There are two items on the agenda today - the Revised Estimates for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the Horse and Greyhound Racing Bill, 2001. I suggest we deal with the Estimates until 5 p.m. and, if they are not completed at that stage, we will return to them at a future date. However, we might be in a position to finish consideration of them. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Fahey, and his officials: Mr. Michael Guilfoyle, Mr. Maurice Mullen, Mr. Mick Prendergast, Ms Josephine Kelly and Mr. Brendan Buckley. Perhaps the Minister would open proceedings and the spokespersons will respond.
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 30 - Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (Revised).
My speech has been circulated and it might be more productive rather than taking up time reading it if I scan through the main points which will allow more time for questions.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Estimates for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources for 2001 which call for the expenditure of £176.62 million on the activities of the Department. As part of the national development plan, which provides for unprecedented development of up to £1.4 billion to 2006, we have an administrative budget of £22 million covering 481 staff. The most challenging aspect of my Department's work is the difficulty of recruiting and retaining staff. We are down 75 on our full staff complement which creates a heavy burden on existing staff. The retention of staff and the recruitment of quality people into the service is the major challenge facing the House and the public service at present.
A number of projects will proceed this year in commercial seaports at a cost of £2.88 million. That is from a total investment under the national development plan of £120 million. We have a marine tourism programme with £7.2 million being spent on marine access infrastructure, mainly marina development around the coast which is sadly lacking and which has significant potential, especially along the west and north-west coast. We have a coastal protection programme with a spend of £5.09 million this year. Coastal protection is an area on which a great deal of money can be spent without seeing much in the way of results, but it is a crucially important area from the Department's point of view because of significant damage around the coast as a result of coastal erosion.
Marine research is conducted by the Marine Institute which does wonderful work on behalf of the Department and the country. We will spend £19.4 million on this out of a total of £41 million during the period of the plan.
We will spend £50.8 million on sea fisheries and aquaculture development, areas where 12,000 people are employed. While there are many challenges in the sea fisheries area, we will roll out a number of programmes this year to improve the fleet and make fundamental developments on the processing and marketing of sea food. We intend to generate a new impetus in the branding, marketing and quality of Irish sea food to make it among the best in Europe.
We continue to invest heavily in the aquaculture industry where there is significant potential and significant growth from salmon to shellfish to various other species. We had a problem with the mussel industry for which we had to have a recovery plan this year, but we hope to tackle the problem successfully in the coming year.
The five fishery harbour centres together form the main engine room of the sea fishing sector. We have major development proposals for Killybegs, Castletownbere and Rossaveel and planning will commence on Dunmore East this year.
Some £25 million is being provided for Bord Iascaigh Mhara which is the main semi-State body involved in the development of all aspects of the fisheries industry. I compliment BIM on an aggressive campaign of development. The Department, BIM and the Marine Institute are the development agencies for the peripheral regions and for the most far flung parts of the country which are most in need of development.
There is a series of programmes with the emphasis on the inshore fishery sector, which is the sector employing most people. The national development plan aims to develop it with investment, conservation programmes and a regeneration of the industry which suffered in recent years. Sea food processing is about to witness a sea change in its development. We have a disconnected industry with small companies operating in isolation. We need more integration and significant capital investment. The industry should be integrated with the catching sector to bring it into the modern era. With Údarás na Gaeltachta and Enterprise Ireland, we are establishing a new development programme which will soon be ready.
We are providing £2 million this year to support aquaculture, for which my colleague, Deputy Byrne, has responsibility. The emphasis of this investment is salmon farming, which has the greatest potential. It must be sustainable and environmental concerns, where new salmon farms are established, must be considered. There is a conflict of interest between the demands of the industry and of the environment. A programme will deal comprehensively with that. Difficulties relating to the licensing and appeals process are mostly corrected and there is a more efficient system now.
We are spending £17.5 million this year on inland fisheries, operated through the central and regional fisheries boards. There is £1.6 million for tourism angling. Our inland waterways are our greatest resource but over the years they were affected by pollution and water quality is low in some places. That is a challenge for all of us. Agricultural, domestic and commercial effluent create a difficulty. The big challenge is a comprehensive programme to deal with water quality. For the first time the three Departments involved - my own, Agricultural, Food and Rural Development and Environment and Local Government - have come together for a tripartite approach to water quality.
In 2001, we are spending £82 million to support forestry, which employs 1,600. Forests cover approximately 9% of land, one of the lowest proportions in the European Union where the average is 31% . With the EU's approval, we increased forestry premiums for people planting. This should increase the level of planting. The issue of people who were involved in plantations to 2000 not having their premium increased is still under consideration.
