety of activities which generate money and jobs. We are not forward looking in that regard. It is about time we thought big and developed those harbours.
Will the Minister define the term "aquaculture"? Does it include fish farming?
Yes.
The report makes the point, as did the Minister, that 30 per cent of all fish products come from aquaculture. Twenty five years ago the figure was not even 5 per cent. It is a major growth area and will account for 50 per cent before long. Places such as Arklow now farm valuable species such as turbot which we thought in the past could not be cultivated through fish farming.
Sea and shore angling are not mentioned in the report and the Minister of State may say they are not within his brief or that of the Minister. Is serious attention being paid to this area because it is another tourist activity with great potential, particularly in the inland waterways. Tens of thousands of English and continental anglers were attracted to them years ago. That sector of the fishing industry has been neglected. While the troubles in Northern Ireland caused major problems, it is time we regenerated that element of the industry.
I cast no aspersions on the Minister of State or the Minister when I say the previous incumbent, Deputy Gilmore, was the best I have seen in the portfolio in my 26 years in the Oireachtas. He was able to think for himself and got things done. For example, he sorted out the driftnet salmon fishermen, something at which all his prede cessors balked. He showed initiative and had ideas. I would like the Minister of State to build on that, which I am sure he will. Let us give credit where it is due. There was a great deal of dead wood in the job over the years, but he was excellent. I would like to see that being built upon.
Angling, whether it is inland, on the seashore or in boats, has much potential. It may not seem important in the context of the fishing industry, but if proper sewage treatment plants were built in all coastal towns and villages, there would be pure water on the seafront. People could then be encouraged to come angling because fish will come if the water is pure and suitable. Mackerel shoaled into the inner town harbour in Dungarvan last year for the first time in 35 to 40 years because an industry which was dumping acid and other dreadful waste closed. The quality of the water became good enough for fish to come inshore, and mackerel shoaling almost up to the beach is a sign that other fish, such as flatfish and flounders, are also coming in. Sea and shore anglers constitute a significant element of the tourism trade and fishing industry.
I hope the Minister of State takes on board what I said about the building of ports. We are not thinking big enough. We have done nothing. Our predecessors in the 1960s would be ashamed of us because they had big ideas for the fishing industry. They started with four major ports which have been very successful and we have done nothing since. It is indicative of our interest in the fishing industry that, although there are 16 maritime counties and fishing should be a major industry, only eight Deputies are interested in taking part in the debate when there should about 50 or 60. That speaks for itself.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the BIM report. We now have a well researched document which gives an integrated approach to the development of the marine industry through partnership and professionalism. I agree with the previous speaker that, despite this being a maritime nation and isolated constituencies like mine being reliant on fishing, the industry is the Cinderella not only of the House but also of industrial development, although it has huge potential. The document sets targets which can be met, leading to increased job potential and export opportunities. Yet it is an industry which does not receive due recognition from the funding agencies, the State and the European Union.
That said, it is high time the House took the initiative and, instead of speaking of the past, regretting what happened in discussions with the European Union on the Common Fisheries Policy and rehashing many of the arguments about quotas and access to fisheries which have already been debated ad infinitum, we should examine what we have, develop it to its truest potential and look forward to the renegotiation of the CFP. We should be seen to be developmental, and I know the Minister and the Minister of State will do their utmost to support the development of the industry. I congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State on the initiatives they have taken in consultation with BIM, the industry and the Department, especially in recognising for the first time the development of the whitefish fleet. That is a commendable feature of a Minister's tenure in the House and has been welcomed in my constituency and nationally.
The targets proposed by BIM for the development of the industry are peanuts. Money such as this would be spent by a Department within weeks on various projects. I support the efforts of the Minister and the Minister of State to ensure the necessary funding is made available, either through the European Union, given that many of the areas in which the industry is located have Objective One status, or through Exchequer funding being made available to the Department for the development of the programme.
As a Deputy from Donegal South I have told the Minister many times that the marine and fishing industries are the lifeblood of my constituency. Without the development of Killybegs and Burtonport, including the development of their harbours, fishing fleets, fish processing and ancillary services, County Donegal could probably be forgotten about. Yet we have not achieved the true potential which I believe is there, especially with regard to the development of fisheries, including the introduction of new species and the progressive renewal of the fleet and ensuring the safety of our fishermen while developing the potential of the fish processing industry.
