I welcome the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Michael Woods and his officials, Mr. Michael Guilfoyle, Mr. Michael Daly, Mr. Brendan Hogan, Mr. John Twomey and Ms Eilis Kennedy to the meeting to consider the Supplementary Estimate for the Department. There will not be a vote, that is a matter for the Dáil. The Estimate which the Dáil has referred to us is a token Estimate for £1,000. The Minister has not given us much money.
Estimates for Public Services, 1999.
Vote 30 - Marine and Natural Resources (Supplementary).
I am pleased to be here today to put before the committee the proposed Supplementary Estimate for Vote 30 - Marine and Natural Resources. The Supplementary Estimate proposes additional funding for Bord Iascaigh Mhara, under subhead H1, additional funding for BIM's PESCA initiative, subhead H4 and the introduction of two new forestry subheads to the Vote. As the additional expenditure in each case is to be met from savings, the Supplementary Estimate is to be a token Estimate.
First I will deal with Subhead H1, BIM administration. As the committee is aware, BIM is responsible for the overall development of the Irish sea fishing and aquaculture industries. It provides a wide range of financial, technical, educational, resource development and marketing services to the catching, processing and marketing sectors.
Subhead H1 provided £6.5 million this year for the Exchequer grant-in-aid towards current expenditure by BIM. Further funding of £1.387 million is required in 1999 to meet additional expenditure needs for the year. Of that, £789,000 will be spent on exploratory tuna fishing trials; £200,000 on BIM's marketing investment programme; £150,000 on training programmes for the dry hold herring fleet and the herring processing sector; £132,000 on BIM superannuation and £66,000 on BIM's training programme and the Common Fisheries Policy strategy review group.
A sum of £789,000 is required to provide the Exchequer contribution in 1999 towards exploratory tuna fishing trials, conducted with EU support. Ireland's drift net tuna fish fleet is a vitally important fishery for the south west. As the committee is aware, the Fisheries Council decided in June last year to ban drift netting for tuna with effect from 1 January 2002. In light of this decision, I insisted on the need for measures to develop alternative fishing methods which will allow Irish fishermen to stay in the fishery after the drift net ban comes into force. I secured European Commission financial support for a tuna trial programme for 1998 and 1999. The total cost of the EU supported programme is £1.891 million. EU aid of 50% and 20% respectively is available towards current and capital costs. Of the sum required, £1.371 million has been sourced within existing BIM budgets, leaving a deficit of £519,000. Following detailed discussions with the tuna industry, I agreed to expand this year's programme to give as many drift net fishermen as possible experience in alternative tuna fishing methods. The additional cost of the enhanced programme will be £270,000. The total Supplementary Estimate required for exploratory tuna fishing trials is, therefore, £789,000.
A sum of £200,000 is required to fund BIM's 1999 marketing investment programme. The programme, as part of BIM's overall marketing strategy, specifically directs funding towards assisting a number of seafood companies to strengthen their competitive position in the value-added seafood product niche in export markets. The scheme operates through a very focused and clear set of eligibility criteria. Provision for the funding of this programme was made under subhead H2 which meets BIM's capital expenditure requirements. However, the expenditure is entirely of a current nature and is, therefore, more appropriate to subhead H1.
A sum of £150,000 is required to fund the dry-hold herring fleet training programme and the herring processing sector training programme, as recommended by the task force on the management and marketing of herring. Both programmes have now been successfully completed. The objective of the fleet programme was significantly to improve standards and operational practices in the dry-hold herring fleet. The fleet programme provided intensive quality training for the skippers and crews of eligible vessels and encouraged the introduction of on-board quality systems and practices. The processing sector training programme was run jointly by my Department, BIM and the National Food Centre. It provided quality training for plant personnel to support an in-plant product quality programme. The total cost of these training programmes was £700,000. Of this, £550,000 was made available in 1998 leaving a balance of £150,000 to be sought under this Supplementary Estimate. To fund BIM's unbudgeted superannuation requiremnts, £132,000 is required and £66,000 is required to fund the shortfall in EU funding due to BIM in 1999 in respect of training. Budgeted receipts this year for BIM's training programme from the European Social Fund were estimated at £809,000. Actual receipts were of the reduced amount of £748,000. As BIM training programme costs are all fixed costs, this gives rise to an Exchequer funding requirement of £66,000 to maintain expenditure at existing levels. £50,000 is required to fund the administrative costs of the Common Fisheries Policy strategy review group. I established the review group last year to inform Ireland's negotiating strategy in the context of the 2002 review of the Common Fisheries Policy. Chaired by Mr. Pádraic White, former chief executive of the IDA, the group is intensively engaged on a wide-ranging work programme. The work of the group gives rise to certain administrative costs which cannot be met from existing departmental or BIM resources.
