Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND THE MARINE debate -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997

Vol. 1 No. 1

Estimates for Public Services, 1997.

Vote 30 - Marine and Natural Resources.

We will have a genuine balance.

Item 1 is the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. I welcome the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, and his officials. They are most welcome on this their first visit to the new committee.

The business before the Select Committee is the consideration of a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. I understand that the relevant materials have been circulated to Members.

The Minister is accompanied by the following officials: Mr. Michael Guilfoyle, Assistant Secretary, Ms Noreen O'Mahony, Assistant Principal and Ms Bernie Comey, Higher Executive Officer.

The relevant subheads of the Votes are: F.3 - Salmon Research Agency (Grant-in-Aid) - and H.1 - An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Administration and Current Development (Grant-in-Aid).

I understand that the Minister wishes to make a short introductory speech, copies of which are available to Members. This will be followed by a brief contribution from other spokespersons. The debate will then be opened to all Members of the Select Committee.

As this is my first visit to the new committee, I congratulate you on becoming Chairman. Dealing as it does with Agriculture, Food and the Marine, this committee is important to the life of the country. I also wish to congratulate Deputy Blaney on his appointment as Vice-Chairman of the committee. I note that Deputy Sheehan is acting as a convenor and I wish him well with that task. He probably has the most difficult task of all.

The area covered by the committee is an interesting one. In general terms, my Department covers a fairly wide area, including the Marine and Natural Resources. It might be useful if we arranged a meeting, from mid-January, with the committee in the Department of the Marine to present the different areas. In that way Members would have a reasonably clear picture of what we are doing. We could have lunch and make a presentation to Members, if that suits the committee. We can make arrangements for a suitable time once the Chairman has discussed it with Members of the committee.

This Supplementary Estimate is a token one, which, in effect, means shifting the money around within the departmental heads and including a token amount of £1,000 in the Estimate. Deputies will have a copy of the Supplementary Estimate and will have received a briefing note from the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in relation to what is proposed. The Supplementary Estimate, which is for a token amount of £1,000, proposes increases in spending by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Salmon Research Agency together with a repayment to the Central Fund. This Supplementary Estimate funds important developments and reflects continuing progress in specific areas of the marine sector.

I should mention that the officials present include Ms Sarah White, who is an Assistant Secretary of the Department, dealing with inland fisheries and some other areas. We also have a representative of the Department of Finance in relation to the Irish Shipping issue in case there are any important points we cannot cover.

As regards subhead F.3 - the Salmon Research Agency - the Supplementary Estimate proposes the grant of an additional £190,000 to the Salmon Research Agency. This is a national agency under the aegis of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources engaged in research on salmon and sea trout. Over the years the agency has made a valuable contribution to national programmes on salmon and sea trout research. Its original brief was to undertake research on salmonid breeding, rearing techniques and census work on wild populations. It also derived a significant proportion of its income from the sale of ova and fish for ongrowinq to the aquaculture industry.

The work programmes of the agency have increased in recent years reflecting the ecological and economic importance attached to our national wild salmonid resources. Serious international and national concerns about the state of Atlantic salmon stocks underline the absolute necessity for effective stock assessment and research programmes to inform management decisions. The SRA has been to the forefront of this work at home and at international level.

Until recent years, the agency had been in a position of effectively financing its research activities from its own resources. Its financial difficulties are due to a decline in income from own resources, stemming from 1992 when the agency's commercial salmon smolt business collapsed due to market and disease problems.

The agency has been caught between increasing research demands and a collapse of its income from "own resources". It has been difficult to maintain the level of operations which it deems necessary to carry out its commitments in national and EU research.

I firmly believe that applied research is the key to progress in any area. Development of the marine resource is dependent upon understanding the opportunities that these resources can generate. There are exciting challenges and opportunities opening up for Irish marine research and I am committed to ensuring that the necessary research capability is in place to underpin development. The Marine Institute, established in 1992, has been developing a wide ranging agenda to drive forward marine research. As part of the process, the Salmon Research Agency will shortly be merged with the Marine Institute. This will place the agency in a dedicated management structure and will put the work of the agency in a wider scientific context. The merger will provide the agency with a greater stability of funding than it has at present, through both the annual Estimates process and the availability of funding for research and from the EU and other sources. To enable the agency to meet its obligations in 1997 it is proposed to allocate additional funding of £190,000.