A number of matters were raised at a conference held by the Minister arising out of the terrible losses which we experienced in County Donegal and the establishment of a task force. These are reflected in the document. The Minister said that the targets for the development of the industry could be met in County Donegal. I am aware that BIM was involved in supporting the preparation of the Donegal marine plan.
The physical infrastructure has been mentioned in this debate. An interdepartmental committee must be established between the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the Department of the Environment and Local Government to ensure there is proper access to the ports. Aquaculture is developed away from main routes. Similarly, large and small ports are surrounded by county and regional roads. There is no access to national secondary or national primary routes. Anybody in the processing industry will confirm that time is money and if markets, especially fresh markets, cannot be accessed as quickly as possible without the necessity to stop for, say, lorry repairs, as happens on many occasions, the industry will run at a loss.
Proper infrastructure development in the provision of water supplies and sewerage are also essential in providing access to our vital industries in the regions. I hope that in consultation with this document and in preparation of the national development plan, these will be part of an integrated approach in providing proper physical infrastructure to the ports and harbours to which I refer.
The other matter referred to in the document deals with harbours. I thank the Minister for copperfastening the KPMG report with regard to the development of Killybegs. He has made funding available for the survey and I know he is genuine when he says that a new harbour development will be made available in Killybegs for the development of fisheries and, I hope, the off-shore oil industry. We look forward to the day the Minister visits the area with a cheque and to the time when we can at last have a proper harbour in Killybegs.
I thank the Minister for making funding available in consultation with the councils for the promotion and upgrading of the small fishery harbours around the country. There is a small but vibrant on-shore fishing industry. Many aquaculture developments rely on small harbours, especially those located in isolated areas. A proper development plan with the necessary funding for the development of harbours is necessary for the development of the fishing and aquaculture industries, where there must be safe access and birthage. Both industries need to be married to the oil and marine leisure industries. The latter has huge potential for the coastline. There is a need to ensure that industry and leisure work together in partnership.
The aquaculture industry has been identified in this document and by the marine action plan as holding high potential for job creation. I agree with that and was pleased to note the recent introduction of legislation to deal with licensing in the aquaculture industry. There is potential for growth which can work in partnership with the tourism industry. There have been a number of objections to the licences that have been granted. Yet, without the aquaculture industry, County Donegal would have no jobs in many of its small villages, such as Inver, which the Minister knows well. The jobs in that industry are good, well paid jobs.
I hope we will be able to ensure the development and potential of the aquaculture industry. We must consider an approach to its development which will not only address the need for increased tonnage of existing operators but will also, through a development plan, designate areas of potential aquaculture development which would not have a harmful effect on the beauty of my county or the country generally. Given the potential for the creation of 300 jobs in County Donegal, it is apparent that the industry needs support. However, the support should not only be financial. High levels of funding are required to research the potential of the industry, including the different species that could be developed. Indeed, given that the in-shore fishery industry has almost died out, and is potentially only a leisure activity from hereon, there is also a need to ensure that in-shore fishermen have the oppor tunity to become involved in aquacultural development.
The processing industry provides added value. A criticism I have encountered in recent years is the lack of funding to the fish processing industry. There are also criticisms that most of the fish processing industry in County Donegal is reliant on primary processing. However, even if this is the case, the industry must develop and adhere to severe EU regulations. There is a vital need to support and upgrade the facilities in Killybegs. Additional funding must be made available through IBM and Enterprise Ireland to ensure that the 30 firms operating in County Donegal have some support in recognition of the job creation they have developed over recent years. At present the industry receives no support, unlike the farming industry.
One of the greatest concerns is the failure to move into secondary processing. I do not know why people are afraid to develop this area, especially given that a number of small groups have developed considerable added value to their product. There is a necessity for tutoring or support to ensure that they can move to secondary processing. Food which is not processed and requires more than, say, 20 minutes to cook will not be popular. Nobody today will gut fish to cook it, but they will buy it ready prepared and because of its health value. Therefore, we must look at the marketing strategy for the product and how we can invest in and market secondary processing. That is an area in which there is massive potential in Ireland. I do not know why we cannot produce the best food in the world, why we do not provide the best fish products ready for the table while we export to the Far East and the EU without generating additional value. The other countries generate that additional value for themselves and it is unfortunate we cannot do so.
