On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern. I understand the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, will attend later. I also welcome the officials from the Department. The clerk to the committee has circulated a draft timetable for consideration. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.
Estimates for Public Services, 2003.
Vote 30 - Office of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Revised).
Our clerk, Mr. Lenihan, received the updated outline of the Estimates at 5.40 p.m. and we then received them from the committee, which is not even 24 hours ago. It is regrettable that we did not have the information from the Department this time last week at the latest. It is difficult to invigilate such a huge Department and huge territory when one is given information at the last minute. It seems to be part of a pattern whereby the Fisheries Bill keeps on growing. We will deal with it on Thursday and it will have grown another tail. The same applied to the Digital Hub Development Agency Bill. There should be a more efficient way of doing business.
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to review the Estimate. I apologise to Deputy Broughan and accept the notification was somewhat late. The fact that there are so many divisions in the Department is a manifestation of how busy it is. However, we will endeavour to get the information to the Deputy faster than was the case last night. This is the first appearance of the Secretary General, Brendan Tuohy, at a Dáil committee under the new Department. The Deputy Secretary General, Sara White, has been here before. I am also accompanied by Una Nic Giolla Choille from the finance unit, Brendan Hogan and Kathleen Magennis. There are two other assistant secretaries in the Public Gallery, Cecil Beamish and Peter O'Neill, my adviser, Catherine Licken, and Mick Prendergast. We are all very well represented here.
As I have provided a fairly detailed speech, I will not go through it in detail. I will flit through it. I apologise for having to leave at 5.30 p.m. but the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, will replace me. The Department is a wide-ranging economic one, which spans a huge area. A great level of detail is required in the Department. The Estimate provides for a net expenditure in 2003 of €301.7 million. This is a substantial provision, ranging across communications, energy, marine safety, seafood, marine research, inland fisheries, forestry and broadcasting sectors.
Some €30.35 million was provided in the Estimate for critical marine safety, with more than €26 million for the Irish Coastguard service. Approximately €20 million is being provided to meet the cost of marine research and rescue helicopter provision at Dublin, Shannon and Waterford. This week the 12 hour search and rescue service at Waterford was increased to a 24 hour service.
On seaports, harbours and tourism, there was the launch of the two month consultation process in relation to the high level review of State ports. Some €30 million has been allocated for new harbour development, the vast bulk of which will go to Killybegs. It is due for completion in 2004 and is a significant development in the Irish fishing sector, not just for Killybegs but for the north-west region. There has been an unprecedented level of investment in the area of coastal protection in the past five years on a cumulative basis. There is a provision of €1 million in the Estimate for this year.
In regard to marine research, there was the recent launch of the multi-purpose researchvessel, Celtic Explorer. This is very significant infrastructure in developing our research resources at sea. When I was in Oslo last Friday I saw its sister ship. While it is not as good, it won an award, I believe for shipping vessel of the year.
We have two state-of-the-art marine research vessels, vibrant marine research programmes, a new hub for marine research, and investment in the Marine Institute's new headquarters to be built in Oranmore. We also have very significant funding for marine research and development in the 2003 Estimates, including a continuation of the very significant national seabed survey led by the Geological Survey of Ireland. In the area of sea-food development, almost €39 million has been invested in 2003, in addition to €30 million in fishery harbour infrastructure referred to earlier. Some €21 million has been invested in inland fisheries in the current year to support the central and regional fisheries boards. Recent developments include the EU water framework directive and the national spatial strategy. We are carrying out a high-level review of the State's involvement in the inland fisheries sector, with a view to making recommendations on possible future directions for management and structures of the fisheries services.
In the forestry area, funding of €82 million is being made available in 2003, a sizeable portion of the expenditure of the entire Department, as its net expenditure is €301 million. In the energy sector, €13 million is being made available to underpin energy conservation and promote the uptake of alternative energy resources delivered through Sustainable Energy Ireland. A long-term comprehensive view of energy policy is being finally wrapped up and will chart the course for a couple of years ahead in the sector.