Subhead H4 refers to the PESCA initiative. The PESCA initiative, 1994-99 is realising investment in fishing communities in the region of £11 million. A range of diversification projects are in place, including marine tourism and sea-angling projects. BIM is also undertaking pilot projects to help fishermen to innovate and develop new skills to ensure quality-based sustainable fishing. PESCA is multi-funded from three EU funds, FIFG, ESF and European Regional Development Fund. The funds have different mechanisms for payment to projects. Subhead H4 was set up to cover the Exchequer grant-aid and the public element of approved European Regional Development Fund projects. The balance of European Regional Development Fund PESCA projects approved to date has shifted in favour of publicly led projects because of the various BIM initiatives. This has resulted in an increased requirement for current funding of £269,000 in 1999 to cater for the higher Exchequer grants paid to public projects.
New subhead K10 refers to the previous year's FEOGA accounts. The Deputies will be aware that the EU provides substantial funding to Ireland under the guarantee section if EAGGF in respect of certain forestry and fish withdrawal payments. In the process of auditing previous year's accounts the EU discovered two minor overpayments in respect of forestry expenditure in 1996, totalling £4,554.54. The Commission Decision asked my Department to repay these nominal amounts to the EU by way of clearance of previous years' accounts. This new subhead is being introduced to facilitate the clearance of the aforementioned moneys in 1999 and possible future payments to the Commission. I propose funding this requirement by way of a virement of capital savings from subhead K5 - Grants for the Promotion of Forestry - FEOGA guarantee.
New subhead K11 refers to shell marl cases. Deputies may be aware of a soil condition known as shell marl which has resulted in approximately 60 failed forestry plantations throughout the country. Since 1992, certain plantations which were planted in the late 1980s and early 1990s were discovered, at second instalment inspection stage, not to have thrived. Following soil testing it was established that these plantations will not produce a commercial crop and the trees will die due to the presence of shell marl. As planting had taken place on foot of advice from the Department's inspectors or agents, the CSSO advised that the Department was in breach of its duty of care to these applicants and that the plantations were unsuccessful due to the Department inspectors' failures, inter alia, to check for shell marl. Following this advice, the forestry service initiated a process whereby affected landowners were invited to submit estimates of costs to return their lands to their former state and independent evaluations were also undertaken to enable a fair settlement to be reached in each case. Based on quotations received to date, together with independent evaluations it is estimated that the overall cost of compensating affected landowners will be in the region of £300,000 to £350,000. In order to meet this liability I have arranged provision of £100,000 in 1999 to cover the initial shell marl compensation claims. The funding for 1999 will be met by way of virement of current savings of £100,000 through subhead K6 - forestry development. A further £200,000 to £250,000 will be required in the year 2000 in order to reach a fair settlement and conclude the remaining shell marl cases. It is expected that these funds can be sourced from within the forest service budget.
I have outlined to Deputies the detail of the Supplementary Estimate, the cost of which can be met by savings. I hope the committee agrees that the proposals are reasonable and can approve them as presented.
Can the Minister expand on the marketing investment programme for which £200,000 is earmarked? Has the success of this programme with the seafood companies involved been quantified and did it open up export markets for them? Much money has been expended as a result of the herring task force on trying to improve the quality of herring but it is well known that the price of herring is at rock bottom at present. I agree that the quality of herring is important but if the price is depressed, improving the quality will not affect the price dramatically. Furthermore, has any consideration been given to the quality of white fish?
