Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Dr. Woods): The Estimate calls for expenditure of £145.144 million on the activities of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in 1998. It represents a commitment of significant resources to the marine, forestry, mining and petroleum sectors by this Government.
In the past year significant progress has been made under the various EU operational programmes, namely the development of the forestry sector under the agriculture, rural development and forestry operational programme, the development of the fishery sector under the operational programme for fisheries, port investment under the operational programme for transport, the development of the inland fishery sector under the tourism angling measure of the operational programme for tourism and coastal protection works under the operational programme for environmental services. As members will recall, the Department expanded during the year to include forestry, oil and gas and the development of minerals. This obviously has an impact on the Estimates because extra allocations will be required for these new sectors which are now under the remit of my Department.
The administrative budget, subheads A1 to A9 covers the salaries of in excess of 400 staff of the Department, from forestry inspectors, engineers engaged in harbour development, marine surveyors engaged in the enforcement of shipping safety requirements to headquarters staff engaged in the formulation and implementation of programmes. The provision also covers expenditures such as maintenance of office premises. staff training and IT purchases. Rigorous controls have been exercised on administrative budget expenditures in recent years and this has translated into increased productivity across all areas of activity. Administrative budget expenditure supports and underpins all the other programmes of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.
Marine safety, environment and shipping services are covered by subheads B1 to C. This occasion provides me with the opportunity to refer to some recent developments in the area of IMES - the Irish Marine Emergency Service. The main component of expenditure under this programme remains expenditure for the search and rescue services. In relation to the search and rescue helicopter service, a new medium load carrying marine emergency helicopter to service the east coast will go into active service on 1 July 1998. This helicopter will be based at Dublin Airport. The new helicopter will be a Sikorsky S61N, similar in terms of its capacity, endurance and speed for both day and night-time operations to that covering the west coast, operating from Shannon. This is a vital upgrade on the existing Baldonnel based Dauphin helicopter service. It also represents a very significant enhancement of the Irish Marine Emergency Service capability. In addition, a new Air Corps search and rescue helicopter. serving the south and south east coasts is to be located at Waterford airport. We can now take justifiable pride in the quality of marine search and rescue services. This will be an important addition to the east and south-east.
I recently announced my intention to develop and identify the Irish Marine Emergency Service of my Department as a national coastguard service. This announcement has received broad support from within the marine sector. I intend to bring forward specific proposals in this regard later this year. I recently requested the Marine Emergency Advisory Group to report on matters relating to emergency towing vessel requirements for our area of responsibility and to report back to me making recommendations on the matter.
An area of concern is the standard of the premises of the IMES coastal units. Many of these units are housed in old premises which are no longer suited to the enhanced service provided by the coastal units, and I am glad a programme of renovation and construction has now commenced. I also intend to have a number of new premises constructed at strategic locations around the coast.
I would like to briefly refer to a new vessel which has been commissioned by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The contract price for the new ship is approximately £18 million. Since the commissioners are an all-Ireland body, the new vessel is to be jointly funded by the UK-managed General Lighthouse Fund, which will meet 65 per cent of the cost, and the Irish Exchequer which is to pay 35 per cent. This exciting new state-of-the-art vessel will enhance the Commissioners of Irish Lights' ability to meet their servicing requirements for some 170 offshore lighthouses, light vessels and buoys into the new millennium. The new 80 metre vessel will replace the existing light tenderGranuaile which is now almost 30 years old. While the ship will have the primary purpose of servicing aids to navigation, its design ensures multi-functional capability which will enable it to play an important role in search and rescue operations and pollution response. The vessel will be equipped with the very latest manoeuvring and positioning technology, allowing it to hold position very precisely for safe and accurate placement of floating aids.
I am glad to be able to take this opportunity to update members of the committee on developments concerning the Irish Loran C station proposed for Loop Head, County Clare. Members will be aware that the project has faced considerable legal difficulties. Cases have been taken in relation to the legal powers of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, who are acting as my agents in respect of the project, and planning permission for the development which was granted on appeal in November 1994. Both legal cases have been protracted and have gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has upheld planning permission for the project. On foot of that decision I plan to undertake a comprehensive public consultation on the proposed erection of the marine safety radio navigation mast at Loop Head. This consultation process will allow a fundamental review of all aspects of the proposal. It will allow me to hear at first hand the views of all interested parties, particularly those living in the Loop Head area. I intend to shortly visit the proposed site of the mast and speak directly with local people about the format of the consultation procedure.
I am aware that concerns have been expressed locally that the Loran C system poses a threat to health and represents a damaging environmental intrusion. People with these and any other concerns will have the opportunity to put forward their views during the consultation process. This process will consist of two open days, one of which will be held in Clare and the other in Dublin. The consultation days will be open to the public and will be directed by an independent chairperson. I will also invite written submissions from all interested parties in advance of the formal discussions.
As the Minister responsible for safety at sea, I am conscious of the need for continued updating of our maritime law. In this regard. I have developed a comprehensive programme of work over the next three years which will bring Ireland to the forefrontvis-à-vis best international practice. The marine accidents policy review group, which was established in November 1996, has completed its work and the group’s report will be published shortly. The setting up of this group is an expression of the importance which we attach to tackling this issue. The policy aim underpinning the review is to put in place a modern casualty investigation system for Ireland, in accordance with the highest international practice, which will provide greater clarity as to when such investigations shall be held, how they should be conducted and what their role and scope should be. It is my intention that this policy will meet the needs and expectations of the various interested parties in relation to casualty investigations.
Coastal erosion is one of the key issues for coastal zone management and is likely to become even more important in the coming years. The funding of £5.1 million available under the operational programme for environmental services has allowed protection schemes to be undertaken at some 28 key locations around the coast, and a further major scheme is planned for Bray. Tenders have been sought for the Bray project which it is envisaged will commence later this year. We must develop an overall national strategy which identifies both the priorities for coast protection in the future and the optimum means of addressing them. My Department will, as part of its work on the development and articulation of coastal zone management policy, formulate an overall national strategy for coast protection. This will include the identification of protection priorities and the optimum means of responding to them.
Marine research is covered by subheads F1 to F3. Irish marine research has made significant progress in recent years with the establishment of the Marine Institute, the STRIDE programme, the marine research measure of the fisheries operational programmes and maritime INTERREG - marine environment. The Marine Institute is the national agency with responsibility for promoting, directing and co-ordinating the marine research effort. Exchequer investment of £8.465 million is being provided in the Estimate this year for marine research.
My Department is responsible, through the operational programme for fisheries 1994-99 and the maritime INTERREG for marine and coastal environment for the funding of research and development programmes for the marine sector. Current levels of funding support significant research and development programmes. It is one of my priorities as Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources to ensure, in the context of overall national policy on science, technology and innovation, adequate resources are available for research and development which supports the ongoing development of the marine and natural resources sectors. I intend to publish a National Marine RTDI Strategy which will set out the growth opportunities and the necessary strategies within the national science and technology landscape. The Marine Institute is currently finalising work on my behalf on a national marine research technology development innovation strategy aimed at realising the full economic and employment potential of Ireland's marine resources, with particular reference to marine food, marine technology and water-based tourism and leisure. This work has involved a broad consultative process and the views of the relevant semi-State agencies and Government Departments have been taken on board in the drafting of the strategy, which I intend to present to the Government for approval with a view to early publication and implementation of the broad thrust of the strategy.
Regarding sea fisheries and aquaculture development, the policy objective is to maintain and enhance the contribution of sea fisheries to the national economy, particularly to growth and employment in coastal communities. This is achieved by measures to effect the rational and sustainable exploitation and effective management and conservation of our fish stocks. We also want to continue the development of our fish processing industry, to maximise product and market opportunities for Irish fish and to maintain effective representation of Irish interests at community level within the framework of the common fisheries policy.
I am committed to delivering the necessary support to the fishing industry to targeted investment plans under the current operational programme for fisheries. I am ensuring that ongoing investment is specifically designed to deliver on our modernisation and development objectives for the industry and for communities which depend on it. The programme is also delivering on much needed investment in fisheries harbour infrastructure, processing and research.
Funding for Ireland under the PESCA community initiative is also supporting fishing communities to diversify and support alternative activities. More than £11 million worth of investment will be realised under this initiative. To date, more than 100 projects have been approved and I will announce a new round of PESCA projects shortly. I am pleased Ireland has been uniquely successful in Europe in our efficient and effective use of PESCA funding and is held up as an example to other member states.
The whitefish fleet generates most of the employment in the fishing sector and accounts for 65 per cent of the value of fish landings. However, the age profile of the whitefish fleet is high, averaging 25 years, and the fleet is in need of further modernisation. The fleet is seriously under capitalised and there has been no significant reinvestment for over ten years. My first priority in office was to deliver on measures for the renewal of the whitefish fleet, in line with the Government's commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium.