Under subhead H.1 - An Bord Iascaigh Mhara - Administration and Current Development (Grant-in-Aid) - BIM, which is responsible for the overall development of the Irish fishing and aquaculture industry, provides a wide range of financial, technical, educational, resource development and marketing services to the catching, processing and marketing sectors.

To enable An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to meet its obligations in 1997 it is proposed to allocate additional funding of £204,000. The proposals are as follows: £82,000 in respect of additional costs imposed on BIM following a recent review of the rent on its headquarters premises; £60,000 in respect of the part-financing of the recent trade mission to China; £30,000 in respect of unbudgeted superannuation costs; £20,000 to fund a consultancy study on incentives for the fishing fleet; and £12,000 in respect of research projects.

I would like to elaborate on the specific proposals. As regards premises, £82,000 is being sought to fund the additional costs imposed on BIM following a recently concluded review of the rent on its headquarters at Crofton Road, Dún Laoghaire. The additional funding sought will cover arrears due for the final quarter of 1996 and the additional rental costs for 1997.

As regards the trade mission, on the marketing side, BIM is responsible for promoting consumption of seafood on the domestic market and working closely with Irish exporters in an effort to increase exports of Irish seafood to overseas markets. In 1996, for the first time, seafood exports exceeded a quarter of a billion pounds in value while seafood consumption reached a record level of 9 kgs per person.

BIM's programme for marketing for l997 provided for a total expenditure of some £480,000, 75 per cent of which is funded by the EU. The programme comprises a home market campaign and export development programme. The export development campaign comprises three elements: trade promotion including visits to Ireland by overseas buyers and journalists and trade show participation; market research studies in the UK, the purpose of which is to identify opportunities for Irish companies by test marketing consumer reaction to a range of seafood products and a quality improvement programme which will build on work already undertaken on development of codes of practice for salmon, gigas oysters and clams, with emphasis on developing quality assurance throughout the industry. Participation at the Chinese Fisheries Expo which was held from 4-6 November in Beijing was not originally planned as part of the 1997 programme. However, following an investigation of market opportunities combined with an invitation from the organisers of the Chinese show, BIM decided to host a stand at this, the target fisheries exhibition in the Asia region.

The potential offered by China's status as the biggest single seafood market in the world resulted in a much greater level of interest from the industry than originally anticipated and involved all seafood sectors from smoked and fresh salmon through live and processed shellfish to pelagic product. In addition to taking the initiative to showcase Irish fish at the Expo, a market study approach was adopted, to include visits to fresh fish markets, processing facilities and fish farming operations. Due to the scale of the delegation - there were 19 companies in total - and the importance of making contacts at the highest levels with Ministers, officials and State company representatives, I accepted BIM's invitation to head the delegation myself.

The visit proved to be a great success on a number of fronts. It provided an unprecedented opportunity for a large cross-section of Irish seafood exporters to assess the market and its characteristics and requirements and open up channels of communication with some of the largest, state-backed, seafood importing enterprises in the world with a view to building real business opportunities. The visit also enhanced the status of Ireland as a supply source at the highest levels in China via the largest ever Irish delegation to the market and provided the opportunity for link-ups and technology transfer in the aquaculture and fisheries sector. I am confident that the medium to longer term outcome will be very positive for sales of Irish seafood to the Chinese market. The total cost of the visit amounted to £97,500. Of this amount £37,500 is being funded from BIM's existing 1997 marketing budget leaving a deficit of £60,000.

As regards the whitefish development programme, the Government's Action Programme for the Millennium commits to seeking to upgrade our whitefish fleet and to make the industry attractive to providers of capital by examining the provision of tax based incentives. In line with this commitment I am examining urgently the scope for incentives to attract much needed investment into our fishing fleet, and the whitefish fleet in particular. BIM engaged Arthur Andersen, Consultants, to assist in the necessary financial analysis to underpin proposals in that regard at an estimated cost of £20,000.

As regards other items, £30,000 is sought to fund preserved pension/gratuity rights associated with two BIM employees who left the company some years ago. It is proposed to allocate £12,000 towards two research projects. The first will examine the feasibility of extending the life span of the lobster in order to take advantage of premium prices available in the Christmas period while the second will examine the potential for commercial exploitation of razorfish.

As regards repayment to the Central Fund, the final proposal relates to a voted capital provision to cover the proposed recoupment to the Central Fund of past expenditure from the fund on foot of State guarantees given in respect of borrowings by Irish Shipping Limited under the Irish Shipping Limited Acts, 1947 to 1984. The expenditure from the Vote will be matched by a corresponding Exchequer capital receipt in the 1997 Finance accounts.

