I call on Senator Calnan to move the motion. He has 15 minutes, the Minister has 15 minutes and other Senators have ten minutes.
Developments in the Marine Sector: Motion.
Acting Chairman
I move:
That Seanad Éireann welcomes the proposed developments in the Marine Sector as outlined in the National Development Plan 1994-1999 and, in particular, welcomes the commitment of the Government to increased employment and greater export earnings through the further development of sea fisheries, inland fisheries and commercial ports; and further commends the Government for its commitment to coastal protection and marine research programmes.
I welcome the Minister. My constituency stretches from Dursey Island at the southern tip of Ireland to Kinsale, by road a distance of 120 miles. If one were to travel in and out of all the inlets one would travel several hundreds of miles of coastline. I am familiar with the many harbours, inlets, coves and islands in south-west Cork.
We are an island country. Unfortunately, we sometimes act as if we are a land locked country because, over the years, we have not developed our fishing resources to the full. The National Development Plan proposes an investment of £270 million in the marine sector. This is very welcome and I hope it will be used to the full in developing employment in our commercial ports in the remote and developed parts of our country. Investment in commercial ports will amount to £100 million. Being an island country we have to develop our ports which connect us to Europe, particularly to Britain and France. We expect that a large amount of money will be spent in Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Waterford, Cork, Rosslare and the Shannon estuary.
However, we must not forget there are many smaller ports where there is a great deal of activity related to aquaculture and sea activities. Very often these ports have inadequate facilities. I refer in particular to Bantry, Kinsale and Baltimore. A new pier was built at Schull but is not being fully used. Courtmacsherry is a fine fishing and tourist port. There is a new and very welcome development at Union Hall. I am very familiar with developments in this part of the south-west.
Bantry and Baltimore have harbour boards. Baltimore has had such a board for many years. I was a member of this board for a number of years as a representative of Cork County Council. It was starved of money. We met once a month. We had very little money — only pounds and pence — to develop this fine natural harbour. The Bantry harbour board is also very short of funds. No developments have taken in either of these two places.
I welcome the transfer of ports, which are willing to be taken over, to local authorities which are willing to take them over. The Departments of the Marine and the Environment were probably jointly responsible for this transfer which is welcome provided money is invested in them. I am glad regional ports will be developed and I hope smaller ports will benefit prominently in terms of cash and investment from the development of commercial ports. There cannot be proper development of ports without proper roads, lighting and other such facilities. Consequently, great co-operation between the Departments of the Environment and the Marine is needed in carrying out such development.
Most of the money, a sum of £137 million, will be spent on fisheries aquaculture. We have not taken advantage of being surrounded by a sea with plenty of fish. We are worried because other nations are fishing in these waters. It is up to us to develop our resources properly. Since we are restricted in many cases by sea fishing quotas there is a great need for the development of aquaculture such as shell fishing. Many of the islands off our south-west coast, as well as areas on the mainland, have developed very lucrative shell fishing industries, such as the mussel industry, which provide plenty of employment. Unfortunately, much of this development has been very haphazard and only occured by chance. It is up to us to invest money in such development in a planned fashion. We have great resources which can be developed to provide employment which is very badly needed in areas — again I will be parochial — such as south-west Cork where large industrial development does not exist. We have to develop alternatives and use the money provided by Europe for the National Development Plan to invest in fishing and aquaculture development.
Since Castletownbere is a designated fishing port, money will be provided for its development. This is badly needed there. There is a 22 mile stretch of road from the the N71 to Castletownbere. About ten miles of this is totally unsuitable for the huge trucks which use it to transport fish and fish products from Castletownbere. Money will have to be spent on this road.
On one of the islands off our south-west coast there are valuable catches of brown crabs, swimming crabs, lobsters, shrimps, mussels and oysters. The people of this island need money to properly develop aquaculture there. We need marine research programmes and I am glad the motion refers to them.
I must mention the work done by Matt Murphy on Sherkin Island. Its marine station is a credit to Matt and his family and is doing tremendous work for fishing. Matt is not amply rewarded for this. He is always available to give highly professional advice and the facilities are second to none. He made such developments in the research field that his advice and the advice from his marine station are sought worldwide. Recently, he was consulted in relation to fishing problems in Chile. If we can build around what Matt developed on Sherkin Island, we will do much for the fishing industry of the south west, indeed for the country. Matt also has problems with insurance. He has a fine research station which is ideal for school tours and tourist activities but he cannot use it because the cost of the necessary insurance is prohibitive. Iron and steel girders and cement blocks had to be brought from the mainland at great cost to build this fine station, which has weathered mighty Atlantic storms.
I am glad that £19 million will be spent on tourism angling. We must think of the value which our many lakes, rivers and sea areas can be to our economy. Many local organisations — and I know of one near my home — have taken on the job of restocking a lake. They are building a little roadway into the lake, putting a pier there and developing it properly. Tremendous work is being done on Gurranes Lake, which is four or five miles from my house. People are coming great distances to fish there. A great job is being done on the restocking and I hope this £19 million will help these people to develop our inland lakes, particularly in the more remote and disadvantaged areas.
There is also a unique feature in my area — Lough Ine near Skibbereen which is a tidal lake. The water comes in at high tide and drains when the tide goes down. However, there is a rock lip which holds back water and this unusual physical feature has resulted in the development of unique flora and fauna at the bottom of this lake, which is of great interest to botanists and people interested in marine life. Features such as this attract tourists and develop the tourist facilities in the areas.
I am glad also that £5.5 million is designated to preserve economic and public infrastructure and protect important local communities. In this context, I want to speak about sea erosion. Recently, we had a problem on the south west coast where much of Tragumna Strand and the adjoining road was torn up by an unusual storm. The council repaired that but further along the coast, Warren Strand in Rosscarbery — pieces of which are being eroded every year — Ownahincha, Castlefreke and Garrettstown are suffering as a result of sea erosion.
Installing a type of wire mesh bag with rocks — I do not know the technical term — helps to hold the sand in these fine strands. Otherwise, they would be washed away. There is a hotel, a county council bridge and a sewage treatment plant behind the stand at Ownahincha which, if proper protection is not provided, could be washed away due to the force of the sea. We often do not see the effect of the sea until there is a violent winter storm. With regard to safe seas, I visited Haulbowline recently and I was glad to see the sophisticated instrumentation which they have there for checking our seas. Unfortunately, they lack ships. We should have more help from EC and other boats to protect our waters.
Finally, I wish to speak about islands. There are about seven islands off the south west coast. Six of them are nonGaeltacht islands and feel that they are being left out of everything. They are very remote, can encounter great difficulties in winter and have high transport costs. Help is needed. An island committee has been set up by Cork County Council on which there are representatives of each island. Good work is being done by them but no work can be done without money. Consequently, we will expect the Department of the Marine to provide money for the development of piers, lights and roads on these islands to give the islanders proper living standards. If we do not, these islands will soon reach a population level which would make it unfeasible to inhabit them. I refer in particular to Dursey Island. I am glad the Minister is here and that money will be available to develop our marine resources.
I welcome the Minister to the House and I would like to formally second the motion which welcomes the proposed developments in the marine sector as outlined in the National Development Plan. The plan provides for a basic investment programme of £270 million in the marine sector. I welcome the investment of £100 million in the development of commercial ports. I am pleased that the Shannon Estuary is at last recognised as a strategic corridor and commercial port. For too long we concentrated our efforts on the ports of the east coast, as if we had no place apart from England to send our goods. The realisation now is that we need to export from the west coast and have access to the shipping lanes to the west of our country.