It was clear to me that the industry had to be made attractive to providers of capital if the necessary investment is to take place. The industry is a high risk sector and I concluded that it would be impossible to facilitate low cost money for the sector without special fiscal incentives which will encourage the banks and other financial institutions as well as private investors to support this vitally important sector.
I secured a package of special tax based reliefs to encourage capital into the whitefish fleet in this year's Finance Act. I have also announced my plans for a complementary capital grant aid scheme for new whitefish boats. My proposals, which are quite consistent with EU State aid parameters, will be negotiated with the Commission in the coming weeks. I am confident the proposed tax reliefs and capital grant programme create a new climate of opportunity and will catalyse the much needed degree of change in the whole fish sector.
My investment support strategy will help significant investment in the renewal of the whitefish fleet in the medium term. Reinvestment in the fleet will enable full and efficient quota takeup and will enable Irish fishermen to develop new non quota fishing opportunities. Safety and competitiveness will be improved and existing employment maintained, with the potential for additional jobs at sea and in processing and supply services.
The continued development of the fish processing industry is critical for jobs. growth, value added and exports in the fishing industry overall. Investment of £22 million has been supported under the Operational Programme since 1994 in more than 100 fish processing projects, securing existing jobs and creating more than 200 new jobs. I announced in February a further round of grant aid for fish processing projects which will deliver an investment of more than £3 million and create nearly 100 jobs. Jobs will be created from development projects in the pipeline to obtaining additional EU funding.
I am committed to the development of infrastructure and facilities at priority fishing harbours to cater for development in landings, larger sized vessels and to meet Community safety and hygiene requirements. I am also committed to upgrading local harbour infrastructures to the level required to cope with the rapid expansion of the aquaculture sector and to protecting and preserving the existing infrastructure at selected local harbours where fishing activity has an important socio-economic role, especially in remote coastal areas. To this end the Government will invest some £3 million in 1998 on the ongoing development of fishery harbours to help address the general underdevelopment of our fishery harbours, which are vital to the continued economic development of our peripheral coastal region.
At present the fishery harbour centres are managed directly by the Department from its offices in Dublin. It is proposed to establish a national body for the five existing FHCs and Dingle and to devolve responsibility to local management boards who will be in the best position to respond to the needs of the industry and ensure effective operation of the facilities. This important structural charge is in line with Government policy on devolution and the Strategic Management Initiative.
The new structure is designed to promote local involvement, initiative and development, to encourage a commercial approach to meeting industry needs on a market led basis, to allow local flexibility in meeting local requirements, to ensure co-ordination between the centres where a consistent national approach may be required and to secure economies in the procurement of general services, to remove the day to day management of the centres from the departmental-Civil Service ambit and allow for more freedom in the day to day activity of running the harbours. I am reviewing which national body should hold the co-ordination function. There are a number of possibilities here, including the Department, BIM or a new body.
I have long seen great potential for the development of Ireland's unique inland fisheries resource, which is unrivalled in Europe. Our superior angling product must be developed and protected to capitalise on this resource. The Exchequer investment in inland fisheries through the Department in 1998 amounts to £14.978 million. The Department's responsibility in this area is to ensure the stocks and habitats on which this resource depends are protected conserved and developed to ensure this natural resource is preserved unspoiled for future generations.
Investment in our tourism angling resource also continues, with more than 100 projects approved, committing more than 80 per cent of the £17.3 million allocated under the tourism angling measure of the Tourism Operational Programme, 1994-99. It is estimated that anglers contribute some £80 million per year to the Irish economy, and the angling sector supports almost 4,000 jobs. The target is to raise tourist angler numbers to 240,000 over the period, and I see this area as one of the brightest hopes to ensure the long-term future of the resource. The l998 Exchequer provision for TAM amounts to £3.3 million.
EU funded projects are also contributing to cross-Border initiatives to rehabilitate the eel and salmon stocks of the River Erne, investment under the Peace and Reconciliation Programme and under the INTERREG II Programme.
This year I plan to undertake a review of the Inland Fisheries service as a whole. The review will address the roles and responsibilities of the Department, the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards, with a view to focusing the role of the Department in the development of fishery policy, analysing and programming evaluation, examining the structure and interrelationships of the central and regional fisheries boards, devolving greater responsibility and accountability to regional boards and refocusing the central board's role in support and co-ordination.
It is my intention to bring forward proposals for amendments to the Fisheries Act, 1980, later this year. Last year I announced my intention to move to a catchment management strategy, and I tasked the central and regional fisheries boards with the development of six pilot projects which would inform that process. The catchment management approach will involve and empower all interested local bodies, from regional boards and local authorities to farmers' organisations, forestry agencies and fishermen's and anglers' groups, in maximising the potential of the fisheries resource to the benefit of all the stakeholders in the resource.
Another of my priorities is to combat pollution. In response to a number of serious fish kills in summer 1997, I announced a six point action plan designed to ensure the resources of the central and regional boards and all relevant agencies are deployed and mobilised to best effect to prevent pollution, deal with its causes and act swiftly when it occurs. This has led to improved liaison, dialogue and co-operation between fishery boards and other relevant agencies as well as farming organisations and the current development of water quality monitoring programmes between the fishery boards and the EPA.
Work is continuing on the implementation of the recommendations of the salmon management task force. I re-enacted for this year the conservation measures introduced last year to reduce commercial fishing seasons, decrease the sea area in which fishing can be carried on and limit the number of licences issued. These measures are seen as essential to protect our salmon stocks and ensure their long-term viability. The report of the Marine Institute on the system of tags and quotas recommended by the task force was recently completed and I have distributed it to all the players in the sector. My Department is now engaged in a thorough consultation process on this important issue.
Government forestry policy is set out in the strategic plan for the development of the forestry sector, Growing for the Future, which was launched in 1996. I am fully conscious of the significance of the forestry sector and the Government fully supports the targets set out in the plan. Attainment of these targets is a priority for me. The overall aim of the plan is to develop forestry to a scale and in a manner which maximises its contribution to national economic and social well-being on a sustainable basis which is compatible with the environment. Key elements of the plan are an afforestation programme at a rate of 25,000 hectares per annum up to the year 2000 and 20,000 hectares per annum up to the year 2030; an increase in the forest area from 570,000 hectares to 1.2 million hectares by 2035; a target of 70:30 for private and public sector afforestation with a particular emphasis on farmer participation; an increase in species diversity; and development of the downstream industry and other elements of the sector such as harvesting and transport, research development of an inventory and amenity aspects.
The Exchequer investment in forestry in 1998 amounts to £76.685 million. The principal provision is under the FEOGA guarantee scheme under which a variety of attractive forestry grants and premiums are paid. The £59 million budget for these payments underlines the Government's continuing commitment to the forestry sector. I expect planting levels will show an increase on last year. There is also a provision of £10.8 million which covers payments under EU Structural Funds.
The forest service of my Department has, since the inception of the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry, 1994-99, made payments totalling £41.59 million up to 31 December 1997. The purpose of the payments relates to increasing the capability of the forestry based industrial sector, develop new overseas markets and increase competitiveness, reduce dependence on timber imports, diversify the rural economy, stimulate rural development and provide additional employment in both afforestation and the industrial sector. The recipients of grants under the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry range from farmers to corporate investors in the afforestation areas, to individuals and companies involved with the development of the forest service.
My aim for the mining sector is to promote inward investment in tandem with indigenous exploration and service companies, with the emphasis on responsible development of our natural resources. By supporting mine developments which are undertaken with sensitivity to the needs of local populations and the environment we can have a mining industry which will be of benefit to both the developers and the State. We have set headlines in terms of the sensitive development of mining.
Hydrocarbons play a significant role in Ireland's energy mix and it is of considerable importance, therefore, to continue the efforts being made to establish further production. The potential for the successful development of offshore oil and gas resources is enormous in terms of employment both in production and servicing the industry, foreign earnings and downstream industrial manufacturing and supply. The extent of the potential will depend on the extent of discoveries. We have a high number of exploration licences in place. Ireland has a vast continental shelf and much of it remains unexplored. I consider it important that we see an exploration presence in offshore areas not currently subject to authorisations.
For an island like Ireland located on the periphery of Europe the shipping sector constitutes a crucial hinge on which the success and effectiveness of the major element of our international trading and a significant proportion of our tourism activities turns. It is important to ensure the sector is given every support to serve the economy as efficiently and effectively as possible. Government policy is first and foremost about creating jobs for Irish people on Irish vessels, in inshore servicing and in the wide range of maritime activity around our coasts, and this priority will underpin policy. Over the past few years Government policy has primarily focused on the maintenance and creation of employment and facilitation of productive investment to modernise and expand the merchant fleet. I am confident recent fiscal alleviation and assistance measures will help the industry compete on a more sustainable basis and create employment.