Irish Shipping Limited went into liquidation in November 1984. Part of the borrowings of the company was guaranteed by the Minister for Finance pursuant to the Irish Shipping Limited Acts, 1947 to 1984. When the company went into liquidation, a total sum of £96,593,171 was paid out of the Central Fund in respect of its accrued liabilities.

Under the provisions of the Irish Shipping Limited Acts, any moneys paid out of the Central Fund under the guarantees and not recouped from the company must be recovered from moneys voted by the Oireachtas. To date, the total recoupment to the Central Fund amounts to £94,311,135. A residual amount of £2,282,036 is still outstanding and repayable to the fund. As the liquidation of Irish Shipping has recently been finalised by the liquidator, it is now necessary for the Vote to recoup this outstanding amount to the Central Fund. This is the reason for the proposal before the committee. It is a technical, bookkeeping exercise which involves no actual expenditure.

These are the measures proposed and I hope the committee considers them worthwhile. The offsetting provisions have been outlined in the briefing note supplied. I look forward to our discussions.

The recent budget came as a disappointment to fishermen as the marine was not referred to at any stage. Business people, agriculture and other segments were mentioned but not the marine. I noticed in a recent newspaper report that the Minister justified the omission of the marine for consideration in the budget by stating he would soon be investing in the fishing fleet. The Minister is setting up a fund of £20,000 for consultants, Arthur Andersen, to investigate incentives which could be made available to the white fish fleet. A previous consultant's report analysed the whitefish fleet and the difficulties those fishermen encounter in obtaining bridging finance to modernise the fishing fleet on account of the marketplace in which they work. It behoves us to increase the incentives. As the Minister had referred to it before, it was anticipated that mention might be made in the budget of some financial incentive along the lines of the business expansion scheme to allow the fishing fleet to be modernised. Will the Minister clarify if the objective is to arrive at an investment scheme, such as the BES, and is that why he commissioned Arthur Andersen?

The trade mission to China appears to have been justified, although it cost £97,500. Will the Minister indicate whether we export to China and if, as a result of this exercise, there is an anticipated target for either next year or the following year to evaluate if it was worthwhile? Will he encourage such a situation where this visit was not provided for in the overall financial resources of Bord Iascaigh Mhara and an excess was incurred? Is this a unique occurrence? Would he prefer the bodies under his control to operate within budget rather than seeking extra provision at Estimate time to pay for trade missions of this nature?

The Minister mentioned the importance of wild salmon with which we all concur, as we do with the sentiments and concern expressed by research agencies at the decline in the fish. However, it is recognised we cannot quantify our wild salmon resource. The salmon come upstream to spawn and we have no quantifiable data on them. The Minister is proceeding with a series of fish counters over a two year basis to quantify this resource. Will that be funded by the Central Fisheries Board out of its funds or by the Salmon Research Agency as part of the research objective?

The 1996 safety review report estimated that about 64 per cent of fishing boats probably do not have satisfactory safety standards. Each year at this time some unfortunate trawler casualty regrettably occurs. The report highlighted many safety deficiencies, especially in the radio-telephony equipment on board. Fianna Fáil made a promise in a specific document published prior to the election that it would consider providing radio-telephony equipment for all types of vessels, the estimated cost of which would be £6 million. Given the importance of this and of having control and access to the land base, will the Minister indicate if a separate provision will be made soon to cope with that? I am especially concerned about the white fish fleet.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his outline. Does the Salmon Research Agency give advice to the Minister on which he bases his decision to curtail the operations of net men? On the River Slaney, probably one of the best salmon rivers in the country, there is considerable friction between net men and rod men. The net men's season appears to have been sabotaged by different Ministers who reduced it year after year. Does the Minister base his decision to reduce the net men's season annually on advice he receives from the Salmon Research Agency or from his Department? It was suggested a few years ago that the Department and the rod men might together buy out the net men from the River Slaney. Is the Minister considering that for the future because one frequently hears that every tourist involved in rod fishing who comes here to fish brings so much into the country whereas the net men are a burden on the State? Will the Minister comment on that because a very aggressive attitude is being taken with the net men at the moment which is forcing them off the River Slaney rather than allowing them work hand in hand with the rod men?

Is the Minister happy with the operations of Bord Iascaigh Mhara? I have held the view for some time that it does very little aggressive marketing domestically. Is the Minister re-examining BIM or is he satisfied with the way it operates? Far more could be done on the domestic market to promote fish sales and fish usage to consumers. The board is not very active in that area.