I wish the Minister well at next week's fisheries talks. This is an annual ritual. I will have a tough battle next week as a result of what scientists have stated, after which I suppose the Minister will claim a victory. There is usually movement in favour of the Ministers from member states despite the projections of the scientists. If quotas were set on the basis of the projections of scientists we would lose £25 million from our quota. It will not be regarded as a victory for the Minister to come back from the talks saying he has saved £15 million if he has lost £10 of our valuable quotas. It is well recognised that they are already restricted. They do not need to be restricted further. This reduction in quotas is difficult to understand at a time when the whitefish fleet has been expanded considerably and in respect of which credit has been given. How does one explain it to fishermen in harbours such as Castletownbere who fish for important species such as megrim, cod and monkfish and who now have extra commitments to meet?
KPMG is carrying out an investigation into the Shannon estuary, a matter raised recently at Question Time. How much will it cost to produce its report? Consultants are often employed by Ministers and officials to come up with the expected answer. I have in front of me a PricewaterhouseCoopers document dated November 1998 on a Shannon Estuary Development Limited position paper for discussion. Has anybody in the Department taken the trouble to study it? Does the commissioning of another consultants' report amount to duplication of resources? Let me give a classic example. Coopers & Lybrand produced a report on inland fisheries in 1995 at a cost of more than £60,000 but the Central Fisheries Board refused to accept its findings. Inland fisheries were examined as part of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on fisheries in 1997. Is there duplication and is money being spent unnecessarily? Will we receive value for money in proceeding with yet another survey of the Shannon estuary? The Limerick Leader stated recently that the reports currently available should be acted on.
Offshore oil exploration has been discussed on many occasions by this committee. While I respect what the Minister said, those involved in drilling cannot be compelled to employ Irish workers. It would be contrary to EU law to do so. Two companies will probably be involved in drilling next year - Enterprise Oil and Statoil which has an enhanced profile within the Enterprise Oil Group and which I understand, having spoken to one of its officials recently, will be committed to employing Irish staff and servicing the operation from an Irish base. Enterprise Oil recently invited various people to a reception at Dublin Castle. It proved worthwhile, particularly if it results in a change of attitude and approach on its part to employing Irish workers in servicing the contract. I hope it will show more respect for Ireland. Has the Minister received an application for a production licence? I mistakenly referred to a petroleum licence in the Dáil.
Tuna trial and fishing licences will be allocated in the year 2000. Tuna trial licences were restricted to those with tuna fishing licences in 1996, 1997 and 1998. In the Dáil recently I asked the Minister if those who fished for tuna between 1995 and 1997 and did not receive tuna trial licences would receive compensation given that they had been affected financially. I received a thesis on tuna trials in reply. Will the fishermen concerned be considered in the allocation of licences next year or will the number of licences again be restricted?
These are the issues I wish to discuss. I wish to find out how much the consultants' report on the Shannon estuary will cost, as one does not get much nowadays for £60,000. There should be value for money when it comes to consultants' reports.
On forestry, which plantations throughout the country have failed? Are some counties more prone to shellmarl than others? Will plantations be confined to the best of land? It annoys me intensely when I see prime land in County Meath being planted. None of us thought we would see the day when even one tree would be planted on this land; now hundreds of acres of the best of land are being converted to forestry. Times are changing. It is now more valuable to plant rather than farm land. This is worrying.
On planning permission, which I accept is a matter for my colleague from County Meath, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, there are people living in rural areas who never thought the day would come when they would find themselves hemmed in the centre of a forest. It annoys me that many plantations have been developed without planning permission. Although changes have been made I am still not happy. Planning permission should be required for plantations in excess of 5 or 6 ha.
As I have been informed that the Chairman should not be controversial I will not attack the Minister, but I have a bee in my bonnet about BIM for a long time. I have raised the issue with the Minister on a number of occasions. Are we receiving value for money? Is BIM subject to regular audit? It has many questions to answer about its marketing and investment strategy. It is not contributing as much as it should to the marketing of fish and fish products. The Minister said it helps seafood companies to strengthen their competitive position. I have been informed by many companies that the scheme operated by BIM is too restrictive. The Minister also said that there was a need for a clear set of eligibility criteria. Many companies are of the view however that it is a waste of time approaching BIM as it is practically impossible to secure grant aid and that the criteria laid down should be loosened.