I reiterate my personal commitment to marine and natural resources. As I have outlined, the Department's brief encompasses significant developmental roles across a wide variety of programmes ranging from shipping, ports, fisheries, safety at sea and forestry to mining and petroleum. The Estimate before you will allow for further consolidation of effort to date. I thank Members for their attention and look forward to our discussions to follow.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Department was formerly known as the Marine and Defence but the new title of Marine and Natural Resources has given a sharper focus to marine issues which they did not have up to recent times and realignment was a very good decision.
The Minister focused on what is happening in Ireland, but I want to dwell on the European dimension. In the European context we do not seem to be in the frame when it comes to negotiation skills and trying to get the best deal. There have been two classic examples of this in recent times. Before Christmas during the Luxembourg presidency we did not even get the percentage we aspired towards in the allocation of horse mackerel, a non-quota species, and found ourselves considerably deficient in this area. In that case the Minister walked out in protest, an action for which he was complimented in a recent debate on fisheries in the Seanad. Those who walked out in the past achieved something in doing so. On returning to Ireland the Minister stated he was seeking the advice of the Attorney General regarding the legal implications of the decision. I always thought action in this direction was a red herring. According to a recent reply I received to a question it would appear that in a legal context no progress is being made concerning the deal. I anticipate that the horse mackerel issue is closed at this stage.
I do not blame the Minister for a collapse in herring prices as occurred last year in the Celtic Sea. This year it seems the rates will be significantly down for fishermen involved in this type of fishery. Many of these fishermen who operate out of the south and south-west coast were very distressed. The Minister reacted last October by setting up a task force which bought a certain amount of time. The task force produced a large report in March with the emphasis placed very much on marketing. This is understandable and it is possible we will have to seek new markets if we want to cover the collapse in price due to the collapse in Japan and Germany for herring products.
The report made a series of recommendations. In the period that has elapsed since the Minister received it, have any of these been implemented? I would particularly like the Minister's reply to deal with the criticism regarding quality in the context of the herring fishery. There is a stipulation whereby the Minister will assist with the quality training of fishermen and provide a relevant incentive. To what extent is this likely to be implemented and what amount of funding will be required? Many fishermen felt this was a hammer blow at the latter part of the year.
There was another recent decision under the UK Presidency in Luxembourg whereby the UK, with which we have established a very good friendship in recent times - I am not sure we are as friendly when it comes to fisheries - revisited a motion which had been before the Commission for some time previously on the abolition of drift net fishing for tuna. It is worth noting that tuna is a non-quota species. During the negotiations which take place usually in December in Brussels quota species are often referred to and the parameters within which one can or cannot catch often relate to conservation. This is a non-quota species which was developed over a number of years. It applied to fishermen on the south and south-west coast and those operating from Castletownbere, Dingle and Union Hall. They had developed a lucrative fishery and were using drift nets which were about 1.5 kilometres long which was in sharp contrast to drift nets used by other members and the Baltic states where drift nets are up to 25 kilometres.
It is difficult to reconcile a ban on Irish fishermen using drift nets for tuna. Numerous questions have been raised on this issue. There is no scientific evidence which suggests a ban on tuna fishing is desirable. However, it will be operational until the year 2002. A newspaper headline suggested that a £25 million offer had been lost. That may have been exaggerated and perhaps it meant £2.5 million.
We are talking about a phasing out period of three and a half years, which is not desirable. Has a compensation package been earmarked for those fishermen? I do not believe they will be happy with a compensation package. Perhaps the Minister would clarify a reply he gave me on 31 March that the proposal actually exceeds international legal requirement. I recognise the legal dimension invoked previously as regards horse mackerel. If this exceeds legal requirements, the Minister should invoke the legal dimension and try to get a revoking of the ban which will impact severely on fishermen who have already seen a downturn in their business.
I would like to move on to safety on which the Minister focused. Many positive measures have been taken in the area of safety. In 1996 Deputy Barrett brought forward the safety review report, which was effective. It outlined the safety factors involved and found deficiencies in 64 per cent of our fishing fleet. Have safety measures taken in the past been adequately surveyed in advance to ensure the type of vessel on which safety work is carried out is suitable from the point of view of construction? I wonder about putting safety equipment on board a wooden vessel with rotting nails. Are vessels surveyed after the changes have been made to improve safety and modernise it to establish whether the work has been carried out?
I am concerned about the mushrooming of adventure centres, which I am investigating. A serious deficiency in this area was exposed a few years ago with the tragedy in Tramore where two lives were lost. People went out to sea in storm force winds. In that case, the adventure centre operated the safety standards set out by the Association for Adventure Sports which covers different areas. Although safety standards are set down, they have no legal parameters as regards the operation of same and they have no statutory base. I contrast that situation with that which exists in the UK where the British Government has a certain amount of control over adventure centres and sets standards in that regard.
I am reminded of the recent tragedy in Sligo where lives were lost. It is only when there is a loss of live that people focus on inadequacies. Such an incident will happen again. Bord Fáilte aggressively promotes these adventure centres which are privately owned. Safety standards are loose. The Minister and the officials are probably more interested in self-regulation where possible but some parameters must be set. Different Departments are responsible because some adventure centres are marine related while other centres are inland and would come under the umbrella of the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation.
On the review of the next operational programme, Ireland was sold short in relation to coastal zone management in the 1994-9 operational programme. We ended up with in excess of £5 million, a derisory sum given the Irish coastline and the pressure and demands on this budget. Recently, we paid £136,000 for a very desirable consultants report from Brady Shipman Martin and discussion documents were produced. We will need substantial subvention in this area. We are like the young Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke trying to keep out the water. Much of the coastline is crumbling into the water and will continue to do so until we have a sufficient budget in this area.
The figure of up to £3 million for fishery harbour development is welcome. In July 1997 the Minister promised Killybegs harbour he would deliver in terms of its development programme, which will cost more than £20 million. Castletownbere's submission for such a programme will cost £15 million. Most of the budget in this area has run out and there is little left for next year. Will the Minister seek funding for the natural development of these key strategic fishery ports?
The Minister might reflect on an article in last Saturday's The Irish Times by Lorna Siggins on the incendiary phosphorus devices which have been washed up on our beaches over the past ten years. These devices are lethal if handled. We are heading into what I hope will be a busy tourism season and it is only a matter of time before a young child comes in contact with such a device and, with their natural curiosity, a tragedy is waiting to happen. There seems to be an element of doubt about the origin of these incendiary phosphorus devices. Much speculation centres on the Beaufort Dyke, but there may be another location because Beaufort Dyke is about 2,000 feet deep. Approximately two years ago a recommendation was made that a controlled device costing about £0.25 million could be used to find the location. Such a devise was used by the Scottish authorities when the Carrickatine went down off the Donegal cost. Such equipment would be useful and could be used strategically in the future not only in such instances, but in other areas as well.
The munitions being washed up are coming from the UK. A massive amount of munitions may have been dumped after World War Two. The Minister set up a task force on radioactive waste based on archival evidence from the Office of Public Works in the UK in the 1950s. Surely, there must be archival evidence in the Ministry of Defence in the UK. We need to know what type and how many tonnes of munitions are in the Irish Sea. A newspaper columnist reported that there were millions of tonnes of armaments there. We need to quantify these phosphorus devices because they will continue to be washed up on the coastline. The Minister says he is having bilateral talks with his British counterpart. However, we need to get down to serious action because I question the recent fisheries deals between the British Agriculture Minister, Dr. Jack Cunningham, and the EU Commission.
The Minster referred to pollution control and said that talks and consultations are taking place between the fisheries boards and the farming organisations, which I welcome. However, he should be aware that there was a special debate on agriculture yesterday. It is very important he should press for the restoration of the control of farmyard pollution grant. As we approach the summer months the issue of liability for fish kills arises, whether it be industrial or agricultural. Many small farmers cannot avail of grants to undertake farmyard pollution control.
We are dealing with the Estimate in respect of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.
I am touching on different aspects of it.
The time allotted to the Opposition spokesperson was ten minutes.
The Minister got 25 minutes so I am taking the liberty of 20 minutes.
The Deputy cannot do that.
Perhaps some of my remarks are hurtful.
We want to give everybody the chance to speak.
I accept that. Can I ask questions on the different subheads?
I will give the Deputy another three minutes.
According to the CSO mid-term review, each job in aquaculture costs £21,000. Has any investigation been done on the impact of fin fish development on aquaculture and its effect in wiping out much of the sea trout? Jobs in aquaculture are desirable because in many instances they are in remote locations. Has any analysis been done of the quantification of the cost per job in aquaculture vis-à-vis the cost of a Forbairt job and on the value for money aspect?
