Flexibility was mentioned during the lengthy Order of Business we have had. Could we ensure that we move on the Committee Stage if Second Stage is completed before the time allocated to it? That is where flexibility could really mean something in this House. We could make the best use of the time available to us.
Marine Institute Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Order of Business has been agreed.
I accept that fully. This is very important legislation because the whole issue of the rational exploitation of the sea and the seabed and the resources of the sea generally will be even more important in the future than heretofore. They will account, as the Minister said, for an increasing share of the world economy. As a small island nation, I suppose we stand indicted in the way we have treated our marine resources over the years. The concept of a Roinn na Mara or a Department of the Marine promised a change in this regard, and in the lack of concentration on the marine resources. We have waited in anticipation for the Marine Institute Bill we now have before us. I agree with the principle of the Bill. I have no difficulties with the general thrust of the Bill but there are certain areas where we would require some clarification from the Minister and answers to certain questions.
The principal functions of the institute could not be argued with. Section 4 clearly defines those as undertaking, co-ordinating, promoting and assisting in marine research and development and the provision of related services — aspirational but excellent. The Minister could perhaps explain whether there will be any rationalisation of the bricks and mortar involved in marine research, or are we imposing an administrative structure over what is already in place in the different locations? There is some confusion in the industry generally in relation to this. We are not, I hope, talking about empire building in any sense nor creating another quango. If, as I interpret the Bill to mean, we are talking about putting a co-ordinating administrative structure over the existing work that is taking place in this area in the diverse locations that now exist, I think that would be a very good job.
Section 6 provides for the making of charges for the provision of any services by the institute. I fully support that. As a nation we have accepted quite happily over the years the concept of paying for goods but the concept of paying charges of any kind, be they water charges, garbage collection charges or planning charges, or in this case Marine Institute charges, has never been accepted. There is a net cost in providing any service and I think the public or different institutions will have to accept the principle of paying for that today. I fully support section 6 as outlined.
I approve also of the appointment of a chief executive officer. Of course, the person concerned will make or break the post as it were. Again, on the assumption that my interpretation is correct, that we are not talking about amalgamating bricks and mortar only putting a superstructure in terms of co-ordination and development over the existing situation, I think the right man or woman in the right place here will make or break the Marine Institute. Initially it will be even more important that you get the right person to head up the new Marine Institute so that it becomes firmly established as a very worthwhile research body in our country.
Section 8 provides for the transfer of designated staff to the Marine Institute from the Department of the Marine. Again, I presume this is a nominal transfer and it does not refer to any physical relocation of staff. Maybe there is some physical relocation that I am not aware of; if there is, perhaps the Minister could indicate what he has in mind. I am assuming it is not an entire relocation of the existing research facilities into one building but there could be some small relocation in certain areas, or rationalisation of research if there is duplication at the moment. I think it is very important for this House and for the industry that the Minister spells out exactly what he has in mind by the expression "the transfer of designated staff to the Marine Institute" and whether there will be any physical relocation, even in a small way, of resources.
I applaud section 17 — the provision of scholarships and other awards. There is no better way to encourage the best and the brightest coming out of our universities and research institutions generally to get involved in marine research, than, if you like, to hold out a carrot there, to provide an incentive for them to spend some of the best years of their lives, when their initiative is at its best and when academically they are at their hungriest and to direct them into this particular area. I have called previously, and indeed in the other House, that we use this as a carrot. Some time ago we were discussing the bovine TB legislation and the bovine disease levies issue generally. A couple of years ago when I was speaking on that, a point I made very strongly at the time as that as the present incumbents in the research positions in that area had grown old over 30 years in the various research positions and that it was time to use the carrot and the incentive of scholarships and awards to attract the best and the brightest into areas where we have difficulty or into areas where we need research.
Section 18 provides for the annual report. It may not seem a big issue as we debate the whole concept of a Marine Institute but if we just look at the track record of the publishing of annual reports from other State and semi-State institutions, I plead with the Minister that an annual report should come within six to eight months at most in the year following, the year to which it is supposed to refer. I will not go through them now but we have had them over the years where two and three years later we are getting reports out of date. If annual reports are to mean anything, or if we are to learn anything from what is contained in an annual report, it must come shortly in the year preceding the year to which it refers.