I have raised the issue of mobile training units with the Minister on a number of occasions. Unlike those employed in big fleets, small-time fishermen in small harbours find it very difficult to take time out to attend major training centres and regularly contact me about the need for mobile training units. Some are available but I am not certain they are available as and when required. Also, there seems to be a time lag after people look for such mobile training facilities. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
In relation to forestry, I agree with Deputy Johnny Brady that much prime land - and this applies to Wexford too - is planted and will be so for many years before it comes back into agricultural use, if ever. I appreciate the difficulty. On the one hand we are aiming at certain targets in forestry plantation while on the other people like me, Deputy Brady and others are saying we should not plant top-of-the range agricultural land. Perhaps we could have the Minister's views on that also.
Deputy Finucane touched on the EU talks. We wish the Minister well in those talks. It amazes me that every year whichever Minister is in office has to go out around Christmas time and engage in talks at which there is much wheeling and dealing and discussions on the margins about what will be of benefit to Irish fishing and the European fishing industry. Would it be possible to develop a three-year strategy for European fishing, and reach agreements that would last three or five years? It is unfair that when the Minister has got the best deal he can for the fishing industry here, he has to go back the following year and many of the decisions made will be changed. At Government level, whether in relation to house building, a programme for the Department of the Environment and Local Government, or any other area, we are looking at three and five-year strategies. Surely, we should be doing the same in Europe, so that fishermen would know that any deal negotiated by the Minister would last for three or five years. Is there any chance of moving in that direction?
The first point, raised by Deputy Finucane, related to the market investment by BIM. The scheme, which will operate to a very focused and clear set of eligibility criteria, is designed to plug the gap in the current year for seafood companies which otherwise have applied for or received assistance under the Bord Bia market improvement assistance programme - this is what they call the MIA programme. It is really a transfer from it to BIM. That programme will be reviewed at the end of the year.
In regard to herring trading, generally that has been very well accepted as having been quite successful in improving quality. There are major problems in relation to herring prices. This is one of the means of alleviating them. We have quite a wide participation in those programmes. People who did not participate subsequently came along wanting to participate. It seems to have been very successful. It was a very positive approach, and it came from the task force.
Deputy Finucane raised the question of the negotiations in Brussels next week. It was also raised by Deputy Browne, the Cathaoirleach. He said the talks were amazing and I agree withk him. They go on through the night, and it is fairly rough. As far as the fishing industry is concerned, those talks took over from people shooting each other at sea when issues became so heated that people did battle at sea for fish. The alternative is to sit around the table and do battle there. It is a pitched battle. First, the Commission makes a proposal. With the industry, representatives of which are usually there with us, we fight to get a reasonable balance. We may feel that the Commission proposal is not right. This brings in Deputy Browne's suggestion of a three-year strategy. One can suggest an overall strategy, but we do not know how much fish there will be. Every year there is a massive document on all the different fish in the different zones, in the different ICES areas. Fish are shifting between the areas and they are being depleted, and there is a huge problem with conservation currently. Therefore, we have to work on a yearly basis. There can be an overall strategy, which is coming up again with the 2002 review of the Common Fisheries Policy. That will set broad parameters about where we are going for the future. However, because of the question of stocks, it is necessary to have the issue threshed out each year. The reason for such differences is that the scientific data are not 100% correct. However, they are indicative of the position. There are constant efforts to tighten that up and improve it. We are faced with that every year.
Deputy Finucane mentioned what is saved and what is lost. We normally say what the Commission proposed and what we got, and also what that means in relation to the previous year's quota, how the quota was cut as against the previous year's. It is cut because of conservation difficulties.
Deputy Finucane raised the question of the expansion of the whitefish fleet and conservation problems. There are always problems with fish and it is not always understood scientifically what is happening. Last year we ended up with a very substantial surplus of haddock, and nobody really knew why. However, it was there and it was possible to increase haddock quotas, which was a very nice position to be in. As far as the whitefish fleet is concerned, we have our quotas which vary up and down, but it is a situation we have to manage and it is extremely difficult. Whatever happens, we want a fleet of reasonable size that can continue into the future - we do not want it to shrink too much - and we want it to be safe and viable. That is what we are getting. There are still many vessels which are very old, and we have done a certain amount of modernisation on those. We have a relatively small fleet in the totality of fishing.