With regard to the offshore oil rigs, there is no commitment to employ Irish labour in the Sedco 711 rig, which is drilling for enterprise oil on the side trough. Indeed I understand the operator will not employ Irish labour on the rig. While there is free movement of labour throughout the EU, will the Minister consult the agreement between the then Department of the Marine and the then Department of Labour with regard to the use of Irish labour by oil rig operators, which I understand has never been revoked? Many people in Foynes have operated on oil rigs and the supply ships for the enterprise oil will probably be dedicated to Foynes. I will return to the subheads later.
I thank the Minister for his contribution to the fishing industry over the last year. He inherited a very run down fishing scene from the rainbow coalition Government and has had a difficult task in trying to restore the morale of fishermen.
I welcome the new search and rescue helicopter service for the south and the south-east. I am not very happy about it being based in Waterford; it should have been based in Wexford. However, we must thank the Minister that we got such a service for the area.
Deputy Finucane touched on safety aspects, especially the drownings in Sligo and elsewhere. The Minister has requested the marine emergency advisory group to report on matters relating to this area and to the establishment of a national coast guards service. Will this be based in Dublin and will it involve bureaucratic nonsense? County councils are the best bodies to deal with the operation of the coastline on a county by county basis. They are very involved in the operations throughout the year. The Minister should seriously consider making provisions to county councils to enable them provide this service. They are aware of the danger spots along our coastline.
What contact has the Minister had with local authorities regarding signs on dangerous areas along the coastline? They are removed on a regular basis. The Minister should consult with the local authorities in the different counties to ensure all warning signs are in place, especially those warning young people on where they may or may not swim. Perhaps he would consult with the Minster for the Environment and Local Government on that matter.
The allocation of moneys for coastal protection is a joke. I am from a county where thousands of acres have been and continue to be washed into the sea. Farmers and the local councils are not in a position to fund coastal protection schemes. The Minister referred to a sum of £5 million, yet approximately £10 million is required in Wexford. Different Governments have failed miserably to deal with this problem. In addition, the EU has failed to recognise Ireland's special case for increased funding in this area. The Minster should seek a substantial increase in the EU allocation of funding. The EU first allocated a small amount of money when the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, was Minister for the Marine. It is time the Government and the EU recognised the nature of Ireland's coastline and the amount of land that is being lost on a regular basis.
I believe the Department has decided - it may not have made an official announcement - it is cheaper to allow the land fall into the sea rather than trying to protect it. This is a foolish decision. Money allocated to seaside resorts, such as Rosslare, Courtown and some areas in Sligo will not be allocated to agricultural land which has no tourism value. Will the Minister advise on the position regarding increased funding for this area?
I welcome the dramatic decrease in the age profile of the white fish fleet, which now stands at 25 years. A couple of years ago it stood at approximately 40 years. There is a lot of obsolete fishing fleet and the Minister should continue to pressurise for an upgrading, including the provision of funds, grants and low interest loans to fishermen. We are unable to compete with the British, Spanish or French fleets. It is important fishermen be given the opportunity to upgrade their fleets as soon as possible.
With regard to fishery harbour development, the Minister must take account of the fact that while he will fund the main harbours, councils are responsible for many of the small harbours. I appreciate the allocation of money to Kilmore Quay. This was followed through by Deputy Barrett when he was Minister and by the late Hugh Coveney, who did much for the harbour when he was Minister. Kilmore Quay is a shining example of what can be done if funds are made available. It is a magnificent harbour and marina and the fishermen are making a contribution to the overall running of the harbour. The harbour also has a harbour master for the first time. Projects such as this will encourage the further development of the fishing industry.
I ask the Minister to seriously consider allocating funds to county councils throughout the country to upgrade smaller harbours out of which three, four or five fishermen may operate. Some of these in my own county are very run down and I am sure the same applies in other counties. Perhaps some kind of initiative could be developed whereby the Minister could provide funding on a 50:50, 60:40 or 70:30 basis to councils wishing to upgrade smaller harbours. While county councils may be able to provide some funding, they would not be able to come up with 100 per cent of the costs involved.
I have had many discussions with the Minister in regard to draft net fishermen on the River Slaney. The fact the fishing season is being reduced by one week every other year is a contentious issue and is the subject of ongoing aggravation between the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and draft net and drift net fishermen. I understand a delegation of draft net fishermen met the Minister recently but went home dissatisfied when he did not have any good news for them. The Minister should resurrect the possibility of a buyout scheme for the River Slaney draft net fishermen. Many of the fishermen are getting old and tell me they are not making much money from fishing. The Minister and the rod men have difficulties with them, as have local tourism interests. I understand that in the past in Scotland and Norway, Governments bought out the draft net fishermen. A number of draft net fishermen have made representations to me on this issue recently. I know they may be seeking a lot of money but their asking price and what they would settle for is probably quite different.
I do not believe regional fisheries boards serve any purpose. I do not understand what their functions are; they comprise many different interest groups which usually seem to be at loggerheads with each other and they show very little developmental interest in the rivers.
Perhaps the Minister could consider the establishment of river boards. For example, the River Slaney could be operated by the Slaney river board which would comprise various interest groups from the source of the river to the point where it joins the sea. The same could apply to other major rivers throughout the country. I have long been of the opinion that regional fisheries boards do not serve the best interests of inland fishery. They must be revamped and professional people represented on them. If such boards are to be retained, although I do not think they should be, they must be upgraded. It would be far more beneficial if boards were operated on a river basis. One might then see a far greater development of inland fisheries. There would also be a significant tourism benefit and it would be possible to have improved co-ordination in boards' activities.
In regard to forestry, too much good land is being taken up with tree planting. It may be desirable for planting to take place west of the Shannon where the land quality may not be as good as it is in parts of the east and south-east. However, excellent land which could be productively used for farming purposes is being planted with trees. That is a mistake and the issue should be reviewed.
I formally propose that Deputy Blaney take the Chair as I have to vote at the Select Committee on Education and Science.
Deputy Blaney took the Chair.
A projected increase of £149,000 is outlined under subhead A.7 for 1998. Why was such a dramatic increase made? Will the Minister explain what function the rock core store at Sandyford, outlined under subhead A.8, will serve?
Subhead B.1 relates to the Irish Marine Emergency Service, which does very good work. The total projected payment is £183,000. Will the Minister clarify how such payments are quantified; is a call-out or hourly rate payable? I would like the Minister to consider my suggestion in regard to marine energy contingency, although it may not be possible to do so under this year's Estimates. A remotely operated vehicle is desirable for the future, especially in regard to research and safety. I am disappointed with the projected £100,000 provision made for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution under subhead B.4 which is the same as applied in 1997. Why was no increase made in this figure in accordance with the consumer price index? Surely, we should show tangible recognition each year on an incremental basis of the great work done by the institution.
The Minister referred to Loran C in his speech. When will the local consultation process commence in this regard? This issue has dragged on over a considerable period of time and I think most people would like to see it concluded. A projected payment of £160,000 is outlined under subhead D.1 for the undertaking of minor improvement works at small harbours of local importance? Where are these harbours located? Are they those referred to by Deputy Browne? Will the Minister outline where the £160,000 will be spent? A projected figure of £140,000 has been outlined under the subhead for marine works under the Congested Districts Board. What type of works will be carried out under this heading?
I welcome the projected £3 million figure for the development of fishery harbours, although the figure is not sufficient. Under the Bord Iascaigh Mhara capital development programme, the Minister referred to ice plants. Where will these be located and what will be the cost of providing them?
I compliment the manner in which the Estimates are presented as an excellent breakdown of associated costs is provided. They are the most comprehensive Estimates I have seen in quite a while.
The points raised by the Deputies are significant and relate to the key issues about which the Department is concerned.
The question of our negotiating position within the EU was raised. The harsh reality is that Ireland has three votes out of 84.
That is relevant to some of the questions raised. The walk out from the meeting in December over horse mackerel was mentioned. I did that having gained a quota for more horse mackerel than we fished - 60,000 tonnes were recorded last year while we received a quota of 74,000 tonnes. As a result we were given a greater allowance for this year. We believe we are entitled to a higher percentage. Since the introduction of the Common Fisheries Policy, we received a low allocation because of our catching record, which is what it was largely based upon. I felt that now we had the catches of horse mackerel, we should be given full recognition for what we have.
Some countries which had no catches were given an allocation. This is the way the Union works at times like this and some of the quantities had to be allocated to them. There was a point of principle to be made. I spent over two days and nights negotiating. That gives an idea how tough these fishery negotiations are, they are regarded as the toughest negotiations in the Union. Our position is difficult. I was concerned that if quantities are to be restricted in the future, the percentage you have will be more important than the absolute quantity.
The Deputy mentioned the task force on the herring fishery. The preparations for that are under way and are progressing. They include financial incentives for quality training in consultation with BIM. The total expenditure on that will be up to £1 million.
Is there a timeframe for that?
We want to get it under way before the approaching autumn fishing season.
Will it be before the autumn?