The Minister says no additional Exchequer cost will arise in the current year. By additional I presume the Minister means additional to what is being provided. The Minister goes on to say that a provision of £110,000 has been made for the Marine Institute in the Estimates for 1990. I would be interested to know how the Minister envisages this money being spent this year. It is unlikely that the legislation will be implemented before mid-summer. The Bill is unlikely to be completed here in the next two or three weeks but then it goes to the Dáil and you are into the various Estimate debates and given the normal course of events, it is probably going to be June before it sees the light of day as legislation. How does the Minister envisage the £110,000 being spent between then and the end of the year? Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on what will be involved in the headquarters in Galway?
What exactly is envisaged to be in place in the headquarters in Galway? Will we be just using existing facilities there or will there be any need for increasing space for administration or indeed any other function in the proposed headquarters? Is it there the £110,000 is intended to be spent or has the Minister some immediate research programmes that he intends to direct extra moneys towards in the current year?
I agree with the principle of the Bill but I find the lack of detail on some of these issues I have mentioned and a few more I will mention, a little disconcerting. It would appear this is really only enabling legislation or the setting up of a framework into which subsequently Roinn na Mara will be able to slot different research programmes or different matters as they arise. I would like assurances that there will be no waste of money in establishing an institute as such.
Co-ordination and rational development of research programmes in the years ahead are obviously badly needed. Perhaps the Minister could explain to this House in his response to Second Stage what sort of procedures he envisages for the co-ordination of research? What level of consultation will there be with the board and the CEO and the various research institutes that will still be located around the country once this institute has been established? What size of an institute are we actually talking about?
I presume that the staff of the fisheries research centre will still be in Abbotstown. They will be officially staff of the Marine Institute rather than Roinn na Mara but Abbotstown is effectively a new building. It has only been built for 12, 15 or 16 years. I take it there will be no change there? I presume the UCC salmon research will continue where it is now located or is there a question of rationalisation? What is the situation in relation to the Geological Survey Office? There are only a couple of people involved in the Marine Geological Survey. I hope the Minister does not intend separating marine geological survey from terrestrial geological survey as it were. They should be kept together. I would be very interested in the Minister's views as to what is intended in those areas.
What will the role of the Marine Institute be in relation to inland fisheries? This is a most important area with marvellous potential. The whole aquaculture area too, I presume, will come under the umbrella of the Marine Institute. There have been environmental issues rearing their head in relation to the development of aquaculture. Do I take it that all these issues and questions and any research that would be needed in this area will be handed over to the Marine Institute?
Work under the Coast Protection Act and all that hangs around it has recently been moved from the Office of Public Works to the Department of the Marine. Would coastal erosion and a national coastal survey that is urgently needed become the responsibility of the Marine Institute or would that just stay as part of Roinn na Mara? The urgency that is required in dealing with this area has been highlighted in the recent months of very inclement weather. On the whole coastal erosion question, the funding of a national coastal survey, tidal research and currents etc. — will that be Marine Institute or will it be the Department of the Marine? I would be very interested in getting the Minister's views on it.
We have had a lot of talk recently about the EPA — the Environmental Protection Agency, which the Government propose to enact. The Minister of State, Deputy Harney, is on record as saying that the EPA will have control over estuarine waters. The Minister's own words were, "There is a strong need to clarify the relationships between the roles and responsibilities of the bodies already involved". I suggest this is an area where there is more confusion being heaped as it is far from clear where the roles of the EPA and the Marine Institute we are now discussing will overlap. Will Wexford Harbour, which is an estuarine water, be the responsibility of the EPA or the Marine Institute? We could go around the coast and take other examples as well. One of the strongest reasons for supporting the legislation proposed here today is because it would co-ordinate and clearly define areas of responsibility in relation to marine research. If, at the outset, almost in the same week as we are debating a new Marine Institute, we have the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, saying that the whole responsibility for estuarine waters is to be the baby of the Environmental Protection Agency, we are starting off on the wrong foot. This is an area that needs a clear definition. I request the Minister's response to that point.