Communications form a major part of the Department. There have been major Government initiatives to assist the private sector, to address gaps in the regional and national communications infrastructure. The sum of €32.5 million being spent this year is part of a €65 million allocation over this year and next for the broadband infrastructural developments, the metropolitan area networks. This programme will result in the construction of open access metropolitan area fibre optic networks in 19 areas around the country. Four are already under construction, and the roll-out will continue over the coming months. Our aim is to reach the top 10% of OECD countries for broadband connectivity. We are also conducting wireless LAN trials in a number of locations, in which we are assisting the private sector. We are also supporting the further development of multimedia. Deputies and Senators may have seen the quite significant developments in the digital hub in recent times.
Committee members will also be well aware of recent developments in the broadcasting area, in particular the culmination of a year's work by the Department, both publicly and behind the scenes, in order to ensure the international soccer games are free to air. I thank the committee for its co-operation here and in the Houses of the Oireachtas in getting the relevant legislation passed. The outcome was very successful, and it was with some satisfaction that I attended last week's game.
I want to highlight the issue of the fund for public service broadcasting. This is an innovative step. It will amount to 5% of the licence fee, and come to approximately €8 million this year. We will bring forward the relevant legislation in the near future. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to outline the broad range of issues with which the Department is involved.
I welcome the opportunity for us to discuss the Estimate for this year. It is a rather futile exercise debating Estimates when they have already been decided on, yet it is an opportunity to comment, and possibly have an impact on priorities for next year.
It is unfortunate that the Minister must leave at 5.30 p.m. We will therefore not have a chance to go through each section in detail, but we may do so with the Minister of State, Deputy Browne.
While I have the ear of the Minister I will focus on some of the areas about which I am concerned, and will give credit where it is due in certain areas. We have made some advances in maritime safety and research. The Celtic Explorer is a fantastic project which I support. I look forward to the seabed survey it will undertake. I also welcome the increase in funding to the Irish Coastguard service, though I ask the Minister to look seriously at Cork Airport as a possible destination, and also at the north-west coast, which is not adequately covered from an air-sea rescue perspective.
I was in north-west Spain in recent months to look at the clean-up operation after the Prestige disaster. This re-emphasised for me the need to have a vessel that has the capacity to tow a large tanker carrying toxic waste, oil or any hazardous substances. The Minister has said he will consider acquiring such a vessel. The State does not currently possess one. That issue is referred to under the marine sector, but it is clearly stated that no progress has been made. It is something at which we need to look as a priority for next year. I will raise the issue again when the Minister of State arrives.
My serious concerns are in two areas. The first relates to forestry. I am hugely critical of the Department and the Minister regarding the approach they have taken. There have been cutbacks from €116 million to €82 million. This will mean a cutback in the number of hectares planted from approximately 15,000 hectares last year to about 10,000 this year which will probably include an extra 2,000 hectares planted on the strength of payment being made next year. The industry has done this in an effort to maintain the planted hectare area. In real terms, the cutback is about 40% which is also reflected in an approximate 40% drop in planting. If one examines the figures, one finds that not only is there a real fall in the allocation of money, but it represents a lessening of priority. Last year, forestry received 21% of the departmental budget. This year the figure has fallen to a little more than 17%. The forestry budget last year was €116 million——
€106 million.
It is a total of €115.641 million, which to me is pretty close to €116 million. This year the budget is €82.581 million. These are the figures from which I am working.
The Deputy has a misprint.
I understand the need for every sector to take its fair share of pain if cutbacks are required. However, forestry is taking far more than its fair share. It is down in percentage terms of the overall budget within the Department, as well as in real terms. Clearly, the sector has been earmarked as a non-priority area for investment in an era of cutbacks. In the long-term that is a mistake and inconsistent with policy commitments by the Government over the past six years. In 1996, former Deputy Ivan Yates, as Minister for Agriculture, introduced a policy programme called Growing for the Future. It was taken on as Government policy by the last Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. It was restated that between 2001 and 2030 we would plant 20,000 hectares per year. In 2000 under the rural development plan it was again stated. In the programme for Government, the same figure came up again. Perhaps, most significantly, with all the other commitments, we can say we will not achieve it this year, but will try it in the years ahead.