That is what we are aiming for. The system will be in place by then, it is a matter of the number of people who will be trained by that time. You must remember that this task force was made up of a broad spectrum of the industry participating fully. The ideas are the industry's own; that is progressive in that the industry was prepared to examine the weaknesses and say what it needed to do and what assistance it required.
Drift nets used here are 2.5 kilometres in length. Others can be up to ten kilometres. I made the point in the negotiations that there is no scientific evidence to support the European Union banning the use of drift nets. No money was discussed but permission for flanking measures has been approved. At the meeting in March there was a majority in favour of the ban with only 23 votes against. The votes against came from France, Italy and ourselves. We knew in the negotiations that Italy had already reconverted two-thirds of its fleet - although I could not verify that, it may not be the reality on the ground - so the Italian position was not as desperate as ours and that could have reduced the 23 votes by a further ten. They stayed with us, however, almost to the end and France stayed with us the whole way. We have a good working relationship with the French.
In March the Council took the decision to ban drift nets but it agreed, at my request, because of the special difficulties for Ireland which does not have the money France and Italy have within their fisheries programmes, it would wait until June to see if the Commission could find a solution in the meantime. The position at the start of the June meeting was that the ban was fixed for 1998-9, then it would end. The same majority existed in favour of the ban at the end as at the start of the meeting. In the process we managed to extend the time of the ban from two years to four years.
Was there a proposal by another member state for a six year period?
We proposed a period of six years and the French backed that proposal in the negotiations. The media talked a great deal about the French pushing for six years, but that position was taken by us and we maintained it throughout. We also maintained the position that there was no scientific evidence for a ban and that we in Ireland comply with the UN resolution.
These were not, however, the reasons for this decision. It was taken on a political basis because the citizens of Europe are anxious to protect dolphins. I made it clear that there is no country in Europe as dolphin friendly as Ireland and the evidence for that exists. I mentioned the figures we got in the package as at the end of the day there were only 23 votes which is not a blocking minority - 26 votes are needed for a blocking minority. The cards were stacked against us but on five different occasions when they were about to close I intervened and made them recognise that the Union is not just about figures, it is about people and people's livelihoods.
Where changes are being made for environmental reasons, the needs of people fishing in this area must be respected. On that basis they were prepared to negotiate further. We secured an amendment which stated that research and technology transfer will get priority in the funds which the Commission has available to it for research. We are anxious to avail of some of those funds. Our purpose in this was to keep the fishermen in the fishery, those who held licences in the years 1995-97 among them. They are included, bringing the total to 20 or 21 vessels. The Spanish only wanted 97 and only those who fished, not those who had licences. There is a difference each year. Some people will fish in one year and they might not fish the next year, although they might still have a licence. The Spanish wanted to fix it at the lowest possible number, which would have been grossly unfair. We succeeded through good negotiation. We are in a poor negotiating position but we are fortunate that we have good negotiators in the Civil Service. I managed to reopen the discussion five times during the day. The Spanish could not understand how the day started with the ban being removed in two years, for which there was an overall majority, yet it finished with the same majority for the ban being removed in four years.
If the ban becomes operational in three and a half or four years' time, will there not be a consequential reduction starting this year in the number of boats involved in tuna fishing? The ban may take effect when many Irish fishermen reach their fourth year. I do not want the wrong impression to be given in this regard. Perhaps the Minister could clarify what he meant when he said the proposal exceeds international legal requirements. If that is the case, is he getting legal advice on revoking the decision as it applies to Ireland?
We are taking legal advice on the situation and that is why I had to vote against it. It was a difficult diplomatic negotiating position. We managed to get all the Ministers around the table to agree we had a special problem, but then I had to say I could not vote with them. The Presidency said I was not voting with them more out of sorrow than anger. I appreciated the fact they spent a long time trying to find ways to solve our problem, but I had to vote against them so that our hands were free to make a legal challenge if necessary.
The Commission will send out the final details as regards timing, although we know what it is. The fishing season will be from July to September but the regulation starts from 1 July this year. A clause states there should be a 40 per cent reduction. The number of boats and licences is important to us. During the negotiations we and the French interpreted 1998 as meaning a reduction by 1999 because the season is already under way. The Italians made it clear that could not possibly be implemented. They are working on a programme so they cannot accept it at this time. We will have to work it out with the Commission. It depends on the number of boats included. The three years of 1995, 1996 and 1997 are now included. That was crucial to us because the number of boats fishing last year was much smaller.
The total number was probably 21. There are arguments as to whether it was 20, 21 or 23. We will have to negotiate and prove that figure.
There is great uncertainty among fishermen about the phased reduction over the next few years and the knock-on effect this year. The Minister said that by the time the regulation is published and we study it, we will have entered the 1 July to September period. Tuna fishermen are concerned that the phased reduction will start this year. We tend to be more vigilant in terms of fishery protection than our Spanish counterparts.
We have said we cannot proceed unless we have a plan. We must begin to develop a plan for the whole operation and funding must be provided for it. The research and technology provision will be made available this year. We need to get that from the Commission before we start to do anything. It is not a question of taking people out of tuna fishing, but of transferring to a new technology. We must work out how that will be done in practical terms. The Commission must tell us what research money is available this year. We can handle this situation.
Can we tell tuna fishermen who fish from July to September that they can operate in the same way as they did in the past and that phased reductions will not start this year - in other words, they will have the same number of vessels as last year? We do not know what the reduction will be over three and a half years. A three or four year ban gives the impression that people can start drift net fishing once it is removed. I am not sure that tuna fishermen want to adopt the new technology in trawling which the Spaniards use because of the lesser quantities gained and the financial costs involved. We will continue to monitor the legal proceedings.
There is no doubt that people who fished last year or the year before will be able to fish this year. We must start looking at the change in technology as soon as that is feasible. We have not received anything from the Commission. The Commission has just received the generalised decision but it must consider what it will do and then we must talk to it to see what it will do for us. The quality of fish caught by other processors is considerably higher so that must be taken into account. We must start to examine the technology transfer because we would be foolish not to do so. We must see who is prepared to co-operate in this regard. BIM and the industry are working on this currently.
Will there be financial assistance towards that?
Yes. That is the point in getting this initial money.
On the other question about flanking measures, one of the reasons I was so keen to get it in four years was because one is moving into the next allocation of funds over the latter two years. That was crucial to us. Therefore, whatever we can or must do in between, we must find resources to do it. There are some EU funds which can be made available, limited though they may be.
In the longer term there is this next round of funds. Part of the negotiations involved getting it into that period for that reason.
The Spaniards must be smiling.
In the long-term they are bound to be smiling. They will probably finish up having almost exclusive rights to tuna fishing.
No. That is underestimating our fishermen.
I was concerned about two issues. One is that we want to get the proposed modernisation of the fleet through. We are negotiating with the Commission and we hope to have that approved soon. That is relevant to this area as to what we can do, how far out we can go, how we can handle the fishing, etc.
The Deputy raised the question of fleet safety and surveying. Our experience with surveys is that fishermen complain they are too technically detailed. The surveying area is one at which I will look.
Is there a survey before as well as after the job?
Yes. I know from experience that things can be held up because they are waiting to do the latter survey. I have noted the Deputy's point and we will certainly follow that up.
Deputy Finucane and Deputy Broughan mentioned coastal protection, for which I think £5.1 million was the figure. It is a negligible amount when one considers it is £1 million a year over five years. The Brady Shipman Martin report emphasises this. It did not take me two minutes in the Department to see that the amount was totally inadequate. That is an issue to which we must face up. This report and the public consultation on it have been brought together, and we will soon have recommendations to put to Government. It is time this issue was highlighted. Deputy Browne raised a question about Wexford, one of the areas which suffers most. The west coast suffers badly too. Deputies everywhere have difficulties.
There is a wide range of recommendations in the report on the safety of fishing vessels. We have already made significant progress in many areas, as the committee will be aware. We have mentioned them in parliamentary replies. Deputies Browne and Finucane mentioned the importance of the marine emergency services. Captain Liam Kirwan is chief of that service. He is doing an excellent job but he is starting from a very low base. We are trying to develop many things. I mentioned in my speech the new facilities around the country which are being developed this year, the fact that we are moving to a coastguard-type service and the fact that from July there will be an excellent helicopter service of a high international standard. The two Sikorsky helicopters are state-of-the-art top rank aircraft. There will be one on the west coast and one on the east coast. There are two Air Corps helicopters at Finner Camp in County Donegal and in County Waterford. We will be well served around the coast and will be able to get quickly to any emergency. The service will also have night flying and long distance capabilities with the Sikorskys. There are huge steps taking place in that regard. While so much needs to be done, much is happening at present. That is something with which I am happy but I am trying to accelerate it as much as I can.