I agree with Deputy Finucane's remarks on the trade mission to China which cost a substantial amount of money. Are we selling much fish produce to China? Does the Minister see the high cost of exporting fish to China as being prohibitive to operators at the moment? Will he comment on what he sees as the future for such trade missions? Did the Department have to pay for the 19 companies which went with him on the trip or did they pay their own costs?

The Minister will reply after Deputy Sheehan and Deputy Coveney.

I congratulate you, Chairman, on your election and I have no doubt you will carry out your duties to the best of your ability. I also congratulate the Minister for his responsibility for the marine industry and I know he too will do his best to make his mark in that area.

The trade promotion trip to China cost £97,000 and was completely funded by BIM. What does the Minister think will emerge from that trip? In what types of fish are the Chinese interested? Apparently they are widely engaged in mariculture development in their waters. What is their ambition? Will they import sizeable amounts of fish from Ireland and other western countries? Are they sufficiently financially solvent to do so or will exports to China have to be subsidised, as we were doing for the past 12 months with cattle exported to the Middle East?

Some £12,000 is being spent to extend the lifeÍspan of lobsters. How well has the lobster industry recovered? Lobster fishermen on the western and south-western coasts say the species is dying out. What has happened to the idea of promoting lobster production on the west coast? Have there been any positive results from that move?

I was disappointed that no provision was made in the Estimates to subsidise this year's herring catch in view of the collapse of prices. Herrings landed from the Celtic Sea have fetched no more than £3 per box, which would not pay for the oil to run the boats. At the start of the herring fishing season in October we requested the Department to subsidise the price to the fishermen. We were only looking for about £2 million to £3 million, which would be the difference between having something in their pockets at the end of the season at Christmas and having a big overdraft to keep their boats going. The position is disastrous and I ask the Minister to do something even at this late stage to make a subsidy payable to each skipper for the number of herring landed. The Minister has the information and BIM inspectors have visited the landing piers, so it would be easy for him to put that in train.

The Minister is also seeking an extra £82,000 in respect of additional costs imposed on BIM following a recent review of the rent on its headquarters premises. What rent is BIM now paying for the premises? Would it be better if the board established its headquarters in Bantry or Castletownbere? Many premises would be available there and would be quite suitable for their business.

What would Joey Murrin think of that?

We would be able to find a builder who would give a competitive quotation for a completely new office building so that BIM would not have to pay this exorbitant rent each year. Paying rent is like throwing money down the drain. If the board had its own headquarters the money saved would pay the loan on the building. The premises in Dún Laoghaire may be owned by a British landlord, I do not know.

The Minister should also consider moving the Department lock, stock and barrel to the south-west coast where it would be on top of the job and could conduct on-the-spot investigations. There would be no need for spending £20,000 on a consultancy study on incentives for the fishing fleet; if the Department was there to inspect the fleet it would quickly notice that most boats are 35 years old and it is high time they were replaced with modern, sizeable boats which would put them on a level keel with their Spanish and other European counterparts who sport huge, modern trawlers. Our boats are like yawls in comparison to the European boats. I ask the Minister to elaborate on these points if possible.

I apologise for arriving late; I was detained in the House. I wish the Minister well. It is a matter for congratulation that the Department is only looking for £1,000. The Minister made an interesting reference to the whitefish development programme and the attention he is giving to developing tax based incentives which would attract badly needed capital investment to the fleet. I encourage him in that endeavour. Does he expect those provisions to be built into the forthcoming Finance Bill which I understand will be published in February? It would be worthwhile if he could do so, particularly at a time when the Minister for Finance has closed off many BES and capital allowances - quite rightly, in some respects. In a booming economy people look for tax based investments and this could be a productive source of required funds for the whitefish fleet.

What is the current position on Loran C? My recollection is that when Deputy Andrews was the Minister responsible in 1993 and 1994 he signed an international agreement committing us to be part of a European Loran C navigation chain. While there have been planning difficulties with this matter, this obligation presumably still exists. Perhaps the Minister could fill us in.

The net increase of £1,000 was partly as a result of two rather hefty savings. One was under subhead F.2, a saving of £782,000 on capital for the Marine Institute. This is a reduction of approximately 20 per cent on the Vote and appears to be very significant at a time when the institute always appears to be delayed from getting off the ground. Will the Minister explain the significant shortfall in the investment?