Also important for the new whitefish boats is fishing for non-quota deepwater species off the west and north-west coasts. That is beginning to throw up very good information and very good prospects. Some exploratory work has been going on for a number of years. Today I approved a major new £1 million programme to develop this deepwater fish resource. With that programme, we will have up to seven fishing vessels, comprising deepwater trawlers and one deepwater longliner, participating under the direction of BIM. We have been exploring up to this. This is really a major step ahead in that area. The kinds of fish include Greenland halibut, redfish, grenadier, argentines, orange roughy, mora mora, blue mouth, alfonsino, forkbeard. These are all strange to us. There are also siki shark, Portuguese dogfish, blue ling and tusk. I have seen some of these. Some look quite ugly.
Has the Minister eaten any?
I ate some last night, but not because I was coming here today. The eating quality is first class, and the meat is extremely good. They are found at depths of 500 metres to 1,000 metres. Others, like the Greenland halibut exist at depths of 1,000 to 1,700 metres. One would want a long fishing line, but that is what they are doing now. They are non-quota. Up to seven vessels engage in serious fishing off Tory Island and off the Scottish coast west of the Shetland Islands.
Are they catching significant quantities?
They are. That is why we are moving on to this new——
Particular market.
Other countries are doing it now and they are catching significant quantities. It is like looking for oil. The first ones were very exploratory. We have moved on to a much better situation in which we know the fish are there and it is a question of how well we can do the commercial job.
The Deputy asked about KPMG, the Shannon estuary and the reason for another study. The figure he is looking for is approximately £40,000. We need to examine the new position in relation to the ports. We have discussed this matter before. We received the report on the regional ports and we have asked them to make presentations. We are re-examining the possibilities in that regard. The aim is to involve the widest possible area, including leisure, and we need to update the potential in that respect. I know it is controversial locally but it is something we have to examine. We have examined the degree to which people are prepared to co-operate or amalgamate. Things are changing and moving on, but in any event——
Things are not changing?
They are changing.
The November 1998 Pricewaterhouse report dealt with all the ports, cruise liners, locations, performance, etc. What is so uniquely different about this report? I question the value for money in this regard because officials could have extracted the information they wanted - they are in ongoing contact with the ports - from a document like this if they wished. Sometimes we get consultants to do a job for us.
This report is focused more on how to achieve some of the objectives mentioned and the way the bodies involved can co-operate to achieve them.
It is all in that document. I do not know if the Minister has read the document——
I have seen it, but I could not quote from it.
I have studied it in detail. I live near the estuary and I am familiar with what is happening in the area. I was a member of the Foynes port company at one time. It got a commercial mandate in 1997, as a separate commercial entity, from the previous Government and it is a pity that uncertainty appears to be creeping in as a result of this consultants' report on the estuary. While I understand there is a need for co-operation, perhaps people got over excited about a downturn in port activity in Foynes in 1998 which was probably due to a number of factors, including a great deal of unfavourable publicity, of which the Minister will be aware, which did some damage to the port. In addition, the service contract was removed from Foynes and given to Ayr in Scotland by Enterprise Oil as a result of a national dispute by SIPTU involving rig workers. Regrettably, Foynes was made the focus of their dispute and Foynes suffered. That was in 1998, but the projected figures for that port in 1999 are 1.3 million tonnes compared with one million tonnes in 1998. The port has a new jetty and it just wants to get on with its business in co-operation with the Shannon estuary port company. I wonder what people are up to at this stage.
In regard specifically to the structures in the port and their suitability to deliver on its potential, we have strongly emphasised consultation. Anything done in that area will be done only by consultation.
The Minister knows my sentiments on that. I represent the area and I feel strongly about that.
In relation to Enterprise Oil, the Deputy knows the situation well. It holds two exploration licences which are valid until 2004 and 2010, but we have not yet received an application for a production lease from Enterprise Oil and obviously the questions the Deputy raised are serious in that regard. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing with Enterprise Oil and the atmosphere has improved considerably.
I do not want to use the term "charm offensive" but representatives of the company have met many Members of the Oireachtas, particularly from the west coast. There was also the function in Dublin Castle. From the company's point of view, that was an excellent exercise because prior to that it operated on a detached basis which was often confrontational by its nature, but there is now more involvement. I hope that involvement will lead to positive trends with regard to Irish workers within the constraints of EU laws.