The adventure centres issue is an important one. I am conscious of the loss of life both at Dunmore East and in Sligo. Deputy Browne and Deputy Finucance raised this matter. The Department's function in Sligo was in the conducting of a study on that beach which showed the undertow and the shape and nature of that beach. As a result, The only thing to do is to warn people strongly and clearly of the danger. The Department provides back up to the local authority by providing the facts. It is the local authority which is in control of that beach. The Department will give any assistance it can. I would be anxious to see that anything which can be done there is done.
There are large notices on some of the beaches in County Wexford telling people not to swim because of the undercurrents. Such notices are necessary. Many people observe signs warning swimmers not to swim outside the flags but often good swimmers ignore such signs. If there are serious undercurrents, those people need to be advised in the notices that it is a seriously dangerous place to bathe. We must make sure the beaches are well signposted. After that, it is difficult to stop people. One cannot guard fully against misadventure on the part of those who have no knowledge of the sea.
Deputy Browne made a valid point with regard to the existing signposts. The signpost at Standhill beach stated that one should not swim at that location and it was probably in place a long time. The people involved were from the locality. Some people would be unaware of the fact that there are such things as riptides and undertows. They see a lovely beach and they wade out to their waist, not realising that the sands can shift due to the undertow and suddenly they are swept out to sea. A "No Swimming" notice is not adequate. As there are only a few beaches which are vulnerable and most other beaches have lifeguards, the local media should warn of these dangers. People may decide to ignore the warnings and there is nothing one can do about that, but there is a need to make people conscious of this.
There was also a criticism that the slipway was obstructed when people needed to use it. That is probably the responsibility of the local authority and not the Minister, but it is a disgrace that basic provisions are not in place. Often lifebuoys have been thrown into the water and none are available, for example.
Deputy Browne made the point about smaller harbours and the necessity to link with the local authority. I am aware of one where I go swimming at Kilteery, between Foynes and Glin. It is a lovely little place but it is beginning to crumble and fall apart. A couple of thousand pounds would do what is required but the local authority does not have the money. The Deputy made the excellent point that, having identified the small harbours involved, consideration should be given to granting the local authority a small sum of money to improve and develop them. Many tourists who spot a small harbour will spend a few hours fishing or swimming, even though it would not be a regular place at which to swim.
One needs clear signs if there is a structure which causes undercurrents or rip tides. I would like to have discussions with local authorities where we know of such situations. We give the information to the councils, but they are responsible. Sometimes people innocently believe that they will be safe if they only go out up to their knees or waist, but the situation can be more dangerous. This is an urgent issue.
Ballybunion is a safe beach and when the lifeguards are on duty the flags are flying. I remember taking a chance and swimming at Ballybunion when the lifeguards were flying a warning flag. The sand shifted beneath me and I never took that chance again. It is most frightening when the base on which one is standing recedes and the tide nearly pulls one out.
At Hook Head in Wexford one sees the kinds of signs which make it very clear that it is dangerous to swim. I am in contact with the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, pressing the case for adventure centres.
The report on Killybegs was a good report which indicated the measures necessary. I will promoting it in any way possible. We are looking for additional funding from various quarters. Unfortunately, the fisheries operational funding programme is exhausted. Our marine engineering studies show that if something is not done the pier at Killybegs will soon become quite dangerous. We are trying to arrange funding for it.
Preparations for the next allocations are under way. Any expenditure at Killybegs will be spread over a number of years because the port is so large. The same would apply to other major expenditures such as Castletownbere or Dingle. These are major fisheries ports which belong to and must be supported by the State. We have to see what funding we can secure for them.
We are also looking at the future commercial prospects of the ports and the totality of their operations. I announced this recently in Dingle and we will be developing this process. We have done so with commercial sea ports and we have to see what we can do to attract investment into the ports. I believe that Killybegs has a multifaceted investment potential. The port handles one third of our fish catch and there is tremendous potential for leisure development. Three thousand people in the area depend on fishing. There are opportunities for marina and sea-related developments. Considerable offshore opportunities also exist.
People will say that this has not happened but the early bird catches the worm. One can see some examples which have been highlighted by the Marine Institute. Now is the time to make comprehensive preparations and that is what we are trying to do. This is obvious in the case of Killybegs but it also applies to other ports.
There are difficulties in that moneys are allocated in advance and these moneys are used up. Killybegs, Castletownbere and other ports have been getting a share of the money. Further moneys have been allocated for different activities in this year's allocation. Major capital investment programmes have to be looked at separately.
Phosphorus incendiary devices were mentioned by a Deputy. Some 28 devices have been found to date - one in Belfast Lough and 27 along the coast. I particularly congratulate the IMES units who have been searching beaches in a systematic manner. They are trained for this kind of work. The Army, Garda and Civil Defence units are continuing to give great assistance. The public has been very helpful. This is a serious situation.
A scientific study was carried out last year on Beaufort Dyke, including the use of an ROV. These are available commercially and one can obtain them when necessary. We will be examining whether it is worthwhile or necessary to have one and whether the funds are available. We will also examine who should have it. The Marine Institute has conducted searches and investigations using this equipment which facilitates the examination of the ocean bed. Anything found was recorded and noted. The question is what disturbed the material in or around Beaufort Dyke.
When the Minister says recorded and noted, does this mean that he knew these phosphorous incendiary devices were there? Are there considerable quantities of these devices?
I have a figure of 2,500 tons related to similar kinds of materials. The totality is into millions. Very heavy deposits of armaments went into the 1,000 foot deep Beaufort Dyke. Once they go down one would not expect them to come up because they are heavy. There is also the danger that some were dropped short of the dyke and have been disturbed. Some have suggested that ocean currents were responsible. This is hard to believe as this is heavy material. However, that was one suggestion.
There is also the possibility of initial disturbance, such as that caused by the laying of a pipe, and that was a problem in the past. Fishing operations which scour the bottom of the sea near the dyke can disturb these objects. Some have asked if the material surrounding them has degraded. That will have to be investigated. Detailed scientific studies concluded that it was best to leave them lying there and that anything which might escape would be so small and dissipated as to be of no relevance. Once phosphorous stays under water, there is no problem with it. It is only when it is exposed to air that there is a problem. We are working with our UK counterparts on this. We have had very good co-operation in the past and they are promising the same this time.
It is interesting that the principal players are the Government, officials from Northern Ireland and the Scottish Office. This is interesting in terms of the British-Irish Agreement and matters developing from it. It is important the Scottish Office knows what is there and what is happening to it rather than the information being in London. It is also important Northern Ireland knows the detailed information and we are sharing our information with them. It is an interesting example of where practical co-operation is not only necessary but valuable to all the participants and that will probably be the way of the future.
Questions were raised about the area of aquaculture about which there is always conflict. We are about to implement the appeals board for aquaculture licences. We will also be able to implement the legislation passed last year. We have contacted all the nominating bodies and they have given us their proposals. We are now in a position to proceed shortly with the appeals board. The regulations can then come into place. The way to proceed is that decided upon by the House last year which means better regulation and control with appeals systems for people who feel aggrieved. It is an area of fishing with many experts and there are hundreds of thousands of them in the case of inland fisheries. There is constant conflict between the elements and groups and this is something the salmon management task force did much to resolve by bringing people together and getting them to examine the problems jointly. There are still important issues to be resolved and we will have to continue working on them.
Deputy Browne from Wexford was concerned about small harbours and the age of the fleet. He mentioned Kilmore Quay as a shining example. We have all been involved in that. I took the initial difficult step when no one believed in it. I had difficulty at official level in getting people to see what Kilmore Quay could be like. It is a great pleasure for me to visit it now. My efforts were continued by the other Ministers, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, Deputy Barrett and the late Hugh Coveney. A tremendous job was done. Initially it was almost non-existent as there was a pier on one side only to which fishing boats could be tied but the potential was there. It is worthwhile for people to examine what is there now. There are not enough restaurants and hotels in the area to cater for the numbers of people flocking to it throughout the entire season, not just the summer period. The marina is overbooked at all times. Fishing boats have increased their fleets and are doing very well. That is an example of what can happen.
Another area on which I started work a long time ago, and which I remember especially well because I fought so many battles to get people to agree to it, was Union Hall. The question was why there should be investment in Union Hall when Castletownbere was so near. I suggested that people should say that to fishermen in Union Hall, not to me in Dublin. I asked them if they knew where Union Hall was.
Union Hall is another superb example of what local people can do for themselves if they are given the support, capital and belief in their future. There are many examples of that around the country and we must broaden people's vision about the future of Ireland as an island and its potential. I invite the committee to visit one of the harbours to see its potential and formulate its own ideas about it. I would be happy to arrange that at any stage for any who might like to do that, possibly in July.
We will probably take the Minister up on that.