Foynes is one of the ports on the Shannon Estuary and is worthy of investment by the Minister. The basic infrastructure is there. Granted, there is need for great improvements to dredge the harbour to make it capable of taking ships of deeper berth. Work also needs to be done on the roads leading into the port. Nevertheless, the roads are there, although they need to be improved, and there is a valuable rail link to the port. It should and could become the principal port of the mid west. At the same time, its geographical location means that any development of the port will not hinder or impede the development of the Shannon Estuary as a tourist area.
I also welcome the emphasis in this plan on tourism angling. There has been an increase in funding in this sector from £1 million in the last round of Structural Funds to £19 million in this round. It is worth bearing in mind — and perhaps Senator Burke will correct me if I am wrong — it has been reckoned that in Mayo a salmon caught off the coast might be worth in the region of £10. The same salmon, if caught inland, can net the local economy in the region of £300 to £400 when one takes into the account that the angler, especially if coming from abroad, will spend money on bed and breakfast, restaurants and entertainment in the area. It is also recognised that some of the best inland fishing is in areas where there would not otherwise be a great deal of tourist activity. For example, tourists often bypass west Limerick and the salmon rivers on their way from the Cliffs of Moher to the lakes of Killarney. Senator Rory Kiely will agree with me.
One could bypass Waterville because there are no sea trout in it.
Angling should be encouraged because it increases revenue. Angling and inland fisheries are often in places of little scenic value. People do not come to Ireland for the sun and, therefore, we should encourage them to pursue leisure activities. A German who lives in the Ruhr valley would love an opportunity to fish in our peaceful waters and enjoy a night's drinking.
Money injected into tourism and angling will benefit many communities. However, investment in our waters must be backed up by revenue from our local authorities to improve access to these rivers and to help the local farming community maintain the purity of the waters. It is sad that many rivers are badly polluted at times of low water, but I am glad the number of fish kills has decreased. Perhaps this is due to improved farming methods, an awareness by the farming community of the importance of our rivers and lakes and added rainfall in the past few years, which has made it easier for fish to live in the rivers. Rain can sometimes be a blessing in disguise.
I welcome the emphasis in the National Development Plan on research and development as, without it, we would be left behind. In Brittany there is fishing activity at every inlet and shoreline. It is difficult to get fresh fish around our coasts. Recently, for example, I was on holiday in County Wexford and it was difficult to buy fresh fish. I spoke to a local fisherman and he said that the fish is bought as soon as it is caught. It is often exported to Spain in lorries and containers. The fish is placed in ice and no processing is done before it is exported.
We cannot catch more than our quota of certain varieties of fish. I am glad there are some varieties whose cultivation can be improved. I hope we will be able to export this product to Europe as this would increase the income of many people who live on the periphery of our country.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy O'Sullivan, to the House. I am delighted there is good news in the National Development Plan for marine areas because there is little in it for the west. It is interesting that this motion was tabled by the Labour Party when the Dáil is due to discuss a confidence motion with regard to the plan. There is disagreement between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance. The Tánaiste told this House we would get £8 billion over the period of the plan, even when questioned by several Members. Now we will get £7.2 billion. I hope he does not leave the country again because each time he does we lose further moneys. It is interesting that we are discussing this motion. Perhaps we should discuss a no confidence motion in the Tánaiste or the Taoiseach.
In the weekend newspapers one journalist said that the National Development Plan was little better than the economics of the 1930s, but at least then there was a certain dignity in the policy of self-sufficiency and the country was solvent.
One should not insult the people of the 1930s.
That is what one journalist said at the weekend.
We are very innocent to believe everything we read in the newspapers.
How much did the Senator's party expect to get?
Another journalist said that in the Programme for a Partnership Government the coalition partners proclaimed that the hallmark of our Government would be openness and accountability. This speaks for itself. We have seen £8 billion reduced to £7.2 billion. When one takes the investment by the private sector into account, the £20 billion on which the plan is based will probably be further decreased to £16 billion.
The following is another quote in the newspaper in relation to the Taoiseach:
Mr. Reynolds got much of the political credit when Ireland secured £2.8 billion from the Structural Funds for 1989/92 and——
The Senator should have brought in the newspaper.
——still boasts that he led the Irish negotiations. History will show that the three key players in those negotiations were former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, the former Head of the Department of the Taoiseach, Pádraig Ó Huiginn, and former Agriculture Commissioner Ray MacSharry.
The Senator never said what he thought of Mr. Charles Haughey when he was Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach took the credit for that. Now, however, we find he had little input in negotiating that agreement. Perhaps that is why this plan has gone wrong.
Acting Chairman
We are not discussing the National Development Plan. We are only discussing the moneys allocated under the plan for the marine sector.
What we are speaking about is relevant to the plan. There is only a small amount of money included for the Department of the Marine.
Acting Chairman
We are not discussing the general plan. We are dealing with the allocation for the marine services.
Perhaps the Senator could spend less time exaggerating and discuss the motion.
When one takes £300 million for the Department of the Marine out of the £20 billion on which this plan is based, it amounts to 1.5 per cent of the total amount in the plan. It is an insult to an area which probably has the greatest growth potential and which is most open to creating jobs. If we are serious about job creation the Department of the Marine, fisheries and tourism deserve much more than the £300 million earmarked in this plan. I would like the Minister to tell us whether there will be any reduction in that figure because of the reduction in the overall sum from £8 billion to £7.2 billion.
Some £5.5 million is included in this plan for coastal protection. County Mayo has one of the largest coastlines in the country. Mayo County Council estimated that £6 million would be required to keep our coasts properly guarded and fully protected. We are getting £5.5 million for the whole country over the period 1994-99. It is a very small sum when one considers that County Mayo alone needs £6 million. This amount is clearly inadequate. We need more funds because our coast needs to be protected.
Why is so much of the container traffic out of this country going via Northern Ireland when we have such ports as Dún Laoghaire, Rosslare, Waterford and Cork. If a large percentage of our container traffic is leaving via Northern Ireland I am sure that is putting great pressure on jobs at existing ports and affects the efficiency and manner in which our ports are being run. The Minister should examine this to see what can be done to retrieve that business and make our ports more profitable or more efficient and enable them to handle the Irish traffic.
As the Minister is aware, we have a number of ports and the £100 million included in this plan for the upgrading of ports is inadequate. In Mayo alone there are seven or eight ports, including small ones and ports that cater for traffic to the islands. The capital allocation for our harbours needs to be increased. The Department sanctions a certain amount of money for local authorities to upgrade ports and harbours but finding 50 per cent of the money places a great burden on a local authority.
There are two deep sea ports in Mayo — Darby's Point off Achill and Ballyglass harbour. I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of providing facilities at those ports to enable the fishing fleet to dock there and unload their produce more efficiently. More freezing and storage facilities are needed if fishing is to be developed along the west coast. At the moment, the port in Killybegs in County Donegal is coping with large trawlers but there are no other ports south of that which are properly developed.
What about Rossaveel?
Rossaveel clearly needs to revamped and a large amount of money spent on it. A gentleman from Achill, Kevin McHugh, has just spent £24 million buying a trawler. It will be the largest trawler in the world; its carrying capacity would feed 10 million people. He gets no State grant or assistance. If our fishing industry is to prosper, it must be given more funding.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach seo agus mo chomhchairdeas a ghabháil dó agus an Aire tuisc an méid atá déanta acu do Roinn na Mara agus iascairí na Éirinn. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, to the House and congratulate him on his efforts in bringing about a better fishing industry than we had in the past.