Subhead J2 represents a reduction of £1.5 million on tourism angling, which is approximately one third of the Vote. Somebody either seriously overestimated the requirements or there has been a failure to invest that money.

Money spent on worthwhile infrastructure is one of the principal things which a Government or an arm of the State can undertake. Capital investment in harbours, piers and small fishery harbours, in addition to the main ones, is money well spent. People can do much for themselves but they cannot build piers and heavy infrastructure. The Minister's predecessor and I as Minister pushed to increase investment in those areas and there is evidence of this in the Estimates. What are the Minister's views on this?

This Department has been expanded to include natural resources. It is a nonsense that the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources is responsible for all kinds of investments with regard to the marine, but not for marinas, which is still the responsibly of the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation. It does not have the same expertise in this area as the Minister's Department. Will he consider requesting the Taoiseach to transfer responsibility of marinas to his Department where it should belong?

Deputy Finucane, Deputy Coveney and others asked about the whitefish fleet. Deputy Coveney covered all aspects of the issue, including the measures announced in the budget and the areas which are losing their incentives elsewhere. I agree with the Deputy that this is a very important area. The purpose of the consultancy into the technical aspects was to ensure that we could have a soundly based proposal. We are engaged in ongoing negotiations and our objective is to have something included in the Finance Bill.

Deputies Coveney and Finucane pointed out the complexities in this area, but it is crucial to the development of the whitefish fleet. The fleet is old and needs considerable investment, which we must find ways to encourage. I hope the different elements will come together in the way outlined.

Several Deputies asked about the China visit and BIM. I understand that the companies paid their own costs. Having a stand at the event costs money in the first instance and it was an excellent initiative by BIM to participate. It was the largest trade delegation ever to visit China and I was happy BIM took part in it. There is an enormous and rapidly growing market in China. Even with the restrictions on the number of children per family, China's population grows by an extra 15 million people per annum. The Chinese are enormous fish eaters and there is a huge demand for fish.

Deputy Sheehan mentioned the prices one can get at these markets and the distances that must be travelled. The exporters in the business were with us. They were anxious to be there and were glad to have a Minister to lead the delegation because it opened all doors and gave them contacts they could never have had otherwise. That is the way China works. The visit was valuable from that point of view.

Given that we already supply fish to Japan, distance is not the problem. The work undertaken by our exporters puts distance into perspective, although much depends on volume and prices. Many valuable contacts were made and the payback will become apparent in the medium to longer term.

There was considerable interest in salmon. The Norwegians have only entered the market in the last two years but they have already built up substantial markets for salmon. It is a rapidly evolving market and given the rapid developments of the cities, tourism facilities, including hotels, are developing. They have similar high standards as their western counterparts with regard to the cooking and presentation of salmon.

Do the Chinese have native salmon?

No, but they have char. They are very interested in crab. Some 55 nations were represented at the exhibition. The Minister for Fisheries took me around the stands. He opened the Irish stands in the presence of five different local television channels. I held up some of the very large Irish crabs and the salmon. We got excellent exposure. There are opportunities with salmon and substantial opportunities with pelagic fish. Crab and scallop were among the main varieties mentioned.

We will also benefit from a technical point of view. For example, some of our people are working with abalone, in which we are very interested. The Chinese have long-term expertise and they have an outstanding abalone research centre which I am sure is a world leader. They gave us full access to it and made arrangements for two of the technical people in BIM to follow up on the details of their production technique. They will send some of their people to Ireland. We established good technical links which will be valuable. Overall, that business was very worthwhile. Since this invitation came out of the blue the expense was not included in the Estimates at the beginning of the year. However, we provided for it at the end of the year. It was not planned, although most of the work had to be organised. It was a good opportunity and I believe we will see a good deal of benefit from it in the future. The people who went out there were very pleased.

Are we exporting fish?

We discovered that people here were already supplying fish through agents there, although it was a relatively small amount. Much of the fish that goes out goes to China is filleted there - the roe is taken out and it is cut into small pieces - before being sold on to Japan by arrangement. A small fee is paid in China. There are commercial opportunities in that area for the bodies concerned. While such opportunities are few at present, there will be real opportunities in future.

How does this compare with the Japanese arrangements? The Japanese pay a decent price for our products, but what about the Chinese?

They are selling them to the Japanese. Herring may go from here to Japan but they are filleted in China. That is an indirect way of going to Japan. The operation is carried out in China for a fee. The money is spent when they get to Japan because that is where the higher income is. In China itself the demand for high quality produce in the cities is increasing. If one takes the wider demand in China as a whole, money would be a major problem. That is a matter for the commercial people and it is something at which they will be looking.