Under the PPF which only has 18 months remaining, there is a specific point under the action plan which was a key point in getting the IFA to sign up. It was a commitment to plant 20,000 hectares of forestry. Not only have we not moved towards the outlined target, we are now moving away from 15,000 hectares to 10,000 this year. Forestry is an industry that needs continuity. If we take the example of the nursery industry, it works on a three to four year cycle to plan ahead. We are offering no continuity and are in danger of destroying a forestry industry that we have built up successfully over the past decade.
The impact of the cutbacks will be significant on unemployment figures, a reduction in VAT to the Exchequer and funding for forestry. A figure of 50% of the grant aid is matching funding from the European Union. The Department will dispute this, but it is not a sustainable position for us to draw down the same funds annually from the European Union and yet cut back on planting. It is a matter of time before we lose funding from the Union, which makes no economic sense.
It is a developing concern in the fishing industry that the European Commission, under a directive which will come into operation on 26 June, is to insist that all tonnage not in use within the Irish fishing industry in January 2003, will become null and void. If that happens, approximately between 15% and 20% of tonnage will be affected and the European Union has stated that the Government must pay compensation to the Irish fishing fleet. Will the Minister confirm this?
If this is the case, why have we not heard of it before? Did the Minister and his Department agree to this policy during the Common Fisheries Policy negotiations in December? My information is that this was something that was on the table since last autumn. It will have a devastating impact on the fishing industry. Furthermore, in this year's Estimates we need to put compensation figures in place for boat owners who will be affected by this policy. Is it the case that those who have ordered new boats and bought expensively for the necessary tonnage to operate larger boats will lose that tonnage? Where will fisherman upgrading to larger fishing vessels actually purchase tonnage to get a licence to fish? This is as big an issue if not bigger than the Irish box and has a direct impact on the Estimates.
I thank the Minister for his overview of the Department. I echo the comments of Deputy Coveney on this type of discussion. Most of the vast interests in the economy are looking at the situation for 2004 and it would seem more logical for the Dáil to order its business in order that we would have some input. We know how the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is working and a headline in the Sunday papers stated that there will be massive budget cuts in budget 2004. Serious decisions are being made about the 2004 budget in June and July. When we get to September, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resource will make his final argument for his Department. In the interests of Dáil reform - I know it is a matter for other committees - we should give an opportunity for input by Opposition and backbench Deputies into the forthcoming Estimates.
I note that all the Ministers have been given marks out of ten by an enterprising journalist. The Minister got a seven which put him in joint second place. As a former teacher, I can only give a four or a four and a half. The Department needs a Minister with a dynamic national vision, yet it seems the current Minister responds to matters on an ad hoc basis rather than coming forward with high aims for the economy.
The Department is an amazing amalgamation of the old Departments of Public Enterprise, Marine and Natural Resources and parts of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. The grave failures and incompetence in the last Dáil of the former Ministers, Senator O'Rourke, Deputies Fahey and de Valera, have placed the current Minister in the new Department on the back foot from day one. The Minister will agree with me if I say that he spent much time trying to recover the broadcasting area from the morass into which it was dropped this time last year.
The Estimate shows a singular lack of national vision in a number of key areas. I echo the comments of Deputy Coveney on forestry. The Minister is a kind of a vandal in that ten to 15 million young trees have been destroyed as a result of his savage cut in the provision of funding for the afforestation grant and the premium scheme. It seems that last year the new Department took the easy option with forestry for a range of reasons. As my colleague said, instead of keeping up the targets of 20,000 hectares set out by the then Minister, Ivan Yates, in Growing for the Future, the Minister has allowed significant slippage in the first year and it seems this will continue into the future.
The Minister knows the forestry product involves a 40 year life span and the product is an important one. If one allowed slippage in planting levels six, seven or eight years ago, as happened in this case, it would be hard to regain that ground in the future. When one talks to workers in the forestry industry, it is astonishing to find that the national effort in this regard is still so deplorable. Of 25 European countries, Ireland has the lowest percentage of forest cover, at around 9% compared to countries such as Greece with 28%, Italy with 34% and Scotland, which is similar to Ireland, with 25% to 30%. When Ireland gained its independence the rate of afforestation was down to approximately 1% and it has been a long effort of the past 80 years to increase the rate.