There is £157,000 for mining development and a high level of prospecting throughout the country. Although our major mines are experiencing problems in profitability, there are significant developments. We continue to review the tax regime and listen to the mining industry's case for a better one. In the petroleum and gas sector, there are economic benefits from the Kinsale Head and Ballycotton fields. Over £40 million is being invested by Marathon to extend the life of the Kinsale Head field, which will contribute to our gas requirements. Taking onshore gas from the Corrib field is a priority and we assist Enterprise Energy in doing this. Planning issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of Mayo County Council and foreshore licences must be considered. As I stated in the Dáil, we will examine rigorously the applications to ensure that the environment and other aspects of life in North Mayo are protected. It is important that the programme is achieved on time. I am concerned to avoid vexatious objections to what will be the most significant economic development for the west.
Our Department is diverse and often seen as the Cinderella of the Government. When I came into it, I found to my own surprise that this was not so. The Department encompasses a wide range of activity affecting rural Ireland, especially the peripheral regions and the coast. I always thought of Ireland as a green country, not an island with a golden coastline, which is what it is. For some reason as a nation we never portray it like that. Off our shores we have a huge natural resource in the continental shelf which, unfortunately, other countries know more about than we do. It has natural resources, not least in fish. We will be doing a seabed survey to research its assets and utilise its resources better. There is an exciting time ahead for the marine sector and for areas across the spectrum from mining, petroleum and gas to forestry and the timber industry. The latter has potential but needs rationalisation and development.
I agree with the Minister that there is a view of his Department which under-estimates its importance. It is, in fact, one of the most important areas, not only economically but also environmentally. People may be surprised at my saying this, but I think that an estimate of around £177 million is a pale reflection of the importance of the Department's work. I am glad the Minister decided not simply to go through the text but to extemporise a little on it because he was a good deal more informative than the text. The text made no mention of the difficulty about the pre-October 2000 forestry grants to which I will return shortly. It made no reference at all to the Corrib field and none to the extension of the Kinsale Head gas field. These issues seem important.
There is a great deal in the Estimate. I propose to take up some of the issues raised by the Minister and dealt with in the text and then to comment on the Estimate. The Minister speaks of a total investment of £120 million in commercial ports during the period of the national development plan. The intention of this investment is expressed eloquently but is very general. Will the Minister give us some details for the period of the national development plan as to where he envisages new infrastructure or the upgrading of existing infrastructure, where there might be an improvement of capacity utilisation and where we might see some strengthening of intermodal connections?
We have a series of problems in our commercial ports ranging from the continuing lack of the Dublin Port access tunnel to the continuing lack of rapid egress from the various parts of the port of Cork to other parts of the country. We have seen in both cases where measures that were taken to improve access to and egress from the ports have been overtaken by the effects of local traffic congestion. This is not a criticism of the port authorities. When the southern ring road and the Jack Lynch tunnel were built in Cork they provided in the short-term a substantial improvement in conditions but this has now been overtaken by the level of local traffic congestion in Cork. I do not know if the Minister has tried to get from Ringaskiddy to the Glanmire roundabout during rush hour but it is quite an undertaking. It is bad enough to do it in one's private car but if one has to drive a 40 tonne articulated truck with a container of urgent goods to or from the port I can only imagine what a nerve-racking experience it must be. Dublin and Cork suffer particularly badly in this way. I had a discussion recently with a member of the harbour board in Waterford where, again, local traffic congestion creates regular problems for port users.
There is major work to be done in this area. I have to say that £120 million seems to be very little in the context of what we face during the period of the national development plan. I suggest that the committee might support the Minister if he were to look for a larger allocation to deal with the kind of problems we have. I know that some of the expenditure I mention would be accounted for under the Estimates of other Departments or bodies but there is a need for a more urgent appreciation of the need for progress.
The Minister has promised to launch an initiative in the autumn of this year for marine tourism. Will he indicate what the content of this initiative might be? If he expects to launch it in the autumn he must have a fair idea at this stage of what it will contain. Under the heading of the marine and natural resources tourism programme the Minister is to provide an allocation of £4.5 million over the period of the national development plan for marine access infrastructure. Will he give us some idea of where these works will take place? He has spoken of marinas, slipways and harbour development. There is surely a schedule of the particular projects envisaged this year and next.