I spoke about the consultants, Arthur Andersen, the need for incentives and China and Deputy Finucane raised some of these points. He also mentioned the lack of quantified data on salmon, and asked if the Central Fisheries Board or the Salmon Research Agency did such research. Counters currently come under angling measures which would bring them under the aegis of the Central Fisheries Board but EU money is involved.

The Minister has not answered my queries about tourism angling measures which are expected to bring 1,000 new jobs onstream between now and the year 2000. It was a very ambitious press launch. Deputy Coveney is correct in referring to this year's tourism angling measures.

I will come to that matter.

It is hard to accept a press release like that when one cannot even spell out this year's allocation.

There is no difficulty with that. The Central Fisheries Board and the Salmon Research Agency do two separate jobs, although they often co-operate. The Salmon Research Agency will now be amalgamated into the Marine Institute so it will be involved more specifically in the research area.

I want to clear up the point concerning safety raised by Deputy Finucane and I agree with him. Most of the money spent recently went on safety measures. Deputies saw the measures that were covered in the second tranche.

I wanted to ask about that. Usually one gets quantities but one cannot relate to where that money is going or on what type of project, it will be spent, in other words, is it going to private individuals? Is it private information?

All the grants were announced with the amounts going to each individual.

With regard to the overall amount announced——

The amounts for each vessel are announced as well. It does not necessarily say what each is doing with them.

——I am curious to know how much is going to Castletownbere, Killybegs or Howth. Is that information available?

Yes, but it means breaking down the figures in a particular way.

Certain fishery sources believes that a cloud of secrecy hangs over licences and other areas.

In this area there is none. We can get the Deputy the specific information. The list is published so the Deputy can tick off those for his own area. In any event we will circulate it to the committee.

Will the Minister also circulate the locations of the 49 tourism angling measures in 1996?

Yes. Deputy Browne raised questions about curtailing the net men. The Salmon Research Agency provides advice and others, such as the Marine Institute and the Central Fisheries Board, on the status of fish stocks for particular periods. As the Deputy knows, the work of the task force was not completed last year. This included quantification and proposed tagging methods. A good deal of the task force's report was implemented last year to try to conserve salmon stocks. There will be further information from various quarters again this year on the basis of which we will produce a plan for this year, which will be submitted early.

The general question the Deputy raised related to the balance between the two. At the moment there are no plans for a buy-out arrangement but we will try to balance the provisions to avoid an overkill by the net men. The catchment management approach is being considered from the fishery boards point of view to deal with the areas.

Why will the Minister not consider a buy-out? It has happened in Scotland and in some Scandinavian countries. According to the experts, it would be far more beneficial to have the net men off the rivers.

First, there are conflicting views about whether there should be a buy-out. Second, there is the question of the efficacy of that approach and what exactly is the cause. I attended the opening address of the conference of salmon specialists in Galway. Although I had to leave to attend a meeting in Luxembourg afterwards, I waited for some of the early papers. The distinguished speaker who delivered the opening address looked at the international situation, including Scotland and other places. He admitted they were not sure that had been that helpful, yet they still want to continue with the elimination process. The management area is crucial. The task force compiled an important report for us; that is being considered again for this year. I am conscious of the needs of the Slaney because any salmon which gets as far as that river deserves a medal.

That is because of the rogue tactics of the west of Ireland fishermen but we will not go into that today. The net men and their supporters in my area believe there is a negative feeling against them in the Department. Whenever the season has to be shortened by a week or a day it is the net men who suffer whereas the rod men are spoon fed.

That is an impression but it is not true as far as the Department is concerned. The Department is trying to find a balance and in that sense it is almost an impossible position to be in. Factors discovered during research are often outside these issues and people begin to wonder about the real cause - for example, if a river has been polluted and 20,000 salmon are killed, suddenly one is told there were no salmon in that river.

While looking for workable solutions, my officials and I are very conscious of the needs of coastal communities. The Deputy said that BIM is not aggressive enough on the home front. I have been to some of its launches and I admit there is a good opportunity for it to do more. I hope there will be an improvement. I have spoken to the chairman and he has assured me that he is anxious to implement an aggressive programme for next year. Deputy Sheehan asked about BIM's rent. Since the Office of Public Works is the landlord, the money comes back to the Exchequer.