The impact of the Minister's cutbacks probably did not get a great deal of attention, although I know my colleague here raised it in the first month I represented my party in this portfolio. The impact of the cutbacks are such that up to 1,000 full and part-time jobs may be lost, young trees will be destroyed and there will be a setback to the national forestry strategy. It is rumoured that the Minister will abandon the strategy and that he is planning to review it with consultants following which he will downgrade the effort. Grave concerns have been expressed by people engaged in the forestry industry that this is the case. Many colleagues have referred to the fact that forestry performs an important and useful role in the Irish energy sector in relation to the Kyoto Protocol, in particular, because of its locking in of carbon. The assault the Minister has made on the industry is deplorable. I urge him to acknowledge that in terms of forestry for 2004 that is a grave error and he should reconsider this decision.
I also want to deal with the fishing industry, our inland and sea fisheries, and broadband. One of the most appalling instances of chicanery from the last general election was the failure of the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, to honour his promise of €1million funding to trout fishermen. The general programme to improve our lakes and rivers appears to have been abandoned by the Minister, which is deplorable given the value of angling to the country.
I commend the Minister on some of the measures he has taken on marine safety. However, following the report in recent days on the tragedy of the Pisces, I question the reason we do not have a major towing ship.
Last week a number of speakers contributed to our hearings on broadband and on the information society and they made a passionate indictment of the Department and the Ministry. They showed us that we were at the bottom of the league table and that we had lost our competitive edge in the past three or four years. The Minister's recreation of a national grid for the country in terms of communications is too little too late. One of the most impressive persons we interviewed came from a school in the Ministers area, St. Vincent's. Having regard to what the people there did and the resources they need, the Minister clearly has a gigantic task ahead. I can only give him a fairly low mark at this stage. I urge him to do much better in 2004 because for our country's sake we need to start putting more resources into these areas.
Sitting suspended at 5.05 p.m. and resumed at 5.20 p.m.
I call Deputy Ryan of the Technical Group to make his opening statement.
I am glad to get the Minister's ear before he departs. I was making the point off the record that I was the one Opposition spokesperson who was willing to say from where we would have got the money, if we were in a different position. At his encouragement we came out with a programme last Friday detailing what we would have done differently and where we would have raised money. As to how we would have spent it——
I am all ears.
Having shadowed the Minister for a year, let me say this is an interesting and important Department. It has huge breadth and potential for the better development of the economy and the protection of the environment. As a member of a small Opposition party, I have to shadow three Departments, but the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources takes up 70% or 80% of my time and about 80% of my interest. I have an instinctive feeling that the development of our natural resources has great potential for the development of the economy and the protection of the environment. I measure our progress in this area by asking whether we are fulfilling this potential. Are we using our natural resources to move up the value chain and extract as much value as possible from the resources we have? If we take the answers to these questions as a yardstick, we are not fulfilling this potential. We are not making the most of our resources and not protecting the environment to a sufficient extent. I am critical of the fact that we are missing these opportunities.
The revised Estimate set out by the Minister is typical of a broad malaise in terms of the development of the economy and the performance of the Government. A casual glance through the various headings shows increases in salaries and wages, travel and subsistence, consultants' fees, office machinery, etc., but there are decreases in the productive areas that help to protect the environment and to develop the economy. There are decreases in areas like forestry grants and fisheries protection, which are at the sharp end of delivery. A similar criticism can be made across the board in terms of the last Government, which threw money at many issues. The funds were stuck at the consultancy, advisory and bureaucratic levels, however, and did not make it to the level of implementation. This criticism can be made across the board in this programme, in which bureaucracy is developed and maintained but effective implementation is not seen. That is the general criticism I would make.
The Minister's brief is so wide that it is difficult to go through it thoroughly, but I will refer to a few areas that stand out. An explanation of the dramatic reduction in inland fisheries protection is not provided in the briefing note that has been given to me. It is an important reduction, however. There has also been a cutback in the budget for salmon research. A colleague of mine said astutely earlier this week that perception is nine tenths of the battle in politics. The perception of a depletion in the quality of the environment matches the reality in the area of water quality. Those who are acquainted with our river fisheries are aware that there has been a loss of salmon and trout from many rivers. While this might not be the most important economic issue facing the country, it is of huge symbolic importance in terms of the protection of the environment. When our grandchildren look back on an era in which salmon - incredible and precious creatures that could teach us a thing or two about homing instincts, survival and adaptation to one's environment - used to run up many rivers, they will be astonished that we wiped them out without any apparent regard for them. Although the problems I have outlined are continuing, we are cutting back our budget for fisheries protection which does not make any environmental sense. Last week's Indecon report demonstrated that it did not make any economic sense. Investment in and protection of river and lake resources is a good example of something that needs to be done if we are to move up the value chain, to take the first broad analysis I made. We will get an economic gain from such an approach.