The Minister also mentioned coastal protection. I am glad that more attention is being given to coastal protection problems now than in the past. I do not single out any particular Government for criticism but there was a long period when we did not pay enough attention to the problems of coastal protection. Again, the Minister states that the programme for this year involves 30 projects some of which are managed directly by his Department, the majority are carried out in conjunction with local authorities. It would be useful to have an indication of what are those 30 projects. Thirty projects at a cost of £5 million suggest that a number are very small. Are any of them large enough that will make a significant difference? I can think of a number of areas that have coastal protection difficulties, of which County Wexford is just one where several million pounds could be spent and the problem would still not be resolved. If we have 30 projects taking up £5 million is any one of them of a size to make a real difference? Like Deputy Sheehan, I am sure Deputy O'Keeffe has a few coastal protection projects that would be dear to his heart.
I am repelling the Atlantic from the rest of the country for the last 60 or 70 years.
The Deputy is a great man.
The Deputy and the Minister, Deputy Walsh, have it under control.
The Minister spoke about marine research and has provoked one of my natural outbursts of cynicism. In his text he says that clearly the sea is a critical resource for Ireland and offers huge potential returns for strategic planning and investment. Ever since I started reading Government plans and programmes, going back to the first one I read written in 1958, I have read the phrase that the sea is a bountiful source of all kinds of riches, goodies and employment opportunities. Every development programme I have seen since says the sea is an enormous resource and will generate huge employment. Forestry is another area about which we say the same thing. They never come true.
If all the increases in employment forecast in Government programmes from the exploitation of the resources of the sea and an expansion of forestry had actually come true we would have had full employment by 1980. It is nonsense to talk in these terms. It is just puff of the worst description and gives rise to utterly unrealistic expectations. The fact is that the development of marine resources is very expensive, very difficult, a long-term business and very contentious. No matter where one looks one can find contention. We have huge philosophical rows about how we present and should treat the economics of the abstraction of oil and gas. We have even bigger rows, as the Minister knows, about what we should do to bring them ashore.
We have enormous ideological battles about the taxation regime for exploration. It goes through cycles which we go through again and again. When we actually have the development of marine resources we find the problems. The Minister mentioned the problems we had in the mussel sector this year. We all know the problems of fish farming in bays and inlets around the coast. They are all very contentious. To present them in some way as being the deus ex machina of economic development in coastal communities is just a snare and a delusion. We should not engage in that kind of thing, it is wrong to raise expectations in that way. It contributes to general cynicism when people see that for the tenth time we have forecast huge employment and income gains from these resources and they have not happened.
In dealing with sea fisheries the Minister rightly made the point that there is now the beginning of a major review of the Common Fisheries Policy which he says will be commencing at next month's Fisheries Council. That is inevitable and to be welcomed. The Minister has spoken about a major policy debate that will take place at EU level. I suggest that we have a small part of that major policy debate in this committee. It would be timely to look at the matter.
I know the Minister will agree with me when I say that the sea fisheries sector has seen very uneven development. The largest and most sophisticated fishing vessels on the Irish register, including one that may be on it, are not really engaged in the Irish sea fisheries industry. They spend most of their time being used elsewhere. The largest vessels that fish in Irish waters are not Irish vessels. The biggest number of persons employed in fishing in Irish waters are non-nationals. I am not starting a crusade against anybody. What I am saying is that for generations we have failed to put in place a fisheries industry that really capitalises on our location. Many efforts have been made to put this in place but we always seem to have got it wrong. There is another review of the Common Fisheries Policy. We should have another look to see whether there is a way in which the Irish sea fisheries sector can become a real and active participant in the exploitation of fishery resources around our coasts. We must bear in mind however that these resources are increasingly endangered.
The Minister mentions that he will spend £2 million on the aquaculture sector this year. As I am not clear how this sum will be spent perhaps the Minister will give us some further details. It is not terribly clear from the Department's brief. Aquaculture is a sector which is the subject of great contention. I have seen aquaculture developments that seem to be entirely appropriate for where they are and are making a real economic contribution but I cannot think of any that has not been the subject of some contention. It is for this reason that there is a licence fee system.
Will the Minister indicate the co-ordination between his Department and its work and Waterways Ireland? It might not be too polite to ask him to give them but it would be interesting to hear his views. I would like to know if Waterways Ireland has come together yet, even though I know that it is not strictly the Minister's business. Is there provision for a co-ordination of efforts between the Minister's Department, particularly its activities in relation to inland fisheries, and the work of Waterways Ireland? Does the work of this body impinge directly on inland fisheries? Our limited experience so far of Waterways Ireland has not given me the conviction that it is really tuned in to how it should work with inland fisheries.