I would be delighted. It would be worthwhile. We need to change people's ideas and to make them realise that, while we received tremendous help from Europe in nurturing the Celtic tiger, that assistance will not be as great in future. We will have to help ourselves more. The potential is there and one area which has it is the area of marine related activities. It must be put across to people, including those who control the purse strings, that the potential is there if they have the guts to invest in it now. It is as simple as that. If they have the guts to invest in the country, it will have a great future. If they do not, we will continue in misery, arguing among ourselves over half nothings. I feel very strongly about this because I have put it to the test in the past. Everything has developed continuously and every little mustard seed planted has grown.
Deputy Browne raised the issue of small harbours under the aegis of county councils. I am examining those.
They were district boards in the past.
They were. We need to begin dynamic work in the area and this committee can contribute to the understanding of the potential and of what can be achieved.
The infrastructure must be right, however. The Minister is right about Kilmore Quay; I have visited it many times and it is a classic success story. Castletownbere is equally successful but many infrastructural improvements can be made there. It amazes me that a port which wants to attract a fish processing business, where hygiene and safety are of paramount importance, has an untidy approach. That is something I noticed in Castletownbere. Everything seemed to be scattered around. It must be asked whether this would attract industrialists in the food business. The Department should examine that. I imagine it would involve a minimum financial involvement within the port, but it is important it is done nonetheless.
I agree entirely but I do not want to specify any particular ports. Some have done more than others in that area. It also requires a cultural change. The money has gone to the processing units to improve, for example, the health standards which have reached a high level. However, the overall standard of the harbours must rise to the same level. That and the future management of the harbours is part of the study we will carry out. With regard to the short-term, however, I accept the Deputy's comments and have taken note of them.
Deputy Finucane made a number of points about A7. The consultancy cost has increased because the Department has taken on responsibility for a number of other areas, such as mining. That accounts for the increase. The herring task force is also part of it. The rest is taken up with the additional functions. These functions are helpful because they create a greater mass in the Department which means the back-up central administration and the number of specialists at that level can increase, although we do not have everything we need in that regard. Nevertheless, a more vital mass is created which is better all round and gives the entire Department greater strength.
With regard to subhead A8, the store is being provided for a valuable stock of rock cores. These are geological drilling cores which are extremely valuable. The increasing activity in that area means a new store is required.
Is it a big store? Does the Department have many acres in that location? Sandyford is a valuable location for a rock core store.
I also raised that question but the location was decided before I took office. Large quantities of these rocks are currently stored there. We inherited the location.
It is a strange location.
It probably was not so strange in the past but now that development has expanded so fast——
It adds an urban dimension to the Minister's job.
Yes. The Deputy also asked about the congested districts. There are three such districts and there is an obligation on the Department to keep them in order.
They are three small piers. I can forward information on them to the Deputy.
The RNLI is an excellent institution and the Department works closely with it. We meet its representatives reasonably frequently to ensure close contact is maintained. It works in co-operation with the Marine Emergency Service so it is tasked as part of that service and does an excellent job in that regard. The Deputy asked about the contributions. They are agreed figures because the RNLI does not want to upset the voluntary nature of its activity. If that is upset too much, the character of its operation will be changed. That is an important factor from the point of view of the RNLI.
We are doing a great deal of work to improve dredging facilities for the RNLI which is not included in that subhead. One such case was Courtmacsherry and we are currently carrying out expensive dredging in Burtonport. It is necessary to bring in its larger, more modern lifeboat.
The Bardini Reefer is still in Castletownbere Harbour and nothing has been done about it.
That belongs to the harbour and if we remove it, the Deputy would miss it. It is now a navigation feature. If the Deputy wishes, we will take another look at it.
It would be about time. It is nearly 15 years since I first raised the issue in the House but the ship is still there. I have made no progress.
We will examine it to see if anything can be done. The problem is that the underwater section has become a valuable fish breeding ground. The fish like that type of environment. The fishermen also like it.
If the top is removed, which I was keen to do, and leave the bottom, the situation might be worse. However, I will examine it again.
It will not cost too much.
I am aware of the Deputy's enduring interest in this matter.
I got a quote from a local construction firm for its removal. It is a small amount so why will the Department not consult the firm?
How small is the sum? Are we talking bucks or mega bucks?
It is between £200,000 and £300,000. That is a small amount.
I thank the Deputy. Subhead H2 refers to the ice plants which are being completed in Kilmore Quay and Union Hall. Others are being completed in Rossaveal, Greencastle, Howth and Killybegs and the subhead covers final payments on them. The ice plant in Castletownbere was replaced.
It is still obsolete. What about the new auction hall?
When the Deputy raised this in the House he referred to the ice plant when he meant the auction hall. It caused a degree of confusion.
A sum of £80,000 has been earmarked to improve the existing structure. However, that structure is inadequate for current requirements. If an auction hall is part of the overall development programme, would it not be better to consider building a new auction hall rather than wasting £80,000?
We are examining the cost benefit of that at present. Presumably, the auction hall will be tidied up in the meantime along the lines recommended by the Deputy.
The Minister was in the process of replying to other questions.
It is worth noting that Castletownbere features in the proposed projects for 1998. The list of proposed projects there will cost £639,000. Other possible projects will cost another £140,000.
Proposed by the Department?
Can the Minister give the committee a copy of the list?
Deputy Sheehan will be interested in it.
The list includes additional power points, a new slipway for Bere Island, upgrading the auction hall, which is being reviewed at present, minor safety works, the consultancy study on infrastructural requirements, the structural assessment of the bridge to Dinish Island, resurfacing, synchrolift inspection, snychrolift platform, timber replacement and minor harbour works. They cost £639,000, which is a fair amount. There are other things in addition to that.
The question of oil rigs was raised. The Deputy will appreciate our difficulty; we would like as much employment of Irish people and use of Irish goods and services as possible. We have had discussions with Enterprise Oil. There was an agreement between the FUE and the trade unions in 1988 about employment on oil rigs but the oil companies who are currently prospecting were not involved at that time and do not feel bound by that agreement. I recently met representatives of SIPTU and Enterprise Oil. I have encouraged Enterprise Oil to provide opportunities for Irish goods and services. It argues that it comes in with a rig which is fully crewed and operational and works for a short time, although in this case it expects to be working for somewhat longer. It says it would have jobs for Irish staff who are prepared to join the company and move with a crew to other locations. It needs to keep teams together and work on that basis.
Some of the people who have expertise would be interested in that option.
If they have I would be glad to hear from them. Enterprise Oil will shortly begin exploration off Slyne Head. It has already placed a contract in Foynes for £2 million worth of supplies, which is very valuable.
The Minister might tell us when he is going out to the rig. I have never seen one in operation and would be very interested to do so.
The Deputy and members would be welcome to come.
I am sure the Chairman would like that. It would be very interesting.
I have been out. I do not mind heights or rocky seas under me. It is very interesting to see the operation of a rig. We will keep that in mind. I think I have covered most points.
The question of good land being used for forestry was raised. It is important to bear in mind that at the beginning of the century 1 per cent of our land was covered with trees. We now have 8 per cent covered and our target is 17 per cent. That would bring us to approximately half the European average; Deputies will see how small the coverage is. In Wexford people object to valuable agricultural land being used for forestry. Good land is also being put into set aside and farmers are deciding themselves to do this. Farmers are very important participants in the afforestation programme and account for approximately 73 per cent of the current afforestation. They will make a major contribution to afforestation in the future. I hope they will maintain this participation because we are highly dependant on them. Farmers are mainly involved in discreet plantings of smaller areas. Deputy Browne will have a large part of the forestry division of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in his constituency, so I hope he will also plant some trees. The Chairman has a very good record for tree planting in his part of the country.
I think the Minister is about to find that tree planting is having a negative effect on communities in the west, leading to protest meetings in recent months. A militant group of farmers is raising the question of being forced out by large investment companies buying tracts of land for plantation. The result is that local people cannot afford to buy land which is being sold at £1,600 or £1,700 per acre. This problem will visit the Minister very shortly. The president of the IFA and a number of western Deputies are preparing a policy paper which will be shortly brought to the Department in an effort to prevent the annihilation of communities. The problem is greater than ever. Afforestation is perceived to be destroying fish life and to have many other knock-on effects, as well as damaging farming communities. These issues have not been considered. I give the Minister notice of what may be in store.
I am conscious of both the environmental and farming issues. Afforestation must be carried out sensitively and in conformity with the environmental requirements. We must remember we are trying to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Afforestation can contribute to this reduction. We are facing tough decisions about the extent to which we can allow economic development to pollute the atmosphere. EU directives are quite strict in this area.
The two main groups involved in afforestation are farmers and Coillte. I understand the issue and I will continue to monitor it.
I support what you said, Chairman. Forestry now covers 8 per cent of the country. The projected figure was down last year. The figure of 17 per cent seems aspirational. From now on protests can be expected because a decreasing proportion of plantings will be on marginal land.