The difficulties in terms of the pelagic trade's reliance on the Japanese and Far East markets in particular in the past six months relate to the difficulties in the fish processing industry. There is a need to support the promotion of mackerel, in particular, in these countries where the market has been volatile. From talking to some of the processors in Killybegs, they have encountered severe difficulties selling their fish products and they have had to reduce their prices. I am concerned about the loss of part-time jobs in particular. I hope the State agencies will be in a position to support the industry to ensure we increase market development. I hope this is only a blip in the world economy. Over reliance on these markets may be detrimental to the industry. Therefore, we need to support new markets. That will have to be done in consultation with the industry and BIM.
Another important matter addressed in the document is human resource development. Unfortunately, the fishing industry was seen as a fairly well paid job for six months of the year. Young people went into the industry without training and without regard for safety. The intro duction of the school at Greencastle has changed that position. There has been little emphasis in the fishing industry on human resource development from the point of view of education. Although there is the potential of an institute of technology in Letterkenny and there are a number of VEC schools, there is no marine education available apart from that at Greencastle. We need to make available courses on safety requirements and work. If fishermen, in particular, and fish processors were unable to continue in such employment, it would be unacceptable that their educational qualifications would leave them with no career options. It is vital that the Department of Education and Science and the educational authorities in each county or constituency where there is a fairly vibrant fishing industry take on board the contents of the document. With aquaculture, which is a new industry, there is an absolute necessity to ensure that people are well versed on fish health, fish farming and market development. There is also a need to make available to people in the industry training, management and academic programmes to ensure it has a professional image.
We must support the targets of the industry. That can only be done by ensuring there is investment in the industry. Current investment, which is paltry compared to that in many other industries, will generate huge returns in areas I represent which are rural and isolated and in which there is little potential for the development of industries other than marine related ones.
I commend BIM on its professional approach. It is giving people simple messages. I hope the Minister obtains the necessary support from this House and from his Cabinet colleagues to ensure real investment in an industry which unfortunately has been known as the Cinderella industry.
Tá an áthas orm seans a fháil labhairt faoin tionscal iascaireachta inniu de bharr go bhfuil suim mhór agam ins an tionscal agus ins an shlí beatha a théann leis. Dár ndóigh, mar is eol don Teach, tá cónaí orm i mBaile Brigín i dtuaisceart Chontae Átha Cliath. Tá an-aithne agam ar roinnt mhaith de na h-iascairí i mBaile Brigín agus sna Sceirí ach go háirithe agus in áiteanna eile.
As it is a fine day, many of us would relish the opportunity to be more closely associated with the fishing industry. This morning I spoke to a number of fishermen who are fishing at present. When I said it was a fine day, they said that the easterly winds mean it is not as fine as one on land might think. There is a great deal that many of us landlubbers need to do to make ourselves more aware of the vagaries of life as a fisherman – most of them are men although there are some honourable exceptions.
There is a need for the Government and BIM, whose report we are discussing, to make the fishermen far more aware of what is being planned for their future. For instance, none of the fisher men I telephoned this morning were aware of this debate before I brought it to their attention, nor were they aware of the BIM report. We may wonder why that is so. The report is peppered with projections, percentages and figures, which is a credit to the statistician or the department of statistics at BIM, but unless the fishermen are fully aware of the largescale planning and investment in the fishing industry, they will be left wondering where they are going. If the fishermen are not aware of the future plans for the industry, it is not a good sign.
I got the clear impression at yesterday's presentation, which I was glad to be able to attend and for which I thank BIM, that the future was in fish processing and aquaculture in particular. I was struck by the message, to which Deputy Deasy and Deputy Coughlan referred, that one needs to be aware that the future is in ready to eat meals. People increasingly want McDonalds-type fast food because they do not have as much time to prepare food as they did previously. This was put succinctly in the presentation as the CTT phenomenon, cannot cook, too lazy to cook or no time to cook.
I appreciate that change is one with which the industry must be fully au fait and it must adjust to it, there is also a need to remind ourselves that unless fish stocks are healthy in terms of numbers and quality, long-term planning is little more than theoretical. I hope the point that we are planning with stocks in mind and giving due consideration to them will be made more forcefully.