I do not have personal experience in the area of energy, but I have heard from others about energy conservation and the promotion of energy reduction measures. It has been reported that while we have a strong bureaucracy, it is not leading to action on the ground. This conservative bureaucracy is producing many reports and papers and is apparently engaged in a great deal of activity, but very little is taking place on the ground. The Minister should be cognisant of what I am hearing from people involved in energy conservation. I am sure he is aware that there is a widespread sense that the promotion of renewable energy is failing and that the AER system is not working. It is highly unlikely that a further project, AER VI, would work, for a range of reasons similar to those which made AER V fail. Such reasons include the failure to provide grid connections, give proper incentives, or provide a stable market.
The one feature that characterises the Department more than anything else is the number of regulators dealing with aspects of it. It is time for the Minister to become involved once more and start making more statements and issuing directives to the regulator. He should not allow to continue, for example, the stagnation we have seen in the development of renewable energies. When one talks to people involved in the industry, one is asked the reason the electricity grid cannot be alternated to ensure we can tap into the huge wind resource in the west and north-west. People involved in the AER grid system say they are instructed to follow the market instructions, which are to go for cheap gas. Decisions are taken on that basis. We will not go anywhere if the Minister does not take the lead and provide direction. The rest of the western world wonders why Ireland, a country with one of the richest renewable energy resources in the world, is doing nothing with it.
When the Estimate for communications was published last year, I was pleased that the local loops and the metropolitan loops were being supported. I was glad the Minister had protected that budget and had provided for it. I can give credit where credit is due in that regard. A huge amount of work still needs to be done, however. We are trying to provide physical infrastructure, but how we get to use it is a difficult question. About six months ago, I asked every Department to outline the percentage of their telecoms budget spent on the different suppliers. The vast majority of Departments, including the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, said 100% of their line business was with Eircom. A budget of €700,000 will not break the bank, but if every Department was to divide a similar amount of money between the various users, it would have an effect on the communications market and start to introduce competition, something we do not have. I was already aware of this figure, but it jumped out at me in this Estimate. The Minister could do something about it.
I disagree with my colleague, Deputy Broughan, who cautioned against a review of forestry policy. The 1996 policy needs to be reviewed, mainly on a commercial basis. Are we producing a product that the market wants and for which there is an economic value? I discourage those who pull back from such big questions, as there is no point in continuing to plant many hectares as if that is our sole purpose and all we have to do. The Minister needs urgently to review forestry policy on the basis of a need for a product we can sell. I said earlier perception was almost everything. The native woodlands and neighbour wood schemes may be written off as small or insignificant, but they are hugely important to neighbourhoods. I can think of a dozen neighbourhoods in my constituency that would benefit hugely from a neighbour wood scheme. Paltry funding was provided for schemes in these areas after some discussions, but the Minister needs to extend and improve them. Perception counts for a great deal. If we develop our forestry industry through schemes such as the native woodland scheme, we may acquire the technology, thinking and vision that might change the commercial forestry industry, as well as the aesthetic local sector.
The figures in the Estimate relating to broadcasting jumped out at me. I approve of the Minister's decision to increase the licence fee, which is raising €160 million this year, and applaud him in that regard. The amount raised from the licence fee spent on the collection system, the Broadcasting Commission or other ancillary, regulatory, non-essential or non-programming services is a typical example of what I spoke of earlier. After six years of the Government, we have a huge amount of bureaucracy, many reports and very little investment in real change.
We will now begin a general discussion on the Estimate. I suggest that we proceed with the Estimate in order, beginning with subhead A. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will take subheads A1 to A12 which relates to the administrative budget. Does the Minister have any comments to make?