I share that view. In relation to the tuna trials, under EU provisions they were based on the previous three years. The number of vessels was related to that.
There is also the question of compensation for those that fished in 1996 and 1997.
There is no compensation provided for in the Estimate.
It cannot be considered, can it?
We had the conversion scheme which assisted vessels to convert to the new form of fishing.
I accept that. I am talking about the people who fished in 1996 and 1997. Unfortunately, they did not make the frame for the allocation of tuna licences because they did not have a 1998 track record. Is there any compensation mechanism for those people? If there is not, I will tell them that.
There is no mechanism currently in the scheme. Deputy Brady raised the question of forestry and the areas in which it occurred. That is the shellmarl problem. The total area, subject to shellmarl and related cases, is likely to reach approximately 400 hectares or 988 acres involving 60 or so landowners. It occurs mainly in the Shannon basin and in the midlands.
Is there a reason for that happening in those locations?
It is the geological condition of shellmarl. It is where it occurs.
So obviously it would not be right to plant forestry there?
No. People are well aware of the problem now and their practice is to identify and prevent the planting of shellmarl sites. Soil testing was introduced in 1994 at the grant approval stage and since then only one further case of crop failure due to shellmarl has emerged out of a total of 10,000 cases processed. It is unlikely, therefore, that there will be further exposure to it.
One will not qualify for the grant aid if it is——
No. It is at the grant-aid stage that checking is done. We cannot be absolutely certain there will not be any difficulty from it. With regard to the areas that are likely to be affected, only one in 10,000 cases has occurred since that time.
There was a question about forestry and planting. Most of the planting has been on land designated as being disadvantaged land. Needless to say, the foresters like to get the best land they can, especially in the case of broadleaf trees. We are a long way behind and the Members will be aware of the figures. At the start of the century it was 1% of the land. The country had been virtually deforested. It is now up to 9% as a result of the work of successive Governments. The target is 17% and Wicklow is the only county to have reached it. The people who are doing most of the planting are farmers who account for 80%.They are doing it on the basis that it yields a good income and is a good long-term investment. We are grateful to the farmers for keeping up the plantations because we need to reach the target of 17%.
Deputy Browne raised the issue of BIM and value for money. BIM is doing an excellent job, particularly this year. It is working closely with the fishermen and it has introduced some excellent programmes, including the whitefish fleet programme. BIM carried out an analysis of the inshore fishing industry and we intend to do something about that sector. It had a tremendous input into the national programme and is active in all the different sectors. It is developing aquaculture and is looking forward to real prospects for development in that area for the future. BIM has also done much of the training and has been most helpful to us in dealing with the problems we had with herring. BIM is now more focused than it has been in many years. It is working under the SMI process now so its performance in terms of the audits on performance, which the Chairman asked about, is under regular review under the SMI system.
There was a question about seafood. The criteria are generally from the EU and they are quite strict. With regard to the point raised by the Deputy, I will have to look at that again. We like to give as much assistance as possible but we are bound by the criteria. However, we will look at them again and see if anything can be done in that area.
The Chairman also mentioned training and the mobile unit is particularly important there. When fishermen are on training courses they get payments. There might be people who cannot fit it in, but many of them are doing the training courses now and that is increasing. A study is being carried out on training and it will produce a short-term report which will throw a good deal of light on the training area generally. There has been a new development in Castletownbere where approximately £500,000 has been invested in a new training unit. It has high quality, state of the art equipment. However, there is more to be done in that area.
Is the Minister aware that the herring industry is in a complete shambles? There is no price for herrings. Whatever prices are offered are quoted by the tonne for fishmeal. There are 70 people unemployed in Castletownbere in the middle of the herring season because there is no demand for herring. The task force that was established a year ago has done nothing to secure a solution to the problem. There is no market and I do not know where it will all end with so many people laid off. Is the Minister going to do anything for the herring industry?
The overall market for herring is still depressed and the problem has not been alleviated to any extent. The work that was done has certainly improved the quality. The officials of the Department together with the Marine Institute, BIM and the industry are working closely on a comprehensive programme to implement the recommendations of the task force.