For example, I take closely to heart that 70 per cent of all our catch is exported to other member states. That creates a huge dependence within the industry on exports and results in a huge responsibility to ensure that each exported fish is of the highest quality. Given the experience of the beef industry, it only takes a number of rogue operators to put the entire industry in peril. Salmonella is a danger which crops up from time to time in discussions. The important aspect of investment and development in this industry is in close monitoring and the rigorous maintenance of the highest standards so that our exports are always 100 per cent beyond question.
While I support strong Government investment, fishing, of all our indigenous industries, has not had the benefit of price supports which industries, such as agriculture, have had over the years. Investment must involve consultation with, and approval of, the fishermen.
When I got to know the fishermen of north county Dublin, in particular, I was extremely impressed by the realism they brought to discussions on the industry. Having to face up to the harsh reality that conservation measures mean that fishermen could not fish as much as they would like, I found them to be the strongest proponents of such measures and they were looking to the future. They were urging the Government to take a tight grip on management of fish stocks.
Many fishermen have a comprehensive knowledge of the seas and fish stocks and they need to be brought into planning more than they have been. Officials in various Departments and fishing organisations say there is a lack of a tradition of co-operation among fishermen but that is an excuse. Whatever about the past, many good fishermen have tried to work with the Department and BIM and have, effectively, become fed up with bureaucracy and a lack of understanding of what they are talking about. They are lost to an important part of consultation and planning.
I cite the regulation of razor clam fisheries as an example and I have raised it with the Minister every time I have met him. It is too late to discuss the issue in Italy and Portugal because such fisheries were wiped out or exploited to the point where it was not viable to harvest them. Has this lesson been learnt by the Department? Studies have been carried out but they seem to give rise to procrastination. I hope the Minister will be able to give me good news when he responds.
The absence of regulation results in huge waste of investment by people interested in exploiting razor clam fisheries. They invest blindly because nobody in the Department told them how long the fisheries will be there, how many licences will be allowed, and under what conditions they will be required to operate. As a result there is an extremely large differential between the quantities caught. Some people invest to gain a short-term return while others look for a long-term return. As a result there is an enormous tension between the different interests involved. The Minister has a responsibility to quickly come to the rescue of those who have the long-term interest of razor clam fisheries at heart.
Apart from monitoring and regulation, a great deal of what needs to be done in the fishing industry relates to marketing. If one asks anybody outside the House what they associate with the marketing of fish in Ireland, they might mention the tune of the BIM advertisement or Captain Birdseye. That may be unfair but there has been a lack of imagination in the marketing of fish and as a result Ireland has a low per capita consumption of fish in comparison to other European countries.
I referred to the BIM presentation yesterday. A significant anniversary of relevance to the fishing industry is 13 June 1999 and it will capture the public's imagination. On 13 June 1699 Molly Malone, the best known fish seller in the world, died. She is remembered at every sporting event in Ireland. There is a sculpture of Molly Malone nearby and she was synonymous with the revival of the public's interest in the fishing industry. I ask the Minister and BIM not to let that opportunity pass. On 13 June there should be a significant marketing and media event to ensure we do not forget the day Molly Malone died and Monday 14 June should see the launch of the new era of fisheries, dedicated to her memory. This opportunity should not be lost.
Deputy Coughlan mentioned another marketing opportunity which should not be forgotten. Small harbours are neglected and the EU has concentrated on the larger harbours, such as Howth in the Minister's constituency. People who depend on smaller harbours feel they have been left on the scrap heap. Harbours like Balbriggan, Skerries, Loughshinny, Rush and Rogerstown have varying degrees of fishing activity. In Loughshinny it is concentrated on crabs whereas in Balbriggan and Skerries there is a large dependence on prawn fishing. Those areas benefit greatly from fishing.
Under the Harbours Act the Minister is acting like Pontius Pilate. He is handing the harbours to local authorities, who have little if any experience of consultation with or management of the fishing industry. The Department must keep its hand on the tiller and provide its expertise, funding and guidance to local authorities so that the fishing industry in those areas is not damaged.