There are a great many areas of friction between those involved in the inland fisheries business and Waterways Ireland which have not yet been resolved. Just in case the Minister thinks that I am criticising unduly outside my own area I can tell him that already there are problems rumbling in the case of the Barrow and the Barrow navigation. The possibility of development of inland fisheries is not being helped by the approach being taken by the other authorities involved.
I ask the Minister for his opinion on the current state of the wild salmon tagging scheme and the effect it has had on salmon fishing. He says that catchment management is the way forward which seems to be self-evident. I ask him to give the committee more details about co-ordination between his Department, the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the local authorities and Waterways Ireland. In recent years I have been heartened to see work being done on catchment management. A number of initiatives have been started. You will be aware, a Cathaoirligh, of the three rivers project, on our doorstep, where a new approach is being taken to catchment management involving all the local authorities. I imagine that the Minister and his Department are consumers of the kind of services that good catchment management should produce and I would like to hear something about the level of involvement and co-ordination between the work of his Department and that being done in the framework of catchment management.
There is no mention by the Minister of any emerging idea of what the impact will be this year on the range of activities of his Department across all its main activities such as inland fisheries and forestry of the foot and mouth disease restrictions. Will the level of investment in these sectors this year be affected? Will this mean that the out-turn in expenditure under many of these subheads this year will be considerably less than the provisions made?
Like Deputy Connaughton and other members of the committee, I am very disappointed to hear the Minister say today that the question of the increase in grants for pre-October 2000 planting is still under consideration. I do not know for how long it has been under consideration. The Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Hugh Byrne, certainly gave a number of people to believe that it had advanced past the stage of being "still under consideration". They were looking forward to the imminent announcement of the application of the increases to the pre October 2000 planting. Recently during questions in the Chamber, we found that was not the case. There is a simple decision to be made here. If the Minister thinks it would help, I am sure the committee would be prepared to pass a motion in properly balanced, well judged and polite terms to support the Minister in persuading the Minister for Finance to come up with the money in the hope that the Minister for Finance on this occasion might be in better humour than he seemed to be in the Ballymascanlon Hotel about a week ago.
This issue is very straightforward. I doubt if any member of this committee has any objection to the proposals. All it needs is about £3.5 million this year to sort it out. It would increase the expenditure by that amount, indexed we hope in future years, but that is what is needed to make the decision now. It is a long awaited decision and one which, I am sure, the Minister would like to see made. On behalf of my party colleagues and, I am sure, on behalf of the entire committee, I assure the Minister that we would be only too delighted to give him any assistance he might need.
There are some areas in the Estimate which give rise to questions. I will not go into a lengthy examination. Under capital expenditure coastal protection is an area where in 2000 the out-turn was £872,000 less than had been provided. It said that the savings arose from delays in executing planned works due to difficulties experienced by local authorities in obtaining statutory permissions and procuring acceptable tenders. In a case like that, there should have been a pipeline of projects so that, if one project fell out, the work could move on to another one on the list.
Similarly the provision for the development of fishery harbours in 2000 was £11 million and the expenditure was £9,948,000. There was £1.1 million budgeted for and not expended. I am sure there should not have been huge difficulty in identifying the next project to move on to in order to use the provision. I am delighted to see the provision for this year is £17.7 million, which is £7.75 million more than was spent in 2000. With £1.1 million out of last years provision not spent I wonder if the same thing will happen this year. Can the Minister take steps to ensure that if there are projects that have not yet got the necessary permissions or licences another project can be substituted so that we can go ahead with the programme without a major disruption?
On subhead C of the Estimate for this year, we still have the Loran C navigation system and the brief from the Department mentions the concerns of local communities in the area of the planned site. Is this the originally planned site in Loop Head or is it a new site? I read recently of a community that seems to be of a mind to accept the erection of a Loran C mast.
Is there any reconsideration of that system in light of recent events over GPS? When the original proposal was made for the Loran C mast to be located at Loop Head, a reasonable case was made on the grounds that first we needed a system that could supplement or replace the Decca system, and, second, the GPS system was vulnerable because the United States had a terrible habit of occasionally throwing a wobble into the system. The US authorities have decided to stop that. They are no longer taking the system down for periods, so we have a constant coverage. I am told that it is now technically possible to get an increased level of confidence in navigation by using the American system and plugging into the Russian system, which gives two complementary fixes, one of which confirms the other. I have not heard whether the Russians throw a wobble into their system. Which of the planned sites is being referred to here? Has there been any reconsideration of the whole project in light of the changes that the Americans have made in the way that they operate the system?