In 1979 and 1980 when the Minister for the Marine was negotiating in Brussels the quota levels for Ireland we appeared to have come off very badly as a country. We are a small nation surrounded by water with 25 per cent of the European fishing waters. The abysmally small quota, the abysmally small slice of the cake we got from Brussels, that we will have to live with until the review that is promised us in 1992, shows that we are almost too late in forming this institute. We can muse to ourselves whether the situation might have been quite different if we were in a position, through a co-ordinated marine research policy generally, through a thorough knowledge of our sea resources and the seabed surrounding us, a thorough knowledge of the importance of the Continental Shelf to us as an island nation, to hold out for a larger slice of the quota cake when they were dividing up the various fish species among the nations and the quota they would be allowed to fish.
Perhaps the Marine Institute will be in a position to brief the Minister when it comes to the review of quota levels in a couple of years' time to insist that there is a total look at the allocation of the cake and that we get what should rightfully be ours as a nation with 25 per cent of the European fishing waters. The appalling quota allocated to this country for the different species was a major disappointment to the development of our fishery resources both on the sea and on shore because for every fisherman at sea there are five potential jobs on land. We have the whole major difficulty of the restriction of the gross registered tonnage of our shipping fleet which follows directly from the present restrictive quotas.
At the moment we are supposed to be cutting back our GRT by 16 per cent per annum. It was 16 per cent for 1989. I am not sure if we achieved that in terms of our registered tonnage. Not only are we to cut it back, but licences for new fishing fleets, the ability to trade-up using more modern boats and more modern technology, has been removed from our fishermen generally because we would exceed our GRT and unless a boat is scrapped or sold out of State new licences cannot be issued. The fact that the fishermen cannot trade-up and cannot match the modern technology of some of the other continental fleet means that we are being put at further disadvantage.
Will the establishment of the Marine Institute strengthen the hand of the Minister for the Marine when it comes to renegotiating our quota levels is for the different species, and indeed increasing our GRT which effectively means an increase in the issuing of licences particularly for trading-up and keeping up with the size of boat and the technology that will be needed in the years to come to develop a viable, thriving fishing industry.
We have all talked about the potential. The potential of our natural resources has become a sort of a catchphrase, a buzz word. Our fishermen cannot develop their potential if they cannot trade up, if they cannot get new licences, if we cannot increase our GRT as a small maritime nation. We must be able to hammer the table in Brussels in a couple of years time and say we demand 25 per cent of the Community quota as we have 25 per cent of the Community fishing waters. Unless we go in with all guns blazing with the facts and the figures from research that has been established and properly co-ordinated, we are again going to come out with one arm longer than the other, as the Minister of the day did in 1979-1980 when the levels were established.
Your Minister gave it away.
It was Minister Brendan Daly. I was not going to be political but as the Finna Fáil Senator has introduced politics, I think he should know me well enough that when it comes to politics I can give as good as I get any day. It was Deputy Daly, to put the record straight, who negotiated the terms. They were fired out of office before anything was signed and sealed and it was the Coalition Minister for the Marine who went in and could do nothing but rubberstamp the terms that Deputy Daly had agreed to. It is the normal procedure in Brussels, that if Governments come and go in the individual countries when we go over there we stand behind one another, rather than against one another, in terms of agreements, etc. I had not intended to mention politics but the Members on the Government side have decided that politics must be brought into this most important legislation. They can have politics if they want politics.
The truth.
The truth is that the terms were laid out and agreed by Minister Brendan Daly when he was the Minister at the time. There are a couple of other areas whose relationship to a new Marine Institute remains far from clear at this stage and again, I would appreciate clarification from the Minister. The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas I suppose is the main body in terms of assessing fish stocks in different areas and doing research and surveys into the levels of different species and from that we assess what quotas are available to be divided out between the different trawlers.
I ask the Minister, how will ICES relate to the Marine Institute? Will we have a mechanism through which we can bring in the research, the surveys and the figures that the ICES trawlers are gathering on a full-time basis on the seas around our coasts? They are a most important body because without knowing the levels of the different stocks at different stages, rational commercial exploitation of fish stocks is not possible. We get into the area of over-fishing which is doing enormous long-term damage to the industry in respect of certain species.