Small harbours have wonderful marketing potential because they do not have the industrialised aspect of fishing which leaves many people cold. Terms like "vacuuming the sea bed" create an image of exploitation without any cognisance of long-term sustainability. That impression may be right or wrong – I hope it is wrong, otherwise we will have a difficult future – but the character and charm of smaller harbours are resources which will help in the revival of interest in fishing. The use of harbours by film crews, for instance, has done a great deal to increase awareness. The current release Sweety Barrett, starring Brendan Gleeson, was shot almost exclusively at Balbriggan Harbour, with the full co-operation of local fishermen. We talk about the film industry promoting tourism in Ireland and there is potential for cross-departmental involvement in promoting fisheries also.
As an island nation, it would be strange if we did not make the investment sought by BIM. If we are to get the maximum return from that investment we must take into account the needs and interests of fishermen because they are working and risking their lives in the industry. We should be grateful for what they have done against great odds, both internationally and in dealing with our bureaucracy. I ask the Minister to ensure that consultation takes place and that BIM takes the fishermen's recommendations fully on board.
I thank Deputies for their constructive and wide-ranging input to this debate and I welcome the positive response. A number of specific points were made and I will deal with these. I note Senator Tom Fitzgerald watching from the wings. He is concerned with his beloved Dingle and the south-west coast and has great interest in fishing.
Deputy Finucane raised a number of points and made a constructive contribution on the BIM document. Both sides of the House are taking a supportive approach and BIM can feel satisfied with this. It is an excellent document which charts the way ahead. In the context of past events it is an ambitious document but it is timely and appropriate to our future actions.
The Deputy spoke of the great investment in confidence in aquaculture and I agree with him that this needs to be supported. The way is clear to make progress because the legalities have been sorted out, the appeals board is in place and a balanced approach will be taken. I think this will move ahead soon. He regretted that not enough funding had been provided over the years and this is generally true. We are trying to reverse that with the support of both sides of the House.
The Deputy also mentioned what in his view was the conflict between the EU approach and my approach to investment. Let us call it tension rather than conflict, although I appreciate the point. We must be clear where we are going, which makes this document all the more important because it makes clear where we stand, from the viewpoints of BIM and the Government. We will find ourselves continually in disagreement with the EU, in a constructive and democratic way.
The NTP programmes are designed to control and reduce over-capacity in EU fishing fleets and we can all agree with that, so long as they are not talking about our fleet. That is what every country says. As Deputies said, we must recognise that our fleet is old for the most part, although we are modernising it, and quite small relative to the resources around our coast. When I served in this Department in 1992 I had rows with the EU about fleet reductions which it wanted us to make at that point. I was not prepared to do that and we actually increased the fleet at that time. We are due a reasonable share of the fish in the waters around us.
The Commission acknowledges the need for a dual track approach, which is why I did not want a sleight of hand reduction where for every 100 tonnes of one type of fish one would have to find 130 tonnes of another type, such as in the recent proposals to which I was strongly, if not violently, opposed. In fairness to the Commission, its dual track approach involves reducing capacity and modernising at the same time. Obviously, it creates a great deal of tension but we will not be able to compete unless the industry is modernised. We must press ahead in that regard. The tension to which I refer is usually recorded in the media and Members are aware that I am obliged to work my way through such tension, which exists in individual countries and between countries.
Member states' policies need not necessarily be contradictory because there is a structured approach to investment. Renewal and modernisation of the fleet is being achieved within capacity limits. We are seeking fair treatment in respect of those limits in order that our industry can be modernised. If our vessels cannot travel further out to sea, they cannot catch non-quota species or their fair share of other species and the indus try will be put at risk. We want good, safe, well-equipped, modern vessels so that fishermen can go about their work without putting their lives unduly at risk.
Deputy Finucane referred to difficulties involving flagships. Under the accession arrangements, only 90 Spanish vessels are allowed to be in Irish coastal waters at any one time. However, flagships, many of which are UK registered, are a different matter and must be dealt with separately. There are approximately 120 of these vessels.
There are 114 of them.
Our objective is to control and monitor the flagships operating in our waters and to mount an effective ban on some of their activities. The right of establishment and the freedom of movement, which have been contested in court, have an obvious bearing on this issue.
That was known before the manifesto appeared.
The Minister's time is limited and the Deputy should allow him to continue without interruption.