There is a great deal more in this Estimate that needs examination. Subhead I.2 for example, refers to conservation and management of fisheries. The out-turn in 2000 was about £500,000 less than the provision for the year. The provision was £1.1 million and the out-turn was £600,000. It says that certain planned capital projects were not undertaken in that year and provision has been made for those projects in 2001. The provision for this year is £1.5 million. Can we be sure those projects will be undertaken?
The Minister makes provision for the marine emergency services in subhead B.5 of the Estimate. I note there is provision for coastguard accommodation building. We all pay tribute to the people who provide the coastguard service. There is also provision for building a hangar at Waterford Airport for the helicopter base there. Does the Minister agree that although the service we now provide is immeasurably better than having no service, it is a long way short of what would be desirable? We have an east coast and a west coast service provision. The Irish SAR service now is of very high quality, very reliable and a great many people have reason to be grateful to it. However, they cannot cater for current needs with the existing equipment and size of the service. Consequently, we need to have recourse to the UK authorities for assistance very frequently. Unless I am greatly mistaken, measures to develop and improve search and rescue services are provided for under the Partnership for Peace, which a certain colleague of the Minister once said we would not join without a referendum. However, when he got into Government, he changed his mind and proceeded, justifiably, to join without a referendum, his remarks having given rise to a great deal of cynicism along the way, which has implications for the current debate on the Nice treaty. However, I may be digressing.
Has the Minister carried out any evaluation of the extent to which we would have to extend the service to meet the current observed needs around our coasts? My "guesstimate" is that we would need to quadruple the present resources to meet the actual requirement for this service. Does the Minister intend heading in that direction, so that we might eventually provide a level of cover in line with the demands which are manifested off our coasts year after year?
Will the Minister give an update on the current position in the discussions about bringing gas ashore from the field off the west coast? Will he tell us if he is in sight of a conclusion as to what will happen there? I know there are many concerns in County Mayo on how the development will be handled. There is the inevitable direct conflict between the people who are interested in employment and those who are concerned with conservation and the environment. I am not convinced that enough attention has been given to the conciliation of those two, on the face of it, conflicting requirements. It would be useful to have the Minister's view on the present state of the discussion and whether we are in sight of a conclusion that would be satisfactory all round.
I am calling Deputy Bell next. Today's meeting must conclude at 5 p.m. and we will resume on next Wednesday.
I had another appointment for 4 p.m. today. In view of the short time remaining, I will wait until the next meeting. Perhaps we could have the Minister's response to some of the points made by Deputy Dukes.
Why can we not finish this evening?
Because we agreed with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to take his Bill today. That was agreed by all sides. In my naiveté, I thought one hour would be sufficient for this meeting.
There is a problem, which I already pointed out to the Minister. I only got the Estimates documentation for this meeting just before lunch time today. Then I was told there was only an hour allowed. I did not even know that this Estimate was to be considered today. As a spokesperson, I would expect to be notified a reasonable time in advance, so that I could arrange for a colleague to deputise if necessary. We really need more time to go through an entire Estimate.
In fairness, Deputy Bell's colleague, Deputy Penrose, would have known of this from last week.
Yes, but I had asked that the documentation should go directly to the spokespersons.
I have no difficulty in coming back to another meeting and spending whatever time is necessary on the Estimate. Unfortunately, I will be away in Newfoundland next week. My Department was only notified by the committee on 17 May. I regret the problem to which Deputy Bell referred.
I will respond to some of the main points raised by Deputy Dukes. We are dealing with a problem of traffic congestion. For the first time, an in-depth analysis has been made of the transport logistics around our ports by a task force which I recently established and which includes experts from all relevant walks of life. I agree that there are transport bottlenecks around all our ports. The main thrust of the exercise was to look at how we might change time schedules with regard to port transportation, change from road to rail in some instances, look at the possibility of oil pipelines replacing tankers and various other issues, including the diversion of some traffic away from Dublin Port to some of the regional ports in the short-term, pending completion of the tunnel project. All of the major ports will be part of the investment programme and they are currently being asked to submit their proposals under the national plan within the next month or so.