At present it is proposed that in excess of £300 million will be invested in the fishing industry and the development of our fishing ports. I welcome this development. At long last there is light at the end of the tunnel because the fishing industry has been starved of cash because of a lack of commitment over the years.
In 1973 we started a major ports development starting with Killybegs and Castletownbere, followed by Howth. Now, after 20 years there are five major fishery ports. This is unacceptable; the ports should have been developed faster. Money should have been invested sooner, but at last it is being invested.
I can be critical of the fishing industry because nobody in this House is more entitled to speak about fishing than I having spent the best part of my life fishing. While we are here tonight debating this motion we should remember that there are people 150 miles out at sea and instead of quoting from the paper the Senator on the opposite side should be talking about fishing. He should have a mind of his own and state positively and critically what, if anything, is wrong with the fishing industry.
In my view there certainly is something wrong with the fishing industry and the Minister, the Minister of State, the Department and probably the Government would be the first to admit that. There is not enough emphasis on the potential for job creation in the fishing industry. There are as many square miles of sea to the west and south of Ireland and in the channel on the eastern side as there are square miles of land on this island; there is probably double that amount. Those seas are rich in fish and we should avail of the opportunity to reap a rich harvest. However, we did not take that opportunity over the years and I do not know where the blame lies. If memory serves the 1964 London Convention Agreement allowed Spanish fishermen to fish into our shores for lobster. That was taking the bread from our mouths. We were probably seeking — and I do not blame the people who attended the convention — to trade off fishing for agriculture. I have always maintained that such a trade off took place.
It is time there was proper investment, as we see today, in the fishing industry. Indeed I would like to see even more investment because jobs can be created around our coasts and there would be, as Senator Quinn said last week in a different context, development of the poorer parts of Ireland — places like Mayo, Kerry and west Cork — where there are lovely harbours and ports which could be developed to a proper standard.
There have been great developments which I welcome. I deplore the critics of development and those who make little of, for example, the development of the harbour in Dingle which cost £4.7 million to date. I hope the Minister will announce further investment there in the future, because it is deserved. Castletownbere and the other ports also deserve extra investment because they, too, have proved themselves. In 1988 the landing of fish in Dingle was worth a little over £100,000 annually. I was then, and still am, chairman of the harbour board in Dingle so I am familiar with the figures. The landing fees from boats were a little in excess of £6,500 that year. The landings in Dingle at present are worth up to £5 million. A total of 120 extra jobs have been created and it is anticipated that the landing fees will be in excess of £50,000 this year. All this is due to development and in fairness to the former Minister, Senator Daly. He signed the agreement and we give credit where it is due. We will be ever grateful to him for that.
He got a lot of thanks for it.
There is also a marina there. We have heard much talk from the Opposition lately about marinas and over-spending. These marinas are a great benefit and we need several of them. The marina in Kilrush complements the one in Dingle which complements the one in Kinsale.
Around the south.
The Minister should not listen to the knockers. He should continue investing in developments once they have proved themselves. The figures show these developments are good. I hope the Minister will come back to the Seanad so that we can properly discuss the development of the fishing industry.
There is much talk about the value of salmon fishing up river. I advocate that we consider banning salmon fishing around our coast for a time and compensate the people who make a living from it; I would never suggest that salmon fishing be banned without proper compensation being given to the salmon fishermen. When such a ban is imposed we would see if the figures quoted by Bord Fáilte and the Central Fisheries Board about the value of salmon fishing up river are true. That is an option the Minister might consider.
At this time I would seriously reconsider the role of BIM in the fishing industry. It certainly had a role 40 years ago when we had few boats and fewer engine driven boats. When the Government of the day appointed Brendan Kelly as chairman of Bord Iascaigh Mhara he built a fishing fleet. The current role of BIM must be examined. It should be reshuffled and have a greater emphasis on job creation. At present it is too involved in aquaculture and mariculture. I do not support that. I agree with Senator Calnan that there should be more emphasis on natural mussel and scallop beds and even creating new ones, as happened in Bantry Bay. In this way you can create employment during the winter months in inland bays for the small 36 foot boats and half deckers. They create the most employment.
I welcome this plan although I do not have enough time to discuss every aspect of it. It is good that money has been allocated for coast erosion. About £0.5 million was recently spent by Kerry County Council to tackle coast erosion in the Maharees at Castlegregory. That example should be followed. Rocks taken from land instead of the gabions mentioned by Senator Calnan were used to protect the coast. That achieved two aims: the land was cleared of rocks and the coast was protected from erosion.
The Senator will level Mount Brandon I take it.
I certainly would. I am an environmentalist but that cause can be taken too far when people object to clearing the land of stones. God knows, there are plenty of stones in west Kerry and if we got rid of 99 per cent of them I would be happy. I support the motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator has done well in injury time.
I welcome the Minister. I will focus on one aspect of this comprehensive motion, and that is our commercial ports. If I concentrate on this item it is not because I do not consider the entire marine sector to be very important although it was interesting to hear the concentration of earlier speakers on the fishing sector.
I wish to highlight the urgent need to tackle the problem of our ports without any further delay. Part of the problem is that our ports are not yet regarded as crucial to the economy. I believe they are. We do not yet recognise the fact that our ports have become bottleknecks, which to a certain extent, are throttling the growth of the economy. We recognise the importance of exporting but we forget that everything we export must go out through a sea port or an airport. The overwhelming majority of the goods we export are transported by sea.
During the last five years we have begun to improve our roads system and this has already made a great impact on the time it takes to transport our goods from source to the market and the cost of getting them there but we have still a long way to go. I argued last week that the roads programme in the national plan should be brought to the fore so that we can benefit from it more quickly.
With regard to ports I would like to remind the Minister of State that we are a good deal further behind, we have a lot of catching up to do. As our roads get better it is becoming clearer that our ports are just not good enough. I welcome what the national plan proposes for ports but my problem is that it is not comprehensive enough or quick enough. We had a high powered committee which reported, it must be over a year ago now, on the future of the ports. It went to the heart of the matter which is that our ports are not run as commercial enterprises; they are not serving the needs of commercial customers; they are not open around the clock, seven days a week, and they are hampered by ludicrously out of date work practices. In a word they are uncompetitive.
The fact that so much of our national output now goes the long way around — through Larne as Senator Burke said, rather than through the southern ports — is a dramatic indication of how uncompetitive our ports have become. Good luck to Larne and to Warrenpoint, they deserve the business. However, going the long way around through Larne or Warrenpoint is an added cost for all our exporters who have to use that route compared to what it would cost if our ports were properly run on commercial lines. We just cannot allow this to continue.
While the national plan genuflects to the recipe put forward by the review committee last year — turning the ports into semi-State companies, improving the work practices and making them more commercially viable — I do not detect any sense of urgency or immediacy, I do not detect any awareness of how urgent this problem has become. This is a factor not just for the companies, both Irish and foreign owned, who are trying to compete on the European and world markets, it is also at least as important for the companies we are attempting to attract here.