On the other hand perhaps we could be rationally exploiting other species that we are not exploiting at present. Most importantly, perhaps, are what we call the non-quota species at present and these non-quota species are where we should be encouraging our fishermen and our trawlermen to be setting their sights. I mentioned our abysmally low quotas for the quota species but any encouragement we can give our fishermen and trawlermen to go after non-quota species will be in our interest if and when quotas are set for these very species, in the years ahead, as looks likely. The relationship between ICES and their surveys of fish stocks that are available and the new Marine Institute needs to be spelled out by the Minister. I would also like to know whether the research vessels that we have on our coast will become part of the Marine Institute or what their relationship will be to it.
I have mentioned various areas and most of what I have said is by way of question or, indeed, rhetorical question. I support very strongly the principle of the legislation before us but the lack of detail is causing major concern in the industry generally. Perhaps the Minister could spell out answers, please, with respect, to the various questions I have asked about the relationships between the various areas of research that now exist. There is excellent research being done all around our coast and on inland fisheries at present — excellent research on aquaculture and shellfish generally on the western coastline, particularly in Galway and Carna. There is excellent research being done in UCC and Abbotstown at present with the ongoing geological survey. We could all mention a great deal more.
There was a time when I would be standing here requesting that the Marine Institute should be based in my own county of Wexford. If it is not too late, I would ask the Minister to give it consideration even now. We have a wonderful facility under-utilised in Johnstown Castle. It was part of An Foras Talúntais; it is now part of Teagasc. There is excellent staff, excellent laboratory facilities, in the maritime county of Wexford. I would appreciate very much if the Minister would consider the possibility of locating either the institute itself, or a major portion of the work that will be done under the aegis of the institute, in our county particularly having regard to the wonderful facilities available there and the expertise available in Johnstown Castle, County Wexford.
Another area that concerns me is whether the formation of the institute involves the actual relocation of bricks and mortar and research personnel, or is it merely a matter of transferring people in name only from the Department of the Marine to the new Marine Institute, as I would hope it would be.
Finally, could the Minister answer for me what the relationship will be between the soon to be formed or so we are told, Environmental Protection Agency and its control over estuarine waters as claimed by the Minister, Deputy Harney, and the new Marine Institute that is being set up to co-ordinate and rationalise development, research and resources in this area to avoid overlapping and duplication. It would appear there is an immediate over-lap and or duplication in this area at present between two new bodies that it is proposed to set up.
I support the legislation before us today. I sincerely hope it will be successful. We have enormous potential in this area as an island nation. Proper exploitation of our sea and seabed and our Continental Shelf, the proper support of our fishermen and the fish production and processing industries will be perhaps in the hands of the Marine Institute, if and when it will be set up.
As one who comes from a coastal part of a coastal county, the very scenic Hook Peninsula I can assure the Minister that I fully support this legislation and, while welcoming the Minister, I welcome it as well. I live among the fishing community and the people whose sons' and daughters' first desire is to join the Naval Service, the lighthouse service or, indeed, to become fisherpeople. I am involved from time to time in representations to various quarters. It would be very beneficial for me and for anybody in a similar situation to be able to go to one body rather than to be sent from Department to Department which has been the case in the past. For that reason alone I welcome the Bill and I would like to compliment the Government for introducing it. It is something that should have happened long before now.
It is great to see that all maritime interests will be located under one roof. I was interested in the Minister's statement at column 1234 of the Official Report of 13 December 1989 and I quote:
Many of the problems currently affecting the development of our maritime economy and marine resources can be attributed to the absence of a clearly defined policy accompanied by a fragmentation of administrative structures.
If anything has held back progress in the maritime industry, it was that very fragmentation. The Minister continued:
We want to get the structures right so that the latent marine potential of the State can be fully realised in everyone's interest.
It is my contention that there is tremendous potential in the sea if only we can develop it. I am certain that this legislation will be the beginning of the road towards achieving that goal. Later the Minister said:
In the case of Ireland, the marine area constitutes a major but underdeveloped natural resource and offers significant opportunities in terms of wealth and employment creation for a broad range of industries.
As an island nation every aspect of our daily lives is in some way influenced by the sea that surrounds us, whether it be the effect of the sea on our climate or the distance from mainland export markets.
This is the most important paragraph of the Minister's statement:
Yet, as a nation we do not perceive ourselves as a maritime people and, worse, the sea continues to be regarded as a barrier to development rather than a natural resource to be utilised and devloped for the benefit of the nation.