A number of Deputies, particularly Deputy Eamon Ryan, raised the issue of the costs of salaries and why there was an increase. The 2002 base figure includes only half a year of administrative costs from the transferred functions while these are included on a full-year basis in 2003. One is not comparing like with like. If the new Department had been in place since January, the cost would be an estimated €48 million. This brings the increase to about €6 million or some 12.5%. Of this, €3.2 million is accounted for by salaries and a further €1.6 million by a special EU Presidency allocation.
Before I go, am I allowed to respond to some of the points made? Is that the procedure? I can give some of the information, but perhaps not all in regard to questions raised.
I am advised that we should continue the way we are going. Perhaps the Minister——
Can we suspend Standing Orders, if necessary? With all due respect to the Chairman, if the Minister is about to leave and he wants to reply to some of the questions we asked, it would be absolute nonsense not to allow him to do so.
I will be as brief as I possibly can.
Can we make an allowance for five minutes?
I apologise for putting in on the Chairman. Deputies may not like to hear what I have to say in regard to forestry. I will give some indicative figures which show the Estimates for recent years. This year it is €82.5 million; last year it was €106 million; the previous year, 2001, it was €102 million——
Sorry, €116 million.
No. I am referring to the revised Estimate figure. The outturn was €116 million. The Estimate was €105 million in 2000; €91 million in 1999 and €73 million in 1998. As Deputy Broughan knows, I love to remind him of how much was given when his party was in government, which was €36 million in 1997. That was doubled the next year. In 1996, the famous year that the former Deputy Yates was involved with his great plan, only €11 million was allocated. This year we are allocating nearly eight times that figure. In 1995 the figure was €17 million. In response to Deputy Broughan——
The Minister is not misleading the committee in this area, because of the nature of——
We are trying to go through an agreed procedure.
Given that we had been told that the forestry industry, as we knew it, would face Armageddon this year, I looked at the figures over recent years and it is a fact that a total of €600 million has been invested over the past seven years, an annual average of €85 million, not far from what was given this year - €82 to €83 million.
I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan whose question is a legitimate one, if we accept the figures he quoted in respect to how low we appear to be in forestry. However, having spent €600 million over the past six or seven years it is not unreasonable to ask whether the taxpayer has got value for money. We should look at that issue generally to see if there has been a return to the public for a large proportion of my Department's spend. I would expect the committee to support at least an investigation in that respect.
On a point of information, Chairman, a significant percentage of that money comes from the EU budget. It is not as if it is coming directly from the Exchequer. The Minister is close to misleading the committee.
A sizeable proportion of the money is Exchequer funding.
In regard to fishery harbours, the level of spending has gone from €2.6 million in 1995 to €30 million in 2003, 11.5 times more than the 1995 figure. Spending on marine research was just €5 million in 1995, up four times to €20 million in 2003. Energy spending is up from €3 million in 1995 to €13.6 million, 4.7 times more. Spending on safety has gone from €10 million in 1995 to three times that level or €30 million.
It is sometimes said that the rainbow coalition left at a time when there was plenty of money but the facts speak for themselves. When one looks right across the heading there has been a dramatic cumulative increase in recent years.
Forestry industry representatives suggested that there would be wholesale lay-offs, wholesale burning of trees and innumerable difficulties. This is an area on which the Minister of State would be better able to speak because it is delegated to him. He is adamant that we will be able to get a considerable level of planting done and that planting is still ongoing.
Is the Minister saying that, regardless of budgetary considerations, he is reviewing whether we should plant 20,000 hectares of trees per year?
I am asking if the taxpayer has got value for money, in view of the historical spend in this area, an exponentially increasing spend since the Deputy's party was last in office.
The programme for Government states the target is 20,000 hectares per year, as does the PPF.
On the issue of the tonnage of fishing, it is not true that this issue was discussed either in or en marge of the December Council. This matter surfaced no more than three weeks ago. We have already engaged with Commission officials in regard to this, on the basis that we do not accept their interpretation in respect to tonnage.
Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to inland fishery protection. He referred to the Central Fisheries Board as well as regional fisheries boards, again, an area delegated to the Minister of State. We are examining this area in respect of value for money. Many of the fisheries boards have a fairly high membership, some with up to 21 and 23 board members. As far as we are concerned, fisheries board protection is operating as it was in previous years.