Incoming companies which are considering Ireland as a potential site in which to set up business do not just look at how much in IDA grants they will get. One of the key things they look at is how quickly and cheaply they can get their goods from where they produce them to the market. When they look at the Irish ports they do not get excited. On the contrary, their interest in Ireland often stops right there. When will we realise that the state of our ports is a constraint on our growth both now and even more in the future? We have been hearing too long now about the need to do something while at the same time little has happened on the ground by way of change.
My cry tonight, which I hope will not be a cry in the wilderness as I described it last week, is let us put some urgency behind the ports programme. I have spoken solely on ports in order to concentrate the mind on that one item. Our ports are a festering sore that is costing us jobs and it is possible to do something about them if we give them the priority.
I thank the Members for welcoming me here this evening. To bring Senator Burke up to date, Mr. Jacques Delors has indicated that the quality of the plan of which the marine section is a part will draw down at least £7.84 billion. I do not want to go into the debate here this evening on the vote of confidence, but my function here is to outline to the House the marine section of the national plan which I am confident will not be reduced in any way.
Will the Government reduce any other parts of it?
I can assure the Senator it will not be reduced in any way.
The National Development Plan 1994-1999 will benefit the marine sector to the sum of £300 million pounds. The plan will encompass developments in sea fisheries, inland fisheries, commercial ports, coastal protection and marine research. As Minister of State it is my view that we have never fully realised the potential of our marine sector. We have available to us a vital natural resource which, if exploited to its full potential, can provide much needed extra employment. The primary aim of this plan is jobs.
I make no apology for stating that I will allocate the moneys available under the plan primarily on the basis of the potential for job creation. Furthermore, I will ensure that such jobs are both sustainable and well paid. That is the great advantage of employment in the marine sector. Employment is based on an existing indigenous resource which can earn large scale foreign earnings for the country. Furthermore, the geographic nature of the marine sector is peripheral. Therefore, the jobs that are created will be in regions where increased employment has historically been difficult to achieve. I make that point for Senator Burke.
This is where the real benefits of this massive injection of funds will be felt. Regions with low levels of employment and underdeveloped marine activities will be transformed and revitalised by this plan. As Minister of State with special responsibility for port development I will be putting in place a £100 million investment programme for commercial ports throughout the country. This programme will incorporate further development of the strategic corridor ports of Cork, Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Waterford, Rosslare and the Shannon Estuary. I will also be providing for key regional ports around the country. I take the point Senator Quinn made that there is a need for development in ports around our coast.
I cannot stress enough the importance to the economy of improvements to our commercial ports. A common complaint within industry is the high cost of getting Irish products to foreign markets. It is my intention to develop our ports with a view to ensuring efficient and cost effective access to foreign markets for Irish companies.
The £100 million investment in ports, allied to the restructuring of our major ports in the forthcoming harbours Bill, will bring our commercial ports into the 21st century. Virtually all our externally traded goods leave the country by sea and by developing our ports we are in turn developing employment in industry. Again it is the positive effect on employment that is most important.
While regional ports are small by comparison with ports such as Cork and Dublin they are nonetheless important to the areas they serve. It is my view that an active and efficient port in a small town can bring many direct benefits to that town. There are many examples of industries based in towns primarily due to the availability of port facilities. I have received many worthwhile proposals from regional ports for funding. If these proposals are viable and can show a positive jobs effect, then funding will be made available.
Both the Culliton report and the Moriarty task force stressed the importance of developing our ports. Through this £100 million investment programme the Government is showing its commitment to the further development of Irish ports.
As Minister of State I also have responsibility for inland fisheries. Since becoming Minister of State I have been acting to develop our inland fisheries with a view to substantially increasing the number of tourist anglers visiting our lakes and rivers. Under the National Development Plan I have secured funding totalling £19 million for this sector. Given that the last national plan allocated a sum of £1 million, the new investment programme is the single biggest boost the sector ever received.
Again my aim is the creation of sustainable new jobs in remote and disadvantaged areas where the majority of the fisheries are located. At a minimum the Government envisages the creation of over 1,000 new jobs in this sector. Most importantly, the development of our inland fisheries will benefit all those who service the tourism industry through travel, car hire, accommodation and restaurants as well as in the angling sector itself. We can and will realise the full potential for the inland fisheries sector.
The single largest programme of investment under the Department of the Marine relates to sea fisheries and aquaculture. Our planned investment of £137 million recognises the vital contribution of the fishing industry to the national economy. While we are constrained by EC regulations under the Common Fisheries Policy to a certain extent the Government intends to ensure the significant development and restructuring of our fishing fleet. This modernisation and restructuring will ensure that the fishing industry can take up unused fishing quotas and increase catches of non-quota species. The planned investment will also incorporate a major improvement in fish processing and marketing through the provision of new processing facilities and the modernisation of existing facilities.
It is my intention that we secure new markets for our fish products abroad. We have a high quality product to offer on the international market and the proposed investment under the national plan will ensure access to these markets.
In particular we are targeting the aquaculture sector for major investment and growth. The development of salmon farming and the shellfish sector is recent to Ireland but vast in potential. I recently visited the ANUGA Food Fair in Cologne, Germany, where prime Irish salmon is now being marketed in competition with the best products from other countries. The House should know the German distribution company, Van Der Burgh, indicated to me that although Norwegian salmon was much cheaper the company was buying more Irish salmon which has better texture, quality and taste. It was also buying from the western seaboard and the density of salmon farming there was a major reason they were involved with BIM in producing what I consider a first class product. I hope having this product on the international market, and in Germany especially, will create many jobs on the western seaboard.
We are now investing heavily in the promotion of Irish fish products abroad and I am confident we will secure high quality niche markets. The investment in marketing under the National Development Plan will secure increased demand for Irish fish abroad with a resultant increase in employment at home.
The National Development Plan also includes an investment programme of £9 million towards marine research. This investment will provide significant assistance to the Marine Institute in the work they are carrying out under the chairperson of Professor Máire Mulcahy of UCC. As Senator Calnan said, I have appointed Matt Murphy to the institute for his input over the many years he has been involved in research.
For the first time we have included a planned investment of £5.5 million in the area of coastal protection. This programme will allow coastal protection works to be carried out in key coastal areas and is of significant importance to many local communities. When one considers £200,000 was the sum allocated last year for coastal protection, which was probably all spent in one area, that is a considerable improvement. We will seek to have that sum further increased. We recognise the coast needs protection in vulnerable areas in the south, west, east and especially the south-east.
One issue not in the plan but which I feel is a key area in which we must take an initiative is the 20 mile exclusion zone. I have pursued this matter in Brussels. Our marine environment is vital. If we are to market our products abroad, it must be fresh and clean. I have proposed a 20 mile exclusion zone to prevent shipping, particularly tankers and ships carrying hazardous cargoes, entering inside a 20 mile limit. I was in St. Malo recently at a conference on peripherality and was given wholehearted support by France, Britain and the Netherlands on the initiative we have taken. It is important this proposal be presented to Brussels as soon as possible because if one tanker goes aground off our coast, this country would experience an horrific nightmare. This must not happen and I have made this proposal and we hope to get agreement from the EC.
The National Development Plan for the marine sector has increased employment as its primary objective. Based as it is on increased development of an existing natural resource, the national plan signifies a major move forward in the marine area. Our plan is a blueprint for economic progress in Ireland and most importantly it is a blueprint for increased employment.