I could not agree more with that. The sea has enormous potential for job creation. If the institute gets off the ground and gets the support it deserves financially and otherwise, I think the Minister's figures are possibly understated.
Fishing is the obvious conventional part of the maritime industry we are concerned with. In order to develop the industry, the first essential is to have a proper fleet and suitable harbours. This has been referred to by Senator Doyle. The harbours in County Wexford, at any rate, are certainly way below par. For quite a while now it has been recommended that Kilmore Quay fishing harbour should be upgraded to major harbour status. The size of the landings by Kilmore fishermen are greater than in the case of some harbours that have already got major harbour status. The figures may be distorted by the fact that congestion in Kilmore means that some of the catch is landed at Rosslare, Duncannon, Dunmore, even as far afield as Howth.
Kilmore Quay, as was announced during the recent storms, was very badly hit. The position at present is that Wexford County Council are expected to put up half the cost of the improvement of Kilmore Quay. We are talking in terms of millions of pounds and I am sure the Minister, the Government and everyone else will know that county councils do not have that kind of money these days. I would like to recommend to the Minister today that he would consider Kilmore being brought up to the level of major harbour status where the Government would fund, as it does the other harbours in that category, on a 100 per cent basis. Until that happens, I am afraid Kilmore will have to remain totally congested, with very little water and absolutely no shelter. The absolute essentials for any successful harbour are deep water and shelter.
There is another harbour that should be developed — Duncannon and I was delighted the Minister visited there recently. As was pointed out to him on the day, Duncannon Port is just 100 metres from the main shipping line to Waterford and New Ross and coincidentally was one of the very few harbours that did not suffer as a result of the storms of the past ten weeks, which is a clear indication that it is well sheltered. Because it would be so easy and at relatively small cost to get water — it already has shelter — it is an area that should be considered for development. I am asking the Minister today to state he has found it to be as we believe it to be, an area of great potential development.
It was brought to my attention on Saturday last that one of the bigger trawlers using Duncannon was holed because of the rocks at the foundation. This was pointed out to the Minister. That boat, unfortunately, was damaged to the sum of £500,000 and will be laid up for three or four weeks. This will mean a substantial loss to the trawler's skipper, his family and crew members. I ask the Minister to take up the case of Duncannon immediately and to give it his support.
As a final point on piers and harbours, if the industry is to progress there must be proper harbour facilities. In the case of Duncannon the harbour was built in the last century and very little improvement has been carried out since. That is an indictment of us and a clear indication of our lack of interest in the fishing industry and in the resource that there is in the sea. I hope as a result of the introduction of this Bill the whole scene will improve.
Obviously, fish processing is an important part of the industry. While great strides are being made in this area, it should be said that in other European countries the ratio of people working onshore to those fishing is as high as five to one, whereas in this country, I believe it is nearer to one to one. We must try to improve that situation. Whether it is that we have an inferiority complex or not I am not sure but undoubtedly there is something wrong when as Senator Doyle rightly said, we have 25 per cent of the sea and seem to be making very little use of it.
I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Doyle in relation to the quota situation. Yes, tables will have to be banged. We will have to seek a proper level of quotas when decisions are being taken in future. When we entered the EC our fishing industry was used for bargaining. That was a very bad mistake. If the quota situation improves so, too, will the number of licences. At long last, we are beginning to realise there is vast potential there. The only way we can take advantage of it is to have our quotas increased and, indeed, to pay attention to the non-quota species that have been named here at other stages, such as tuna, argentines, scad or hore mackerel, sprat and all shellfish. We are inclined to be very conservative and to stay with the species for which there are quotas. I have two suggestions: that we promote the nonquotas species and that we seek a vast increase in the non-quota species.