The Minister's promises——
The reason for the reduction in the Vote in respect to salmon research is that quite a number of issues being dealt with under that heading have been transferred to the Marine Institute. I am criticised no matter what I do in regard to salmon. There has been some dramatic criticism by those on the other side of the argument in regard to salmon tagging, on which we are following the evidence of the scientists.
In relation to CER, to which Deputy Eamon Ryan referred——
Did the scientists not advise the Minister of a quota of 140,000 tonnes this year, yet a quota of 182,000 tonnes was issued?
Yes, a quota of 182,000 tonnes was issued. We will endeavour to gradually get down to the level recommended by scientists.
Did they not advise a quota of——
They do not have a monopoly on wisdom in regard to this matter. If we were to listen to the scientists all the time, we would——
The Minister just said he had followed the scientific advice. Did they advise a quota of 140,000 tonnes?
We will endeavour to over time.
Let me interrupt the Minister for one moment. We agreed to follow a procedure and then the Minister indicated he would like to respond to a number of points made, at the request of Deputy Coveney. Could we allow the Minister finish on those points and then take the other subheadings with the Minister of State? I am sure the officials will be here to advise. Will that be acceptable? Otherwise, we will not be able to get through every single item before we finish.
The amount of time was restricted somewhat because of the vótáil but there is one brief question I want to ask the Minister before he leaves.
I will let the Minister finish summarising his replies to all the questions put. It is quite unusual but I am trying to follow the format and do not want to get into trouble with the Ceann Comhairle or anybody else in the House.
In relation to helicopter coverage, the Air Corps helicopter based in Sligo is scheduled to come into operation on 1 July for daylight hours only, and on 1 November for 24 hour cover. The Waterford helicopter will go on 24 hour cover today. We have 24 hour coverage in Shannon and Dublin Airports. This is extremely good coverage and is used by the British authorities. It used to be the other way around; we had to look to them for helicopter coverage. The service is complemented by the excellent RNLI voluntary coastal units and other voluntary groups.
I suggest that the committee might invite the CER Commissioner to attend the committee in order to obtain his views on energy policy. I understand he has not come to the committee. It would be advisable that, from time to time, the regulators in this area should be brought in in order that we could monitor where they were going. Ultimately, despite what some may say, in these open markets the regulators will determine the cost increases, if there are to be any; it is not the Government's job, even though I know some members would never suggest that. It would be fitting for the committee to invite the regulators in for an exchange of views in order that they could explain to the committee, and hopefully the wider public, the rationale governing some of their decisions.
I thank members for their complimentary comments, although some did not refer to the more significant developments in my Department. I enjoy discussing my plans with the committee. I am sorry I have to leave so early. I would like to have stayed longer.
The Minister launched his water safety policy last Thursday week but I was very disappointed with its timing on the eve of the report on the sinking of the Pisces. The families involved in the drowning in County Wexford were also very disappointed in the way the policy was shown on television. I wish to express my dissatisfaction.
I did not mean any discourtesy to the families concerned but it was the bank holiday weekend. We had intended to roll it out the previous bank holiday weekend but due to various matters we were unable to do so. It was not meant to cause any distress to the families involved. I make no apology for publicising what is one of the most important issues facing my Department. That is the reason, of all the Votes in the subheads, it was not subject to a financial reduction. Both from the financial and educational points of view, I have to hammer home the message about wearing lifejackets.
I do not wish to detain the Minister as I know he has an important engagement to attend. On Deputy Kehoe's point, however, because the Department covers such an amalgam of responsibilities, it is difficult to track exactly what money was spent in previous years by the other Departments on public relations, including publications. The spending appears to have declined but the Minister seems to spend a great deal on PR because papers are devoted to his own performance on maritime affairs, the opening of facilities, and other matters.
I spend nothing on public relations other than the departmental press office and its press officers. I have no independent publicity or spinning machine. It is all hard graft for which I make no apology. Last night, I attended an Irish Coastguard function because I wish to be seen publicly - not for my own point of view - to publicise the fact that an incredible amount of work is being undertaken by the service and voluntary groups. I am doing such work across the Department's various responsibilities, as the Deputy himself said.