I congratulate the Minister on his personal commitment to the marine. It is obvious from the way he speaks that he sincerely wishes events were moving faster. I do not wish to be personal about the national plan or the amount of money that was or was not committed. However it is an embarrassment to us as a nation and anyone who would say we were not embarrassed internationally by the havoc created is a fool. It will certainly be an embarrassment to us in years to come. Yesterday evening on television commitments by the President of the EC Commission were discussed and someone said the money could be drawn down provided the programmes were implemented.
I have been in the Seanad over eight years and this House would not wish a party in Government to bring before us a motion about something which has not even been started. We should not get into this habit. This issue might return to embarrass the Government. We should not discuss something which has not yet been implemented. I always like to see a project moving.
I am impressed by the way some people have spoken about fisheries. I am a city man but I know Cork port well. I congratulate those Senators who have given commitment over the years to smaller ports. However let us not suffer from any illusions. Realistically the EC must ask questions about 1.5 per cent of the total money being spent in an area where a massive number of jobs could be created. The Minister says this but no one can say it can be done with less than £300 million.
It is fiercely embarrassing for a Member of the Government to say facilities provided in the Schull area are not being used. Does that mean we have built facilities which will not be used or are they not being properly used? Whose decision was it to put them there if they are not being used? I am in favour of establishing marinas around the country but Kilrush marina must be an embarrassment. Was the planning done properly?
It is a great success.
Questions are even being asked by Government members and backbenchers about what happened there. That was not proper planning.
Arguments have been made about our commercial ports. Senator Burke was right when he said a great deal of traffic from the Republic is unfortunately leaving from another country. That is a sad reflection on us.
It is our country; the Constitution is clear about it.
It is another part of our country, occupied by another country.
We are saying £100 million will be spent over the next six years upgrading our commercial ports. Is that a lot of money? In the last plan, total funding to improve conditions for anglers visiting our lakes was increased to £19 million over a six year period. Massive amounts of money could be earned if we could get more people to come to Ireland. If every salmon caught upriver is worth £300, as one Senator said, as opposed to £10 off the coast, we should not allow anyone to catch salmon off the coast.
They would not like to hear that in Dingle.
We could pay them £100 not to catch it and still make £200 on salmon caught inland if what was said is true.
Is that not what I suggested?
I want to know if it is true. Vast amounts of money could be spent ensuring we create work in fisheries. I can see the potential but let nobody tell me they are taking credit for something they have not even implemented. It is only 1.5 per cent of the total money allocated, yet a vast number of jobs can be created. What argument was made by the Department of the Marine at the Cabinet table if it only got 1.5 per cent when so many jobs could be created? It is an embarrassment to that Department because there are enormous opportunities in this area.
It is an embarrassment that people from other nations can travel 1,500 or 2,000 miles up the Mediterranean and fish off our coast for two and three weeks without going home. We are not doing that. That is what I call investment. It was an embarrassment to hear another Senator say that a man bought a trawler for £24 million but got no grants. That is a sad reflection on us. That is where the Department should spend the money and it should argue for more money from the National Development Plan. We need extra money if we are to avail of the opportunities that are there.
The same can be said for forestry, I am no genius but I am a realist. I can see the opportunities in this area. I accept the sincerity of the Minister, although I am sure I will have many disagreements with him, but he is going nowhere with only 1.5 per cent of the total allocation. It is a sad reflection on all on the Government side who say they are committed to more work in fisheries, yet only 1.5 per cent of the total amount has been allocated. I feel sorry for the Minister.
The Senator need not be sorry for me.
With respect, the Minister knows he did not get a fair allocation.
I am happy.
If the Minister is happy with that——
I am happy with that. The Senator's objectives are right.
——he should not admit it. There are opportunities for jobs for our young people and for the people who are committed to fisheries.
I wish to devote the last two minutes of my time to commercial ports. I am concerned about our priorities and the way the moneys are being allocated to every port on the east coast. I do not wish to be biased but I see opportunities where shipping that is bypassing Ireland could be used. This would ensure that we get more shipping to redistribute to the mainland of Europe. There are opportunities for that and the Minister knows it.
I congratulate Senator Daly, the former Minister, who, in 1987, put in place measures that were relevant to the Cork region and the Cork free port. The sad reflection is that if they had been properly implemented less money would now have to be spent in the Cork region. The 10 per cent corporation tax, as applied in the Shannon region, was not given to the Cork ports. There was a dreadful injustice done to Senator Daly as the former Minister. He is a person who deserves better. I mean that in all sincerity although I may disagree with him on other occasions.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Cregan will address his remarks through the Chair.
The Government held the seat though.
They have lost two since.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the designated area of 1,000 acres being given to the Cork port area should again be considered for the 10 per cent corporation tax rate. It would do much but at no cost to the nation.
Senator Cregan was so generous to my colleague, Senator Daly that——
I would not be generous to you, Senator.
——I feel almost fearful about the things I am going to say. It is often said that there is nothing in this life like a convert. As I listened to the contributions from the Fine Gael benches a broad smile was spreading across my face. It was as if the butchery of Irish Shipping had never happened; it was as if Building on Reality, the entire contribution, miserly as it was, for coastal erosion had not been wiped out, it was as if a particular Minister of that party had not made a total cock-up of sending out wrong tonnage figures when we were looking for the fish quota. I do not want to concentrate on the past because——
The Senator should work on the future.
The Senator made a cock-up in 1977.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Roche, without interruption.
I agree that as a nation we have grotesquely undervalued the entire marine area. Ten years ago I remember being invited by the then leader of the Opposition, Mr. Haughey, to come into his office where I was charged with the task of writing a policy document on the marine. Senator Cregan was right when he said we have bypassed an extraordinary opportunity in the last ten years. It was tragic and Senator Cregan was generous in his comments about Senator Daly. When Senator Daly came in as Minister for the Marine it was tragic that the issue of the rod licence — nonsense which made no difference in the context of creating jobs from the marine resource — should have become so predominant as to destroy the first years of that Department, but that is history and we have to look ahead.
In common with other Senators, I want to concentrate on two specific issues. Money invested in the small commercial ports will create jobs. We have two small commercial ports in County Wicklow — Arklow and Wicklow. It is a scandal that both ports have been ignored by successive Governments over the years. We got band-aid funding, pennies, where a couple of pounds put into those two ports would have produced hundreds of jobs.
The entire economic hinterland of Arklow is dependent on the port and we have to wait until there is a storm, a hurricane or some crisis before we get money. It got some money in the last few years, and I welcomed it, but it was not enough. The Minister, and the Minister of State, will be hearing much about those two ports.
A previous speaker spoke about access to ports. One cannot get into the port of Wicklow because there is no proper bridge, yet the entire industry of that town depends on proper access to that port. In the case of the port of Arklow, dredging is required. The condition of the inner port is a scandal and a small amount of resources needs to be spent there. Inadequate as the money in the plan for marine development is, I welcome what is provided.
The second issue I want to deal with is coastal erosion. I welcome the fact that some money has been allocated to deal with it. The Senator is correct when he said that that amount of money allocated is grotesquely inadequate. It is far better than the £200,000 that has been allocated for the past ten years but it is still inadequate. The Minister of State and the Minister will have a very hard job in the year ahead because there is a crisis with regard to coastal erosion from Bray Head right down along the Wexford coast.
The Senator should see the west coast.
In addition to the areas in Mayo which were mentioned, we could spend ten times the amount of money that is provided in the plan. We have a problem with the seafront in Bray. The £20 million to £30 million of public and private investment there is in danger of being engulfed. We have to do something about it. We know of the crisis along the coast as far as Wexford. We should put funds into this work because if we spend money on either the small commercial ports or on tackling coastal erosion we will protect investment and create jobs. Tackling coastal erosion, as everybody knows, will create jobs in building.