I would like to mention boat building. It was brought to my attention very recently by a boatbuilder at Ballyhack, quite close to my home, that the number of boat building yards has decreased from 16 to five within the past ten years. This is not acceptable, particularly in light of the fact that many of the trawlers now purchased by Irish fishermen are bought from abroad. It is a further indictment of us that here we are creating jobs for people in other countries while there is unemployment here. The tremendous skills that were available in those boat building yards had to be seen to be believed. I spent quite a time in Paddy Carroll's boatyard and I was most impressed. He is one of five remaining boat builders. He is under heavy pressure at present and I must say that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are not helping the situation by delaying the commissioning of certain trawlers. I ask the Minister to take up this very issue with the board to ensure that at least the few Irish boat builders that are left will be given every opportunity, which they obviously have not been getting in the past. If Paddy Carroll's yard — and it is only a small boatbuilding yard — goes to the wall, we will lose five very skilled people. I was discussing this earlier on with Senator Fitzgerald who tells me that in his area there are about 26 people employed in a boat building yard. It goes to show the amount of potential that is there if An Bord Iascaigh Mhara were to direct some of the work to Irish people whose skills are comparable with what is available in any part of Europe.
I am pleased to say that shellfish production is undoubtedly progressing. There is a tremendous amount of research being carried out and it is fair to say that the greatest potential for development of our maritime resources lies in the shellfish industry. I ask Senators to take note of the work done by the Leck family in County Wexford. They are world-renowned and they have succeeded in achieving markets in the USA and several countries far afield. They have proven what can be achieved by ability, initiative and good workmanship. As a country where conditions are suitable for the shellfish industry, we should take advantage of this and as the Minister said, we should exploit it.
Reference has been made on many occasions to the pollution of the seas that is caused by nuclear power stations in Britain. I am anxious to know if the Maritime Institute will have any say in the levels of pollution allowed in the Irish Sea. As a Parliament we have been inclined to take the softly, softly approach to this matter. It is raised here from time to time and also in the Dáil but that is the end of it. We have got to consider this situation very seriously. I hope the Maritime Institute would have some power to deal with this matter.
You could start at home with Minister Bobby Molloy.
We will leave that to the Senator. I am inclined to agree with the Senator that we are taking the softly, softly approach and that we have to adopt a tougher attitude than that adopted in the past. Pollution is on the increase but very little attention, if any, has been paid to it and little noise has been made about it, either here or at EC level. Pollution of our seas will damage the fishing industry and we must ensure that the Maritime Institute take a very serious interest in this matter.
That leads me to submarine activity. A few years ago this was regarded as humorous rather than serious but over the past eight years 50 people have lost their lives as a result of continuous submarine activity in the Irish Sea. There is as much submarine activity there as there is vehicular activity in O'Connell Street. It seems the Russians, Germans, English, Americans and the French are playing war games there continuously. When that creates a situation where our fishermen are at risk it is time for us to sit up and take note and not to accept the weak excuse given to us by the British Ministry for Defence, that it is essential that they operate in the Irish Sea. War games should be played elsewhere than in seas that are known to be fishing areas. It seems, if a British submarine travels down the Irish Sea that must be followed by Americans, followed by Russians, Germans and French. Close to the Wexford coast six years ago we had the situation where ten French fishermen lost their lives. That puts the matter in perspective. That is how close we are to losing some of our people. On many occasions there has been a serious loss of equipment. I am sure Senator Daly knows that an American submarine surfaced in the middle of the Kilmore fishing fleet and, as a result, the Kilmore fishermen changed from wire ropes to nylon ropes in the hope that if they became entangled the ropes would break and that no lives would be lost. That is not acceptable in this day and age.
There is a very active group called the Celtic League on the Isle of Man who keep a close watch on all submarine activity in the Irish Sea and their information is that the incidents are on the increase. We have raised the matter here and at EC level but every little has been done. I appeal to the Minister to see to it that all submarine activity ceases in the seas used by our fisherman. I ask him to insist with the British Ministry for Defence that if they must carry out these games — I am sure it is essential for them — they would take themselves elsewhere. Surely, this country which is neutral, should have some control and some say with regard to what happens in our own waters? It has been said to me that we only control waters three miles out. If our people are using the Irish Sea it behoves us to ensure that as far as possible that sea is a protected area.
Senator Doyle spoke about coastal erosion. I would like to join with her in asking the Minister to make coastal erosion a national problem rather than a problem to be dealt with by local authorities, which has been the case up to now. We have had so many problems during the recent storms with coastal erosion that it will be imposible for Wexford County Council to make any impact. Acres of land have been lost to the sea in the recent storms at Rosslare, Courtown and Cullenstown and right around the 177 miles of coastline. This will have to become a national charge rather than a charge on local authorities if we are serious about dealing with the problem. Somebody said rather facetiously recently that we do not have any coastline left in Wexford; it has all been washed away. Considering the damage to property, land, houses, hotels and so on, it has to become a national charge. The EC would look favourably on providing funding in the case of coastal erosion if a very strong case were made but it is my understanding that to date no case has been made to Europe for funding for coastal erosion. I am asking the Minister to see to it that such a proposal is made to Europe.