I have great respect for Deputy Dukes as a politician but, from what he has said at this meeting, he is rather ill-informed about some of the marine issues. The contentious nature of issues which existed five or ten years ago, no longer applies today. We have moved on considerably. We have worked our way through many of the major difficulties, not least being the issue of the aquaculture industry versus the environment. We have greatly improved the efficiency of our licensing arrangements and we have an independent appeals board, ALAB. I will have a meeting this evening with groups from each of the two sectors, as part of the excellent communications process which is now in operation.
Ten years ago, there was major confrontation, but that is not the case any more. There are problems across every aspect of my Department's work but it is not correct to say there are seriously contentious issues which are not capable of being solved. Much of the work of my Department officials is dedicated to communications and information activities with various stakeholders, to ensure that problems are being dealt with effectively. There is no major ideological debate about taxation of companies involved in oil or gas exploration, although there is one small interest group which kicks up a shindig every now and then.
Generally speaking, all parties in Government have been in agreement with the policy being pursued since 1992, of trying to attract as many players as possible into our offshore exploration sector. Although Ireland is reputed to have attractive terms, only four wells are being drilled this year and the outlook for next year is not at all bright. Most commentators are in agreement that, until we find an oil or gas province off our coast, there is not much point in talking about a tax regime which will bring wealth into the Exchequer.
Outside of the small and very boisterous lobby to which I have referred, there is a substantial level of agreement right across the spectrum. Ireland has the best pelagic fleet in Europe. We have only one boat operating outside of European waters, namely the Atlantic Dawn, which was launched this year. We have a new white fish fleet of 28 boats. This is the first time in 30 years that we had a renewal programme for our fishing fleet. There are many 30 to 40 year old boats which must be replaced. They are not up to preferred safety standards. However, it is not correct to say that most of our fishing fleet are outside——
Most of our large vessels are fishing outside Irish waters.
We only have one.
Perhaps two.
All others are operating in EU waters, and all of the Killybegs fleet - which is the main part of our fleet - is in EU waters. There is much co-ordination between Waterways Ireland and the inland fisheries sector of the various boards. While there may be difficulties in isolated locations, it has not come to my attention that there is any great problem in co-ordination between the two sides. We strive to have more significant co-ordination and synchronisation of the various works undertaken by different bodies involved in the same waterways. However, my Department has a strict fisheries role whereas Waterways Ireland has a waterways and boating role. I am not aware that there is any major difficulty and, if there is, I will be happy to look into the matter.
On the wild salmon scheme, we have largely reached agreement with the majority of salmon fishermen. In principle we have reached agreement with the angling group, FISTA. They are prepared to tag wild salmon subject to clarification of a number of issues to their satisfaction. We have communicated with them, mainly on the ban of rod caught salmon for sale, as recommended by the Commission. The reduction of the requirement for log book information is another matter agreed. We have overcome the difficulties and are in the final discussion with FISTA to reach final agreement, which we expect shortly. I commend all involved for their enthusiastic support of tagging.
On the issue of catchment management there is great co-ordination involving local authorities, the farming community, the fishing community and local development associations. Catchment management is the only way to go. The only people who have a difficulty with it, strangely, are some angling groups in isolated parts of the country, particularly Kerry. I hope they realise that catchment management is the way forward. Everyone should have a stake in the development of our rivers, in the protection of our water quality and in the growth of fish stocks which are precariously low in some locations.
I will give the committee written details of the coastal erosion programme announced in March. The committee was busy with the foot and mouth crisis in March.
The Corrib gas project is one of the most significant under way. Mayo County Council has received a new planning application from Enterprise Oil. It decided to submit a new planning application because so many aspects of its first application were found to be deficient. We welcome that Enterprise Oil found it worthwhile to submit a new application dealing with many of the objections made. It also submitted a new environmental impact survey as part of its application for a foreshore licence. That is because the company's original EIS was not sufficient to give us the information we required.
I am confident that the environmental protection necessary for the north Mayo coastline will be put in place. There will be a rigorous examination by my Department of all aspects of the application for the foreshore licence before we make a decision on that. The importation of gas on the Mayo coast can live in harmony with the utmost protection for the environment of the area. When all checks and balances are in place, and if Mayo County Council find all is correct, I am hopeful that the people of north Mayo will have confidence in the decisions made by the council and my Department and will support the project. I am concerned that some people are minded to object without regard to the true picture regarding the project. If they disrupt this project without good cause, it will be a sad day for north Mayo and for Ireland.
Thank you. Hopefully, we will conclude at the next meeting in two weeks time.
Sitting suspended at 5.05 p.m. and resumed at5.09 p.m.