I wish we had more time for this debate; we need two days to discuss the entire issue of the marine and perhaps we will table a motion on that issue. I commend the Minister. I do not think I had the opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment and welcome him to the House. With the permission of the House, I will give the remaining five minutes of my time to Senator Daly.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Like Senator Roche I compliment the Minister of State and the Minister on bringing forward this development plan. They have gone to the trouble of publishing a document which sets out in a broad way what they hope to achieve in this area over the next five or six years. There are details in that plan that many of us would like to tease out with the Minister of State and some of the issues raised are important. As an island nation, we have failed to fully exploit the potential of the seas around us. In relation to some of the points I wish to make, I want to especially refer to the importance of the marine leisure and recreation area. The plan which the Minister is now putting before us has not lost sight of this.
Marine leisure and recreation is one of the areas of greatest development in the Continent today but we are sadly lacking in facilities in that area all around our coastline. With that in mind the decision was made to promote and encourage the development of marinas. This would, in a small way, exploit the potential of the marine leisure area, open up the opportunity for further jobs and for tourism promotion development, especially as the regions where this can be developed are the most remote in the country and have suffered the most from lack of investment, employment opportunities and emigration. As there has been investment and the provision of marina leisure facilities in the area around Kilrush on the lower Shannon estuary, it opens up, for the first time, the potential of this region. It also opens up the prospect of developing marine leisure facilities in Ballylongford, Foynes, Killadysart and Labasheed at the Clare side right up to Limerick city, a leisure area that has not been developed since the foundation of the State. The investment there is worthwhile and useful and, as Senator Fitzgerald said, will link up with developments in Fenit, Dingle, Kinsale and along the coastline.
I refer Senators to the success evident in the tall ships' race which stopped off in Cork harbour. Many saw the economic value of that type of activity to the region. It gives an indication of what can be done around the coastline, and the provision of this type of facility is vitally important. Politicians who would seek to run down this investment seem to be more interested in getting short term publicity from knocking these projects, which would be valuable to the economic prosperity of these regions which have suffered dramatically from the decline of employment opportunities and from the loss of population through emigration over countless years. The coastal communities need our support at this time.
I do not wish to go over many of the subjects raised tonight but coastal erosion, the protection of those working in the fishing industry and the provision of adequate safety standards to ensure safety at sea are vitally important. The £19 million proposed to be invested in the new marine research institute will be the most important investment in any sector of this industry over the next four to five years. I would like to see more money provided because, if one looks at our marine industry, aquaculture business and the development of our marine facilities, one will find that most of the technology used is either Swedish or Norwegian. We have failed to develop our own technological industry to exploit the resources of the seas. The seas can be farmed in the same way as the lands — I would say better than our lands at present. Not only will it create employment opportunities in marketing and selling the products, it will also offer the possibility for young technicians to get meaningful and worthwhile employment in the coastal communities in developing our own specialist technological infrastructure, which will be available to develop the resources around us so that we will not have to depend, as we do now, on imported technology from Sweden, Norway, Japan or other countries. This area is vital to the overall development of the economy. As many Senators said, it has been to a large extent ignored or not fully developed but now is the opportunity to do something about it. Instead of criticising the size of the investment, we should make sure it is put to good use. Matching funds from the private sector should also be added to ensure that this development can be speeded up and undertaken quickly.
In the provision for inland fisheries it was hoped that at one stage angling clubs and others involved in this area would also make a contribution to ensure that that development took place. This is just as important today as it was when it was proposed a few years ago. It is not being done.
I will answer some of the former Minister's questions as to why we do not have Irish technology in the fishing industry. I wish to give three minutes of my time, with the permission of the House, to Senator Sherlock.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I grew up in the same fishing port as Senator Fitzgerald — and what is happening in the fishing industry — I have no intention of blaming one side or the other because nothing annoys me more than hearing the Government and the main Opposition party arguing about who did what on this matter — has been a disaster since the foundation of the State, that is not a criticism of either the present or the former Minister. It has been a disaster since 1922. It is not a question of protecting our ports. Our fishing industry is one of the oldest in Europe. Why are we afraid of the Spanish? Why are we not worrying the Spanish in their waters? If people could answer that question, they would have the key to the problems of the Irish fishing industry. We have never invested in this industry.
Why is there no Irish technology in the fishing industry? It is because we never put a shilling into research and development until recently and I welcome the commitment to the marine institute. I have watched people trying to make progress in this industry and they have been cut to pieces at every step. Who remembers — is it the Inishalagh or the Loughalagh— the boat attached to University College, Galway, which was the only academic research being done in the area of fishing and sea farming? What happened to it? The Government of the day — I do not know which Government and I care even less — cut their funding. In the Minister's own county, Matt Murphy has been out in Sherkin island for many years shouting out to the Atlantic with no one in Dublin listening to him. I congratulate the move that has given him a place where he can have a voice at last. He has been conducting research on the formation and founding of a marine research station. This summer I was on Inishturk island off the Mayo coast, one of the most westerly points in Ireland and a strategically important place for a fishing industry. There are two boats in the island — it is the only live industry there — and they do not have low water landing.
The problem does not lie with the small ports. We have increased our exports by 8-9 per cent last year, 14 per cent the year before and 7-8 per cent the year before that, so we are managing to export our produce. With respect, the Minister should not waste the resources of his Department looking for new markets abroad for Irish fish. If he has a problem with this, I will sell them for him because there is no difficulty in finding markets for Irish fish abroad. The problem is in finding fish and in putting added value on in processing them to send abroad. I grew up in a town where gurnard were not landed, dogfish were not even taken on board and John Dories were not even seen as a fish to be eaten. We should have led the way in dealing with the development of the marketing of these and other fish. We have failed miserably over the last 60 years.
In terms of industry we have achieved a huge level of growth over the last number of years. There will be more economic growth in this country than in any other OECD member state in 1993 or in 1994. However, our exports are in the high-tech, low labour intensive industries while fisheries has fallen to pieces. The figures are startling. In Europe, for every fisherman — if I may use that sexist term — working at sea, there are eight or nine processing jobs on land. In Ireland, for every person working at sea, there are approximately two jobs on land. That is where resources must be focused. There will be a debate on agriculture in this House in the next two weeks and we will discuss the fact that one cannot get good beef in this country and that the national herd has been reduced as a result of the export of lambs and other young animals. However, there is a greater problem in the fishing industry. If one could use the terms "fish on the hoof" or "fish on the fin," the Minister and I are aware we export fish without any added value. This country should be the granary of Europe. Although we should produce the best food in Europe, it would be extremely difficult for somebody to get wild Irish salmon in a restaurant tonight because it is unavailable. Tasteless farm salmon is available but the market for it is in Europe. We must market and export the farm salmon and keep the best for our tourist industry.
Less than five or six years ago a huge development off the Cork coast was initiated to try to develop the shellfish industry. I was delighted the Minister mentioned it in his speech, that development failed because of a lack of support. I do not know who was in Government at that time, that is not the issue. We have failed to produce jobs because there has been no research and development in this area. While I welcome moves which have taken place, I do so reservedly because we must first ensure that jobs are created. We must ensure that fishermen dependent on the sea for their income are getting a proper price because no group of workers has been more exploited by those running processing companies on shore. Fishermen need protection.