We are in a difficult situation in the Rathangan area of south Wexford where 7,000 acres of land had been protected by a sea wall which was breached during the storm. But for the quick work of the Office of Public Works, whose people were out at midnight, the situation would have been worse. People do not realise that there is a polder in this country, as there are many in Holland, that there are 7,000 acres of land under sea level protected by a sea wall at Rathangan. As a result of the storms, that wall has been damaged, undermined and weakened and before next winter the Minister, as the person responsible for the institute, should see to it that it is strengthened so that it will not be breached in future. We are talking about livelihoods and lives in that instance.
I would like to move on to the lighthouse service. I live under the shadow of the Hook lighthouse, the oldest in Europe. I understand now it is intended to take the manpower from that lighthouse and to operate it electrically without anyone being present. It is absolutely essential in coastal areas to have a continuous coastal watch. On Saturday evening last, a young man who set out from Waterford in a yacht was unfortunately lost. It was reported by the lighthouse keepers he did not round the Hook lighthouse. Had those lighthouse keepers not been there, I am sure the Naval Service and the rescue services would have been looking for him anywhere from Waterford to Rosslare since he was on his way to Dublin. The Hook lighthouse people did not see him pass round Hook Point and, therefore, they were able to concentrate on an area between Waterford and the Hook. Our rescue services are small enough at present without stretching them way beyond the limit.
I ask the Minister to ensure in the interests of the people who use the coast, not only fishermen, but the many people who use the coast for pleasure or otherwise, that there be a permanent coast watch, as there is on the coast of Britain and in all other European coastal countries. It is accepted that lighthouses should be operated by electricity but they must also be manned. There must be some service there to replace the one that obviously now will be removed.
The rescue service is totally inadequate. I would like to compliment the lifeboat people and the many people around the coast who, if there is ever a problem, are prepared to drop what they are doing in an effort to prevent loss of life. The lifeboat service is a tremendous service, one with many courageous and unselfish people. Their efforts should be complemented by improved rescue services.
In the Hook people are lost every year. I know they are seeking to have a helicopter service on the west coast. That should be considered for the south and south-east coast also. Many lives might have been saved if the service was adequate.
I was very disturbed to hear over the weekend that when a fisherman friend of mine telephoned the Meteorological Service asking for a weather forecast — it was obvious in light of the storms we have had for the past ten weeks that that might be expected — he was told: "no forecast unless you pay". This was on a Saturday so I do not know when the money would be expected to arrive. That sort of attitude is small-minded. This institute and the Minister's Department should immediately take this up. In the light of the storms we have had for the past ten weeks, the damage, the loss of property and the loss of life, the Minister should see that the forecasting service is free to all people at all times. I am certain that no fisherman would ring up the Meteorological Service for fun. He would only ring up if he felt it were necessary. I see no reason whatsoever to charge.
I would like to repeat what I said at the beginning. I welcome the Bill. There is tremendous potential with our maritime resources, I sincerely hope this is the first step towards achieving that potential.
I would like to welcome both the Minister and this Bill. I have a few comments to make on this very important subject. In confronting the Bill, the first thing that came into my mind was a song by the late and much lamented Dominic Behan:
The sea, oh the sea, is grá geal mo chroí.
Long may it roll between England and me.
It's a sure guarantee that some day we'll be free,
Thank God we're surrounded by water.
I might not share quite the xenophobic point of view of the author, although it is charmingly expressed, but indicates that we understand the significance and the importance of the fact that we are now shortly to be the only island state in the European Community. I say this because the neighbouring island will be linked directly to the mainland of Europe by the Channel Tunnel in the foreseeable future. The first given fact that we have is the vital importance of our island status, the fact that we are surrounded by sea and that this is one of our great and very largely ignored national resources.