We are working with the UK authorities to ensure strict controls are put in place. We pass on any information we receive to our UK counterparts which has been a key element in the prosecution of the owners of flagships in the UK courts. The UK authorities are co-operating with us on that policy.
In EU fishery policy terms, the concept of flagships is unsatisfactory. Flagships can fish against national quotas without necessarily being obliged to make restitution to the coastal communities in the areas where they operate. The strategy we have adopted involves using EU and national control mechanisms.
Deputy Finucane referred to a number of other matters. I find no fault with what he said in respect of oil and gas exploration. The IOOA has been trying hard to obtain a resolution to problems in this area. As everyone is aware, Norway is not a member of the EU and is in a strong position to dictate matters. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.
It must be recognised that a completely different set of rules govern the transfer of oil and gas onto land. It is unfortunate that an accommodation could not be reached and that last year's Foynes contract was adversely affected by the pickets placed on the harbour. There have been further repercussions this year in that regard. Someone must have gained satisfaction from the dispute to which I refer, but companies in Ireland now lack the confidence to put contracts out to tender as a result of what occurred. The ICTU and SIPTU will be obliged to give consideration to this matter because such behaviour is not acceptable under the terms of any of the national agreements.
Deputy McGinley referred to the importance of the fishing industry to County Donegal and the need to put in place a development plan. Deputy Bell welcomed the document which he sees as a blueprint for the industry. The Deputy spoke at length about Clogherhead, which is only natural. If he does not speak about it, who will?
The next commissioner.
Deputy Bell referred to my Department as the Government's "Cinderella" Department, which it was in the past. The position has changed, but I accept there is still a long way to go. He also made the point that it was underfunded and understaffed, an observation with which I do not disagree. However, staffing levels and funding have been increased in recent times. Debates of this sort and the documents of the type under discussion indicate the value of the Department and the work it is doing.
Deputies Coughlan and Keaveney highlighted the fact that Donegal would be forgotten if the fishing industry which is so important to it was to disappear. County Donegal is very fortunate to have two women, one in each of its constituencies, of such vigour with such tremendous interest in the fishing industry. Deputy Coughlan referred to the Donegal marine plan and stated that the Departments of the Marine and Natural Resources and the Environment and Local Government should establish a joint committee to consider the issues of transport, access, water and sewerage. I appreciate her suggestion and I will proceed further with it.
The Deputy also referred to support for Killybegs and stated that she looks forward to my arrival with a cheque. The problem is that a succession of cheques have been sent to Killybegs and until one matter is concluded we cannot deal with the next. No one believes the next cheque is coming until they see it arrive. The development of Killybegs, which is crucial to County Donegal, will proceed. The Government is prepared to support the developments put forward by my Department, on which progress will be made as soon as possible.
Deputy Coughlan also stated that not enough funding had been provided for the fish processing industry and referred to the need to promote the pelagic sector. BIM has appointed a pelagic market co-ordinator who will work with exporters to develop markets for herring and mackerel. However, the co-ordinator has only just taken up his new position and he must be given the opportunity to settle in.
Up to £1 million will be provided for remedial works on the existing piers at Killybegs this year and next year. The site investigations and technical study relating to the new pier development will be completed shortly and we cannot proceed to the next stage until they are received. The new development is a major capital project which will take a number of years to complete. However, we are fully committed to it.
Deputy Sargent raised a number of issues and stated that fishermen are not aware of the debate. The organisations that represent them are aware of the debate and I suggest that these organisations should do more to communicate with their members in respect of it. However, I appreciate the Deputy's point. It is not easy to get our message across to fishermen, particularly as they spend so much time at sea. BIM should be aware of that. We organised seminars across the country on the whitefish fleet renewal scheme. They were organised at times to accommodate the people concerned. They were well attended and produced good results.
The Minister's time is exhausted, but if the House is agreeable we will allow the Minister to continue until Question Time. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Sargent mentioned the issue of razor clams. We stopped issuing licenses for them some weeks ago. It was important that was done and I agreed with it, but it was not a simple matter. We had to get various officers from the Marine Institute together to work out the plans and to decide how the matter should be handled. The conservation and management regulations are being finalised for it and are nearly ready. If regulations are put in place, they must relate to conservation and to what will happen in the future. In this case there was a new fishery and there was not enough information. In the meantime I stopped the issue of licenses until this area is under control. The Deputy need have no fear about that side of the matter.