When the Atlantic Explorer and the other large fishing vessel in Killybegs were bought two or three years ago, why did those fishermen go to Norway for funding to buy what was then the largest vessel in the Irish fishing industry? Something is wrong when other countries, banks, etc. are prepared to invest in our industry.
I grew up in a place where people at 14, 15 or 16 years of age were given control of large boats worth perhaps £0.5 million without the experience required to run this industry. Many of these people were unable to continue. Honest, hard working and well meaning people who got grants and loans for boats were unable to make repayments because of a lack of support and the industry died in its peak. It is an underdeveloped industry which needs processing plants on land and added value.
I wish the Minister well and I recognise his commitment at different levels. However, the problem is in Ireland, not abroad. The fishing industry must be developed as a labour intensive, successful, indigenous one to which people will be attracted. You do not hear people say that they want to become involved in the fishing industry and we are trying to change that.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on this important issue and I wish the Minister well in his portfolio. I know the Minister is sincere in his efforts in this regard. It is a matter of regret that, despite being surrounded by some of the best fishing grounds in the world, our fishing industry remains underdeveloped. Our record is poor compared to countries like Iceland where one fifth of the population is employed in fishing or fish processing. Although Ireland controls 16 per cent of total EC waters, we account for only 3.3 per cent of overall Community catch. Ireland is not responsible for over capacity or for the threat to some fish stocks. If the EC is concerned about preserving stocks, it should take action to deal with the unacceptable activities of fishing vessels operating under flags of convenience.
In 1992 the EC proposed to reduce our fishing fleet by one quarter. We called for that to be resisted because, despite being an island nation, the Irish fishing industry has never been fully developed. The job creation record in fishing and fish processing has been disappointing. We rely on people like Mr. Joey Murrin, chief executive officer of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, and others, to keep us informed of these matters. Is investment in our fishing industry related to the restructuring of our fishing fleet? Each time we discuss coastal erosion at meetings of Cork County Council, there is ambiguity regarding responsibility for the provision of finance. I would like that position to be cleared up as soon as possible.
I welcome the Minister to the House and I wish him well in regard to the National Development Plan. Down through the years, the fishing industry has been neglected. Some of the finest fishing waters in western Europe are located off our coast, yet we failed to exploit them. We all remember the portfolio of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, fisheries being the poor relation.
I congratulate the Minister on the development and restructuring of the fishing fleet. Given fishing quotas, it is necessary to go after certain types of fish and specific boats are required. Many boats used are out of date and unsafe. Perhaps the Minister has the development of the Cork shipyard in mind when he talks about restructuring the fishing fleet. I refer to the development of commercial ports. As an island nation, if we are to compete in Europe, we must have adequate ports from which to export our goods and, as previous speakers said, good roads to get to ports on time.
I welcome the investment of £2 million in the port of Union Hall, County Cork, which has a turnover of £6.5 million; 20 boats operate from that port, fishing from Ballycotton to Dingle. This is needed to create employment and I congratulate the Minister in this regard.
Regarding aquaculture, from time to time I go deep sea fishing and I have noticed many such farms in Bantry, Castletownbere, Bere Haven and places along the west coast. People are employed in an area where industry is no more than a dream. Products from aquaculture may be sold on demand in Europe as we have clean and unpolluted waters.
Training programmes and the development of the fish processing sector are important. As the previous speaker said, no marine research has been carried out and the inclusion of Matt Murphy on the Minister's team is welcome. He is an expert in this field and he will be of value in this regard.
On the subject of tourist angling, I come from an inland town, Kanturk, which is located three miles from the Blackwater, one of the best salmon fishing rivers in western Europe. I was involved with farmers, pollution officers from the county and fishermen in recent years in relation to pollution in that area. I am glad that, as a result of new methods used in the production of silage, effluence is no longer reaching our rivers and thousands of fish are not floating dead in the rivers. There is very little industrial pollution in our rivers, because we have very little industry in the area.
I can see development in the area of tourism. Between 1989 and 1992 the number of visiting anglers increased by 50 per cent to 76,000. However, there is an aspect of angling creeping into my area, borrowed from Scotland, where lucrative monopolies buy stretches of the river where once local anglers in small syndicates had fishing rights. The fees paid for this type of angling are £3000 per week for a rod which would exclude many of the native anglers. While I am in favour of bringing in the tourists and developing the tourist industry through angling, I urge the Minister not to neglect the native angler, or I can see poaching becoming one of the local pastimes.
In regard to coastal protection, much of our coast has been eroded and, in recent years because of fierce gales and storms, much of our land is slipping into the sea. Some of our smaller ports have been hit very badly and as a result are working at half capacity, Ballycotton is one. As previous speakers stated, all these small ports have silted up. They have been there since Victorian times and now, regardless of how much money the Minister has, it would not be sufficient to tackle this situation.
In regard to the European Community policy on safe seas, I applaud the Minister for legislation which will be introduced to ensure that loaded oil tankers passing our coast will have to stay at least 20 miles off our coastline. I agree with him that if one of these was to spill it would cripple the fishing industry. I mentioned Castletownbere and Bere Haven, I do some sea fishing there, and as the Minister is an O'Sullivan and Castletownbere and Bere Haven is his hinterland, I ask him and the Minister to bring in legislation to deal with ships wrecked on our coasts which have been left to rot and rust. There are two such vessels in Castletownbere and Bere Haven, one on the mouth of the port and the Spanish trawler around the corner, rusting, unsightly, certainly not a tourist attraction, damaging to fishing and I am sure, to fishermen. The Minister has a mammoth task in hand as the industry has been sadly neglected through the years. I believe he has the commitment to tackle it and I wish him every success in that task.
I thank the Senator for allowing me some of his time and I welcome the Minister. I enjoyed this debate about fishing and the development of the ports, but I am most interested in the development of the Shannon estuary. I am delighted that a £100 million investment programme is being set aside by the Government. I have been a promoter of the Shannon estuary since I started in politics 15 or 16 years ago. The Shannon estuary has been greatly neglected and much could be done to develop it, another Rotterdam could have been set up there. Much land in the area has been bought by Government agencies over the last number of years, and the State owns about 600 acres of land between Tarbert and Ballylongford. The deepest waterway in western Europe is at Ardmore Point, where the biggest ships in the world can berth at low water. Of course we have problems with removing the obstruction off Ballybunion, we need money to develop the infrastructure to try to attract industries.
During my time in politics we lost at least five, if not six, major industries along the Shannon estuary due to lack of development. The Taoiseach in Killarney a couple of years ago and the Tánaiste, who lives in the constituency, said that there is real need for development in that region. I hope the money will be made available to put the infrastructure in place so we can get out into the world market and attract industries to the Shannon estuary. I thank my colleague for allowing me a few minutes. I am sorry I did not have more time to speak on this issue.
I also welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. I do not question his commitment or sincerity, but I have questions about the document before us, the motion and the substance of that document. I do not support the motion particularly, it is like saying that we are all in favour of God, the Church and blueberry pie. A government of any complexion would be committed to increasing employment and greater export earnings through the further development of sea fisheries and so on. It would also be committed to coastal protection and marine research.
There are some positive aspects of this National Development Plan which I am prepared to concede, dealing with research and development which has been sadly neglected in the past and to which Senator O'Toole referred in some detail. There are positive aspects dealing with harbour development and coastal erosion although, as Senator Roche said, £5.5 million would hardly get us from Bray to Arklow, let alone down the east coast when it comes to that very serious matter.