The key recommendations of the herring task force have been fully implemented. The quality training programmes for dry-hold herring fleet and for the herring processing sector have been completed. The industry led, herring industry marketing group which will develop and co-ordinate industry strategies to maximise returns to the herring sector and to act as a forum for dialogue and concerted action has been established for some time. The pelagic market co-ordinator which was recommended is now on the job and is working to further develop the market.
It is not visible.
It is. I have been at meetings with fishermen and they have welcomed the work he is doing. They said it was extremely helpful.
With 70 people unemployed in Castletownbere in the middle of the herring season and no prospect of getting employment for Christmas?
The remaining recommendations are also being implemented. These include the development of funded research and development programmes and carrying out studies into herring offal use, investigation into the potential markets for herring milk and management and conservation initiatives. That work is ongoing. We knew it would be a difficult period but the necessary steps are being taken to strengthen the industry. The focus will continue to be on developing new market opportunities and maximising the quality. There are external factors which are outside our control but everything that can be done in that regard is being done to improve the quality and meet the market requirements.
Mayo County Council made estimates in relation to Darby Point and I am asking that the Minister's officials deal with these immediately. Darby Point is one of the few places where Mayo can land trawlers and boats in the Achill area. There is an extension to that pier and I hope it will be dealt with quickly. There was grant aid from the Department but the estimates were more than that amount. It does not make sense to leave it there when money has been allocated to it. More money is required.
At a Mayo County Council meeting I made a proposal requesting a meeting with the Minister about the gas find off the Mayo shore. There is great concern in the county about where the gas will be brought in and what benefit it will be to the county. I ask the Minister to give a commitment that he will meet a delegation from Mayo County Council and that the gas should not be brought ashore unless County Mayo, which has been deprived for many years, has an opportunity to gain from a natural resource. The county has, probably, the greatest natural resource which is the sea but few people on the Mayo coast are employed in that sector. The county has not gained from that resource over the years. The fishing sector in Mayo has suffered because it has not been a political issue with many Ministers in the past.
The gas is different. People are getting organised and they will not allow a natural resource to be brought out of the county. They fear the county in which the resource is located will not gain from it. I ask the Minister to address this matter in conjunction with the Minister for Finance. We met the oil companies recently and I know their thinking on it. They do not really care, they are there only to make money. However, ultimately, the product will not be taken out that easily because we will fight that matter to the bitter end. We are getting organised in that regard.
Will the Minister meet representatives of Mayo County Council and provide money to put in place whatever infrastructure is needed? Projects in County Tipperary, County Kerry, County Mayo and elsewhere were included in the national plan but there was nothing about putting in place the infrastructure to bring the gas into County Mayo, which would benefit the people of Connacht. I hope the Minister will discuss this matter with the Minister for Finance and the gas company. There will be a battle about it, and it will be one of the biggest battles ever fought in the west. We have been deprived since the foundation of the State and we will not let go this asset. This is the first time we will be organised and we will do whatever is necessary to ensure the people of the west get their fair share in relation to this natural resource. I ask the Minister to meet the council and to establish a definite policy on this matter. What has to be done about the infrastructural problem to ensure the people of the west benefit from this asset?
The Deputy's first question relates to Darby's Point. I undertake to examine that for the Deputy and to come back to him on it.
Gas has been found but it a question of its commerciality. This issue should be cleared up in the coming year. From that point of view, the Deputy is correct to look ahead and ask what will happen if gas is to be brought on-shore. Enterprise Oil is considering the issue in terms of where it could be brought in. I share the Deputy's interest in ensuring the west benefits. That is also my view, but the Department of Public Enterprise is also involved in terms of where the links will be. The issue of distribution is the subject of negotiations between that Department and Enterprise Oil. My Department is involved in the exploration and bringing the gas on-shore. Once it is on-shore, it is question of connecting with another operator or the company delivering the gas itself.
There are many imponderables in respect of all those issues. I am prepared to meet a delegation from Mayo County Council in conjunction with the public representatives if they wish to do so early in the new year. While I cannot give all the answers, I will listen to their concerns about our areas of responsibility.
That is fine.
That concludes the committee's consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. I thank all those who contributed to the interesting debate. I also thank the Minister and his officials.