He asked about the upper limit on licenses. It is whatever the limit was a few weeks ago and more licenses will not be issued until this area is assessed. The Wild Shellfish Committee of the IFO includes razor clam fishermen who want conservation. We will also meet them shortly.
I agree with what the Deputy said about small harbours. I got £3 million this year for small harbours. This is the first time all allocation in that regard was included in our heads of Estimates. While that would be particularly beneficial to the aquaculture industry, I could not allocate all that money to it. While some of the people involved in that industry would not like to hear me say it, work must be carried out on some of the other small harbours. We tried to strike a proper balance. We will be able to carry out works on a certain number where the aquaculture industry is based. I hope more money will be available separately for that industry as I accept it merits it. We also want to carry out works to smaller harbours that facilitate a mix of activities that are crucial to the local areas concerned. We have started and such investment will prove to be worthwhile.
We are living in a different era in terms of leisure and fisheries activities from that which pertained in the past. If we invest in this area now, other things will happen. However, one could have invested in these areas ten years ago and it would not have generated such development. There has been a good response from Deputies around the country to the use of that money. That is important because it means that people are beginning to realise such investment is important for the local communities concerned.
There is a policy is devolve responsibility for this area to local authorities, but there is a problem in doing that. The Department will give them any advice they need. In allocating the £3 million secured, we asked the local authorities about the small harbours for which they had plans. We also considered our plans in relation to the acquaculture industry and we noted the view of the fishing sector.
It would also be a good idea to consult the fishermen on that.
We do, but we want to strike a balance between the two areas. We do not want the money invested in only one area such as acquaculture, otherwise leisure activities, such as the classic ones in Skerries in the Deputy's constituency, would not benefit from such investment.
Deputy Sheehan raised the need for exploration trials in the tuna fishery. During our negotiations we got resources from the EU, which were hard won. We got money for the EU funded scientific tuna project which started last summer and it will continue this year. Up to 30 vessels have applied to participate in it and BIM are assessing them and trying to co-ordinate the project. Funding of up to £1 million will be available again this year. In light of the ban on driftnets that will come into force in three years' time, the exploratory programme and its success are critical to future sustainability of the tuna fishery. I accept Deputy Sheehan's point about the urgency of this matter.
Deputy Deasy raised the issue of the tourism angling measure. We are well on course to spend slightly more than £17 million on that measure. Initially the measure was slow to take off because we did not have such a measure in place previously. People had to prepare plans in the early stages. This measure has progressed well this year. It did well last year, although it did not do so well the year before, but that was the start-up period. The measure covers from 1994-99. It took off slowly in the beginning, is progressing very well now and there have been excellent developments.
The Deputy also mentioned sea angling and coarse and game angling which are funded under the tourism angling development measure. There will be a major bid separately for Structural Funds for that area in the next round of negotiations. The Central Fisheries Board Develop ment Plan 1990-2002 also covers angling development strategies. I also secured money this year for an investment of £400,000 in sea angling vessels to ensure they are safe. The allocation of that money for those vessels is a recognition for the first time, of their function and the importance of ensuring they are safe.
Deputy Keaveney spoke about the Foyle Fisheries legislation and aquaculture. It has major potential. In the context of that development and the North-South developments, she would like a Foyle Fisheries office to be set up in Inishowen. She always pitches for that side of Donegal. She welcomed the small pier programme. She mentioned the Moville Pier and other piers in her area. She stressed the areas that still require further investment and was particularly pleased about the investment made in Carrickarory Pier. I visited that area and I realise that investment was urgently required. That pier is in a busy area and those involved in the aquaculture industry make use of it. There is a good deal of work to be done in that area. The Foyle Fisheries legislation has been subsumed into the North-South framework and work is continuing on that legislation with a view to having it in place before the end of the year, the deadline in the British-Irish Agreement Act. Wider political developments will ultimately dictate the pace in that area, but work on that is progressing and it will be very important.
I thank all the Deputies for their interest in what is happening in this area. This is an ambitious programme but, as Deputies said, it is a well targeted one. It is also an appropriate one.