What sanctions can the Minister apply to a body such as Coillte? Killarney's greatest asset is its lakes and the issue of algae on the lakes is ongoing. Coillte recently spread approximately 40 tons of rock phosphate on the forestry along the Flesk river and the tributaries flowing into the lower lake. Heavy rainfall caused most of this to leech into the lower lake contributing further to the algae problem. Has the Minister spoken to Coillte about this? Is it desirable that Coillte should take such an action near a natural asset and a national treasure?
A good deal of work has been done on it because it has been raised fairly frequently. Agriculture generally causes more difficulty. I met with the farming organisations on the issue and I asked Teagasc to work on it. It has produced recommendations for farmers. There is a large amount of waste involved in the use of phosphates mainly because the land involved is not tested. I was amazed to find that rather than test the land to find out what phosphates were needed, most farmers just put more on the land, most of which was wasted. Teagasc is pursuing the issue actively and the IFA has taken a strong line on it.
I support the emphasis on the impact of phosphates. The phosphates come from agricultural, industrial and domestic sources and from some local authority treatment plants. Studies done on water courses in Coillte's areas of operation have shown that about 1 per cent of the phosphates found were from Coillte forests. Coillte operates a tracking guidance system to show where the phosphates are applied. It takes water samples before and after spraying and it is willing to make the information available. It is doing what everyone should be doing.
I have spent time studying nutrition and plant growth. I was amazed to find that agricultural interests were not planning to take samples to see what——
Is Coillte happy with what happened in the lower lake in Killarney?
No, not at all. I was speaking globally. There are specific problems, however. What Coillte does initially is particularly important because it would not apply much afterwards.
A major research study was launched last week, although it did not get any media coverage, on cut-over peat lands. It is a co-operative effort led by Bord na Móna, Coillte and UCD which will cost about £600,000. In 1958-59 I did experiments on cut-over bog near Multyfarnham, County Westmeath, examining similar issues. I do not understand why a lot more research has not been done on the subject since.
The forestry sector is conscious of the problem. The forest service of the Department checks Coillte just as it checks any other body. If Coillte is to develop into a fully commercial organisation we will have to examine the suitability of its carrying out some of its present functions. The Department will continue to have important functions with regard to control and management.
Did the Minister get a reaction from Coillte to the assertion that about 40 tonnes of phosphates were off loaded in the forests surrounding the lower lake in Killarney? There is a feeling locally that this has contributed considerably to the algae problem in the lake.
It depends on how the matter is represented. The 40 tonnes were dispersed over about 90 hectares. I will get further information on the matter for the Deputy.
There is a lot of concern in the area.
Much of the concern is from farmers who——
Concerns have been expressed by a local group set up in the area and by the general body of people in the area.
We will have a look at the matter.
It is important that Coillte responds to the assertions made against it. I agree that there is a wide area involved but the Flesk River runs through it and into the lake. The phosphates leach out and most likely end up in the lower lake.
The sources are numerous and the bigger ones are obvious and continuous and they cause the biggest problems. I will come back to the Deputy on the matter.
We have talked about the percentage levels. County Wicklow, one of the most beautiful, has a 17 per cent level and it thrives. If we get a proper balance we can have a healthy environment.
There are not enough trees in urban areas. Trees are used extensively on the Continent to help clean the air in urban areas, removing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. That usage needs attention in this country.
I congratulate the Minister on his presentation to the committee. Rural communities complain about the conifer plantations which block light. Some of the inhabitants of the Borlin Valley, for example, will not see the light of day within the next five years if the conifer plantations are allowed to continue. If international concerns are to invest in forestry here they should be confined mainly to broad leaf varieties. They will be able to wait longer for a return on their investment from broad leaf varieties rather than the conifers.
The Minister will face a huge bill for the damage done to rural roads which will service the harvesting of these conifer plantations over the next ten years. I was at a county council meeting this week and there was much criticism of the condition of the roads which have deteriorated because of forestry activities. Will money be made available to compensate county councils for the damage done to roads by forestry harvesting?
I was amazed the Minister threw in the towel so quickly on the tuna debate. A very smallnumber of dolphins were trawled in by theseboats.
This matter has already been discussed in the Deputy's absence and the Minister cannot be asked to reply a second time.
Was it possible for the Minister to use his veto to postpone a decision on the tuna issue.
On infrastructure for the mariculture and aquaculture industry, Bantry Bay is the Mecca of mariculture and aquaculture development. The pier at Bantry Bay is inadequate to handle this industry. No reference has been made to creating a proper infrastructure in Bantry to develop its magnificent mussel industry which is the best in western Europe. Urgent funding is needed to expand the pier in the area. The Minister has forgotten about Baltimore pier, one of the most recognised ports in south west Cork. That pier is incapable of handling the number of boats that use it. In answer to a Dáil Question I put down to the Minister two weeks ago, he stated there were no provisions for the development of Baltimore pier.
On the Dauphin helicopter service, one helicopter will be stationed in Waterford, one in Shannon and one in Baldonnel. A helicopter should be stationed in Cork airport to service the Cork coastline up to Dingle. How many breakdowns have been recorded in lighthouses in the past year? I have been informed that the Fastnet Lighthouse has been out of commission on several occasions for 24 to 36 hours. I fear for boats in the area if this occurs during a blizzard or a huge storm. Is it true that Great Britain is now considering remanning the lighthouses off their shores. We should also explore that possibility because nothing can beat the human brain.
On remanning lighthouses, I am not aware of any change in this area from the point of view of Britain. The Department is anxious to build the facilities around the lighthouses into the Marine Emergency Service. We want these facilities and buildings retained within the coastguard service. There are emergency procedures to cover breakdowns in lighthouses. I will check on the specific incident in Fastnet mentioned by the Deputy and I will come back to him on that. Constant checking and cross-referencing takes place in this area. The IMES works 24 hours a day and takes the steps necessary at local level and on a wider basis to contact vessels in danger. The Commissioners of Irish Lights are involved in this area.
On Cork airport as a helicopter base, there is a Sikorsky helicopter with a long range based at Shannon. This is continually examined and monitored. One helicopter will be based at Dublin airport, not Baldonnel, for a variety of reasons. One helicopter will be based in Shannon, one in Waterford and one in Finner. With the back-up available from the UK and so on, there is excellent coverage which we continue to monitor. It was a very big step to get a second Sikorsky.
I agree with the Deputy that our aquaculture industry is crucial and we must develop the infrastructure in that area in a regulated manner. If county councils want to raise issues with my Department, the matters will be examined. Again, there are money issues involved and it is a question of prioritising projects. However, we are making progress in that area. This issue of the pier in Bantry Bay which the Deputy mentioned is very important.
On the question of dolphins, the Deputy accused me of throwing in the towel. I think I went the 15 rounds instead of throwing in the towel and I do not think I could get much more from that discussion.
The Deputy mentioned voting. From the beginning we were outvoted. Even with France and Italy voting with us, we still had only 23 votes. It takes 26 votes to have a blocking minority. In spite of not having a blocking minority, we secured a delay from March to June so that every angle could be discussed in the meantime. Unfortunately, that was the position and we had no veto; we did not even have sufficient votes between us. This is a very important political issue, particularly in France. France and Italy have ten votes each and we have three votes.
We were three short of a blocking minority, but that would only delay the issue for some time. It cannot be delayed continuously. It would have allowed us to delay it further into the next Presidency, which will be held by the Austrians, but they are not very involved with matters of the sea. They are more concerned with green issues. They were helpful to us in facilitating delays to achieve some balance. Britain also tried hard to facilitate us in its presidential role, which was helpful. However, having gone the 15 rounds at least I stayed on my feet. We won some important benefits.
Is the Minister aware there is a special magnetic electronic device that can ward off dolphin?
Did that satisfy the Green Party?
No, it did not satisfy the Council of Ministers. It is recognised that Irish fishermen are not the major culprits in this area and that the methods we are using are in compliance with the UN resolution. It is a difficult situation, as the Deputy knows from his vast experience.
Can the Far Eastern factory ships - the Taiwanese, Koreans and others - fishing for tuna in the Atlantic Ocean operate their drift nets?
They fish for different tuna - bluefin and yellowfin. Strictly speaking, they can, within the UN resolution.
Therefore the UN resolution is obsolete.
The EU has gone further than the UN resolution, which it is legally entitled to do. I made the point that we do not have a problem with dolphins or tuna. There is no conservation issue. There is no clear scientific evidence that fishermen are harming dolphins. We emphasised that point to the extent that people tired of it. However, they recognised that we are not causing a problem in this area. They want to facilitate us where they can. However, I am afraid this decision was made on a broader political basis.
It was an unwise decision by the EU.
There is no doubt that it was unfair to our interests.
Everybody knows that the dolphin only associates with pacific tuna and rarely with albacore tuna.
I thank the Minister, his officials and members for their contribution to proceedings.