How much rent is BIM paying the Office of Public Works?

It is a commercial rent. The total rent due for 1997 is £404,000; this includes £17,000 arrears from 22 September 1996. My predecessors must not have solved the rent arrears problem. There may have been a rent review in the meantime.

That is almost £500,000.

The annual rent for 1997 is £387,000.

The Office of Public Works is a very costly landlord.

The Office of Public Works is an operating on the basis of commercial rates. The Minister of Finance gets all the money at the end of the day. As regards BIM's location, people in Killybegs, Castletownbere, Galway, Howth and Wexford would have a view about that. I have noted the Deputy's comments.

Bantry Bay is the mecca for the aquaculture industry.

I am very conscious of the importance of Bantry Bay. If the Deputy looked at the number of PQs from Deputies all over the country he would realise that this area is always being considered. The lobster industry has potential for significant growth. Prerequisite to the realisation of this potential is the refocussing of the industry to meet market requirements. At present the lobster harvesting and processing season is short and concentrated in the summer months when prices are low. While premium prices are available at Christmas, the Irish lobster industry is dictated by the lifespan of the lobster and does not have a market presence at that time. Conservation and enhancement programmes are in place under the PESCA programme.

The herring situation is very difficult. We are in the final phase of setting up a task force on herrings which was suggested when I was in Castletownbere. We have agreed the composition of the task force and are waiting to have the membership finalised. The different groups have to nominate members. It will be in operation by Christmas or early January.

Will the Minister be able to provide a subsidy for these fishermen because of the dismal price for herring?

Subsidisation is not allowed under EU legislation. However, any means of assisting the fishermen will be considered by the task force. That is its purpose as well as considering how to go forward. I am looking to the task force to provide practical, commercial direction.

The Merchant Shipping (Commissioners of Irish Lights) Act, 1997, has been passed without the inclusion of Loran C. Any decision to progress the Loran C issue would require an order from both Houses. We are engaging in wide ranging consultation before any final decisions are taken not only in relation to the proposed site and other possible sites but also to technological developments.

Have we signed an international agreement under which all other parties have fulfilled their obligations but we have not done so and, as a result, the whole programme is inoperable?

Our part of the agreement ran into difficulties and it has not been completed. We are examining the situation and consulting in relation to it. The rest of the system can operate without us.

Are we under pressure from the other participants?

They would be very happy to see us make progress in that area. There are two other items. The first is the savings under subhead F2 - Marine Institute Capital Development Grant-in-Aid. It is an EU funded upgrade of laboratory infrastructure which could not be spent in the allotted time. However, it will still be funded and in that sense it is technical. The second item is in relation to spending.

The tourism plan exceeded its budget.

It was a wet year and the work fell behind. However, it will be continued. The project is largely EU funded.

The projects are going ahead?

There should be a proviso that the thousands of jobs projected and the money invested will depend on fine weather.

It is going ahead and those involved are enthusiastic about it. It has been well received. It is an area where a great deal of work has been done and the five year plan which was announced recently is a very good one.

It must be a comprehensive plan as it took 17 years to produce it. The statutory bodies were bound upon formation in 1980 to produce a five year plan. It is a nice document but it has not the nuts and bolts to ensure it is implemented over the five year period.

It is for discussion and it will form the basis for the plan. The Department will look at it to see what is feasible.

Deputy Coveney raised the critical question of investment in the piers. I agree and I will do anything I can to encourage such investment. We are not responsible for the smaller areas but we provide technical assistance and expertise.

Will the Minister take over responsibility for the marinas from the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation?

As regards marinas, I have asked the Marine Institute to advance the work on them in terms of their future potential and to set out a plan for them. It has developed plans and we are making progress with moorings. Many were approved in Donegal recently. We need an overall plan for marinas.

Is there a turf war between the two Departments over something which is not that big? It would be better if leisure marinas were under the control of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.

We have had no difficulties. Some funding for the Marine Institute comes from my Department but the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation is its source of funds.

I can see there is a major tourism element to it.

The Deputy is right. Every time a marina is under construction it becomes popular before it is completed. People do not realise the potential of marinas. Deputy Coveney is familiar with this from his experience in the area. That is why I want a comprehensive plan to be ready for autumn next year. In the meantime, I will be pushing the issue because people realise the value of marinas. Local authorities are constructing marinas but there should be a co-ordinated effort to develop good marinas. We will be doing that early in the new year.