I welcome the Bill. It is an excellent idea, as presented to the House in three forms, the Bill itself, the explanatory memorandum and the Minister's speech. There are certain areas of vagueness, which may perhaps be necessary, but I wonder if it will be possible for the Minister to clarify some of them for the House. For example, in particular I take it that the Marine Institute is intended to become some kind of overall governing body co-ordinating research and so on. This is no doubt good and valuable intellectual discipline. I would like to ask precisely how it is envisaged that the marine departments of the various universities will fit into this Bill. I would like to ask how the Naval Services will fit into this Bill. It does not seem that either of these aspects have been tackled head on by the legislation, by what the Minister has said or indeed by the explanatory memorandum. Perhaps we could have some additional information on that.
I would like also to ask if the Minister could be a little bit more particular with regard to the budget because a large section of the Bill is technical governing the financing of this proposed institute. It is all fairly run-of-the-mill statutory stuff containing phrases such as: "the funds of the institute may be used for the payments of expenses incurred by easing the performance of its functions". One would expect no less. That is almost tautological to the concept of the existence of the institute in any case. I wonder if the Minsiter has any notion of the kind of budget he envisages. Does he envisage any limitation? In other words, what is the expense to the State likely to be? I say this not in any parsimonious fashion because I greatly welcome this endorsement of the importance of the practical realities of research by a Government whom I have frequently taken to task, not later indeed than last week for cutbacks in the research area. At the same time, in view of the Government's attitude towards finance in this area, it would be interesting and valuable to be given some indication with regard to the sort of budget because, frankly if a decent budget is not produced, if no money of any real size is forthcoming, then they simply will not be able to do the work that we are all expecting of them. I would like now to list a couple of the areas, some of which may have been touched on by other speakers where I think this money would be very well spent.
I was surprised and very pleased to see in the Minister's speech that he spoke of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention and the possibility of extending our territorial claim over the Continental Shelf because, as he will know, this is a rather contentious area. He said:
The limits of the Irish Continental Shelf will require to be delineated. The definition of the Irish Shelf area will require a major investment, both in terms of shiptime and scientific effort.
Already there are numbers of conflicting claimants for vast tracts of the Shelf which experts consider should rightly belong to Ireland...
I and other Members of this House are aware of this. Shortly before Christmas a very important, though sparsely attended, lecture was given by somebody whom I gather it would be invidious for me to name but his services as a lawyer were formerly engaged by the Department of Foreign Affairs in precisely this area. He gave a very illuminating lecture on the ten, 15, 20 year process of negotiations that have been going on and the different concepts, the different methods of measuring what our Continental Shelf should be, some of which are totally legal, the notion of equi-distance from the coastal line, the notion of ancestal rights, various legal concepts and so on. I am very glad indeed that the Minister is acknowledging very clearly in a long detailed paragraph here the importance and relevance of this new proposed Marine Institute in determining and establishing certain scientific facts upon which may rest some of our claim to the resources of the sea. This is an area in which the world of politics, the law and scientific investigation merge. It is very important and I welcome very much that the Minister should have drawn attention to this.
Why is it so important? It would not be important at all if it was only a territorial claim, if it was only a question of drawing a nice little boundary around Ireland and saying: "We are king of this particular maritime castle". It is important because of the resources of the sea. It is important because we must understand how to manage those resources. It has been said by Senator Doyle that we have got to monitor the catches, we have to monitor the kind of fish that are the targets of our fishing fleet. I would also say we have got to monitor the size of the trawlers. The Minister I am sure is well aware of the fact, as I am, as an ordinary layperson in this matter, that there has been a very considerable alteration in the last 10 to 20 years in the nature of the construction of the fishing fleet, the trawlers, their constant expansion in size. We are moving towards factory fishing. We already have the Russian factory ships off our coast, perhaps out of our territorial waters. Here again, there is tangential situation, the improvement of the resources of the Navy so that we can adequately police the area surrounding this coastline.
There is no question of doubt that the resources that surround this island are in considerable danger of being drastically diminished and being fished out by unwise exploitation of our resources. I remind the House, as I am sure the Minister does not need to be reminded, that we are in a quota situation and because of the fact that we are in the European Community a number of nations who, through their own folly, have exhausted their own stocks of fish——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must interrupt the Senator. I have to deal with a motion under Standing Order 29.
Debate adjourned.