I wish to concentrate on the role of inland fisheries and tourism, how they might contribute to national prosperity and how they are dealt with in the plan. I notice that at an early stage the plan mentions developing key aspects of the tourism product base and lists some of them. It says that there will be special measures to facilitate upgrading and improvement of tourist angling waters. Will we have upgraded and improved waters without fish? This is already the case in the west in certain circumstances. The plan then goes on to make a very serious admission. It says, when dealing with fishery development for tourist angling, that the success of tourism angling is now at risk because of the deteriorating quality and level of Irish fish stocks. Amen to that. If anything it is more serious than that. The Minister is aware of these matters because I raised them already on a motion on the Adjournment on 8 July when I appealed to him to do something about the disappearance of sea trout from the west.
The central question about the aspirations in this document is how to reconcile our desire to develop our inland fishery resource, which is of immense quality and value, with our desire to develop aquaculture, because the two activities are fundamentally contradictory. Unless research and development can come up with a solution to this problem, I am very apprehensive about the future of inland fisheries, particularly when it comes to migratory fish such as sea trout and salmon. Senator Kelly referred to the value of fish caught in fresh water compared to their value when they are caught in nets at sea.
I agree with what she said but it must be a matter of serious concern that a resource like Ballinahinch, one of the premier salmon and sea trout fisheries — not just in Ireland but in the world — had only a handful of salmon caught in its waters this year. There is a hotel in the area and the people working there are dependent on the fishing industry.
I have catalogued what happened to fisheries all down the west coast from Delpi above Leenaun, down through Kylemore to Screeb and Gowlaun and into Costelloe and so on. I have fished all those waters and people fly in from America and Australia to fish there. They hired a car, stayed for a month in the best hotels and had a gillie with them every day of the week. They left an immense amount of money in areas that had very little prosperity. Those people have now gone to Scotland, Norway and Russia — where they have fishing — or even to the Falkland Islands. They will go to those places if the sport is there.
This is a high value resource which we are letting slip through our fingers. It does not make sense to say that we have a commitment to these matters when everything that has happened over the past ten years indicates otherwise. We do not have the commitment to tackle this problem or the pollution which has taken place over the past 20 years. These resources have existed since the ice age, uncontaminated, and this generation in its greed can decide that they are expendable. We put pig farms on the side of Lough Sheelin and allow them to discharge their pollutants into the lake. Lough Sheelin had improved. I went back there at the beginning of October and once again there are areas of green water.
I appeal to the Minister of State to ensure that the legislation to prevent people taking gravel from rivers and sand from beaches is implemented. Legislation must be implemented, otherwise the resource will be gone, and the tourists we hope to attract to this country to spend money, will also be gone.
I call on Senator Calnan to conclude this debate.
Would Senator Calnan mind giving me a couple of minutes, two minutes?
I have already been asked to share time with Senator O'Sullivan.
Would the two Senators mind giving me a minute? I will be very brief, just a couple of comments.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Senator will have to behave himself.
I welcome the Minister to the House and acknowledge the fact that we are getting extra money. However, I question the management of resources, particularly inland fisheries, the development of which is the business of the regional fisheries boards while marketing and other matters are dealt with by other bodies. These bodies, however, are acting on their own. The regional fisheries boards and the regional tourism organisations, for example, have no common membership. It is one of the areas that has worried me for a long time. I brought it to the attention of the other House on many occasions and put forward proposals that we should have common boards or common membership of some sort so that there could be coordination. What is the point in spending £19 million on the development of inland fisheries unless you have people there to fish and facilities, apart from basic fishing facilities, to encourage them to return?
Development is unco-ordinated and obviously it is a very valuable resource, particularly in my constituency.
I would like to ask the permission of the House for Senator O'Sullivan to share the last four minutes of my time.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Having moved the motion which I thought was most timely and necessary, I thought for a while I was in the wrong House and that we were talking about the National Development Plan. However, eventually we got around to talking about the marine plan which is the one for discussion here. I was glad to hear the Minister of State putting great emphasis on jobs in areas with a low level of employment. Living in such an area, I see the value of any job at the moment. If people are not involved in drift-net or shell fishing, they have only two alternatives; unemployment assistance or the boat. Therefore, any job created will be of great benefit.
Senator Sherlock mentioned overfishing of our seas. The North Sea was cut off from its fish supplies by overfishing with foreign boats moving in there and now it is nearly a dead sea. If something is not done off our coasts to prevent Spanish and other foreign boats from fishing there we will have a similar situation in the Celtic Sea. I know the Minister of State is well aware of that.
Senator Cashin mentioned wrecks. The Bardini Reefer is lying inside Castletownbere and Bere Haven and if something is not done about it in the not too distant future there could be a disaster if another boat gets caught on it. It is clogging up part of the inlet to this fine, natural harbour. Senator Cashin visited the place and has seen the problem. I agree with Senator O'Toole when he says that fishing has for many years been the cinderella of Irish industry.
I welcome the points by the Minister of State regarding inland fisheries and angling for the development of tourism because it is of the utmost importance. Having visited the Salmara fish farm in Bantry Bay, which is not too far from Castletownbere, I saw that a small amount of sea contained a large amount of salmon which were being reared there. That small pocket of sea gives an indication of what is possible given the millions of pockets around the coast that could be developed in this way. We have a marvellous resource if it can be developed. I was pleased to move this timely motion and, as Senator Fitzgerald said, we need a lot more time to develop fishing.
The importance of focusing a lot more attention and resources on fishing, the marine and ports has been agreed by everybody in the debate. In the past, not enough resources or attention was paid to them. The House also agreed that the Minister of State is totally committed to that area and we can expect that the money will be well spent. I also share Senator Calnan's satisfaction that the emphasis is on jobs and job creation. There is a huge potential to create jobs in these areas. Senator Quinn detailed the importance of ports. The Minister of State stressed that point when he said that virtually all our externally traded goods leave the country by sea. It is obviously of crucial importance to our exports that we develop our sea ports, and I welcome the fact that there is a commitment to that development in the plan.
I particularly welcome the commitment to the Shannon estuary. We often talk about being a peripheral nation but, in terms of sea shipping and trading links, we are central if one looks at the world stage rather than the European one. There is tremendous potential to develop the Shannon estuary.
I also want to speak about the question raised by Senator Dardis on the conflict between inland fisheries and aquaculture. I hope that the marine institute, which will receive £9 million under this plan, can be the link in solving the problems in that area. Lice infestation, for example, will be studied by the marine institute. I hope it will be possible to have the two sides living together because there is huge potential for job creation in aquaculture and the area of tourism and inland fisheries.
The Minister referred to processing and marketing which have huge potential. Figures were quoted of the potential number of land jobs as opposed to sea jobs. Europe was mentioned as an example but Japan has shown that there is much more potential to create jobs on land, particularly in processing, if money is invested, research is carried out and industries are established. I visited Brittany recently. Many of us are live in towns and villages which are twinned with areas in Brittany. The huge potential on the Brittany coast for aquaculture and processing has been developed. This can also be done in Ireland. As other Senators said, there is tremendous potential for the development of inland fisheries. The increase in spending on inland fisheries from £1 million in the last plan to £19 million in this plan indicates how serious the Government are about this.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Crowley, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Ta, Senators Mullooly and Wall; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Burke.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28 October 1993.