In the meantime, I want to bring people together for a seminar on this issue. We are trying to develop the Marine Institute's cluster concept idea. When people come to visit this country they want to have facilities available for the activities they wish to participate in, not just marinas. That is very important. There is talk of marinas along the north west coast as people from the north of Ireland are keen to travel that way. The institute is devising a plan for that but it is restricted by staff numbers. It has completed the plan for the moorings and will now examine the marinas.

Will the Minister give some assistance for the marinas? Local authorities may be partly funding them.

The tourism side fund them in accordance with the operational programme, although much of its funding is committed to the current phase. I am keen to encourage and assist in any way I can. We can look at it more comprehensively later.

We all remember Kilrush marina and the serious financial over-runs which were subject to investigation by the Committee on Public Accounts. Many of these projects appear laudable initially but people do not examine how solvent they will be. The marketing for Kilrush marina foresaw visitors from the continent who never arrived. There should be co-ordination to ensure there is value for money, especially if State funding is involved.

That is what the Marine Institute is doing; it is not just looking at marinas in isolation but examining them in the context of the cluster approach. We will have something worthwhile and can discuss the plans at any time. I hope to arrange a seminar early in the new year, through the institute, to examine ideas as it develops the plan. I believe worthwhile things will happen in the next year. It is a marketing issue as well. The tourism element in this is huge in other countries and we have many inlets and wonderful harbours.

Private individuals tried to establish marinas in Schull and Crookhaven but encountered local opposition when seeking planning permission. Both projects were shelved, which was a pity. They would have been of immense benefit to the areas concerned. The problem is that one is up against such opposition, particularly from settlers who have come to live in the area.

Or people who come from Dublin to live there.

The Deputy would know about that.

That is why it is an excellent idea to get somebody with expertise to do this. There are other aspects to this issue. People get upset about pollution and it might be necessary to introduce by-laws to prevent yachts, for example, from decanting their toilets in the waters of the marina. In many parts of the world yacht owners are not allowed to do that any more. An integration of interests is necessary. If people are let loose to build marinas here, there and everywhere they will encounter such problems with the local community. However, if there is a plan for marina development around the coast, it might be more acceptable.

The Deputy has great knowledge of this area——

Just an interest.

While my daughter sailed around Ireland once and can tell me about the inlets around the coast, the Deputy's children is on the high seas at present and they could probably tell us about inlets around the world.

This is an interesting and important area, particularly at present. However, if we get preliminary matters sorted out, I will be happy to return before the Committee to discuss how it is going.

Has the Minister allocated additional money in the Estimates for the improvement of piers and harbours?

There is a small additional amount. I am still working on it so the Deputy should not give up hope.

The Minister should put in the boot and try to get more funding.

They require finance. Some piers are falling apart and nothing is being done about them for small fisherman, certainly in County Donegal.

I have looked at those piers and some of them are falling into the sea. We must find a way to deal with the problem.

Some piers are under the control of local authorities but the authorities rarely, if ever, spend money on them. Tourists tend to gravitate towards piers either to fish or swim but often there is inadequate equipment at the piers. The Department should dovetail its efforts with those of local authorities to see what should be done about piers under their control. In many cases, the piers are good local amenities but they are not respected because people take little interest in them. Local authorities in my constituency do not appear to have the resources or the interest to look after them and that is probably true of other local authorities.

Deputy Browne referred to Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Minister mentioned aggressive marketing. Has the Minister asked BIM to examine its role and whether it is fulfilling it? BIM has been in existence for a long time and it might be worthwhile examining if the board needs a fresh approach. A recent consultants' report was critical of BIM and suggested the board should be scrapped. It also suggested that the training of fishermen should be allocated to FÁS or the regional technical colleges. In view of such external criticism, it is necessary for BIM to examine its approach. Has the Minister done anything in that regard?

There is a new chief executive and a new chairman. The chairman was appointed shortly before I was appointed Minister. He is highly experienced and is putting an enormous amount of work into the task mentioned by the Deputy. That work will pay dividends. I have had a number of discussions with the chairman and I will convey the Deputy's concerns to him. I expect to see a great deal of improvement in that regard.

I met a fishermen's group recently and we discussed the report. They said it had provoked BIM in a number of positive ways. They believe the board is more energised than it was in the past and that perhaps it was no bad thing that the suggestion was made in the first place.

I thank the Minister and members of the committee who participated in the discussion. The committee will take up the Minister's invitation to the Department early in the new year. Members would appreciate an opportunity to see how the system works within the Department.

Top
Share