There does seem to be a large PR machine at work in this area.
That is not so. A parliamentary question has been tabled for tomorrow by some Deputy who is asking if I employ a public relations firm, but I do not. It is all hard graft by me and the excellent public servants who work in my press office.
Before the sitting is suspended, can I find out the cost of the two women the Minister had on the television the other evening?
Before we suspend for the vote, I take it that Deputy Broughan's question was under subheads A1 and A12 of the administrative budget?
Yes, it was.
I thank the Minister for making his statement and clarifying a number of matters. I know that other matters can be pursued in other ways in the House. I take it there are no other questions on subheads A1 and A12 before we suspend the sitting.
There are.
There are but we will go through them fairly fast.
We will suspend the sitting until after the vote.
Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 6.05 p.m.
Did Deputy Broughan say he had some questions on subheads A1 to A12, regarding the administrative budget?
Yes.
I would like to get agreement for the second time, now that the Minister has left. I know it was important that those questions be answered. I would like it agreed that we go through the different sections in the order that we have agreed, and that we will not deviate to forestry when we should talk about administrative matters. The committee has been very successful since last October and we would not like to fall out now. The Minister of State is welcome. Deputy Broughan had some questions regarding subheads A1 to A12 which deal with the administrative budget. We have five minutes.
One of the problems regarding the presentation we have been given today is that there is no index. In subhead A1, in reference to benchmarking, I would like to know if the figure of €1.5 million mentioned covers the full award for the year. I have already asked the Minister about his massive public relations function and how he manages that.
I also want to ask about consultancies. Under subhead A7, I note we have a significant increase in numbers on 2003. The Minister of State might comment on this. One of the consultancies relates to coastal zone management, but we are still awaiting the legislation in that area.
The Department is a new one, cobbled together from three others. I would like to know if the Minister feels that at this stage the staff have been sufficiently integrated to give us a coherent strategy for the important areas. We all agree that the Department is one of the two or three most important.
We have been given a figure of €1.5 million associated with the implementation of benchmarking pay increases in 2003. Does the Minister of State envisage any increase in output as a result of this, or is it simply a pay increase? I understood that the purpose of benchmarking was to some extent link pay with performance. What are the consequential benefits for the Department from an output point of view as a result of that pay increase? I am not necessarily opposed to it, but wish to ask the question.
I also wish to comment on a matter raised by Deputy Eamon Ryan, though unfortunately he is no longer here. Under subhead A4, No. 2, main component of subhead, there is reference to Eircom charges, including line rental, call charges, equipment rental and so on. Does the Department put the contracts on these services out to tender on a regular basis? In other words, are we promoting competition among telecoms and service providers? For how long has the present contract existed and what period of time is there left to run with the Eircom contract? Is it the intention of the Minister to encourage competition by inviting bids from other providers of line rental, call rental equipment and so on? As Deputy Eamon Ryan said, we should take a lead in encouraging competition - if products are competitively priced.
On the information society, I would like the Minister of State to provide some detailed information as to what is covered under that budget. There is no detail provided. The headings are Information Society, Capital Expenditure and Current Expenditure. The figure for capital expenditure is given as €1.3 million and that for current expenditure is €100,000. To what do those figures relate? The funding is down slightly. I am not clear as to what the information society budget relates or what function it performs.
In response to Deputy Broughan, the first benchmarking payment is included in the Estimate. The consultancy budget is up because of the merger of the different Departments into one. The Deputy also asked how the Department was working. We are still working towards physical integration. We have many staff in different parts of the State. There is an action plan on output in Sustaining Progress which covers modernisation, flexibility and productivity. The Department will work on the plan, which will be externally verified.
Encouraging competition on telecoms was also raised. Some of this is done centrally but in some cases we can get independent services. The Department recently awarded a smaller contract to an independent company.
How long will the present contract with Eircom last? Is it an annual contract or does it cover a three or four year period?
It is a contract negotiated by the Department of Finance. I would have to get those details for the select committee.
Can the Minister of State send the details to the committee, please?
It is something in which the committee would be interested.
I will get that information for the committee.
I have a question on the information society.
There are a number of projects within the Department which are funded centrally by the Department of Finance. Government projects are generally covered in that area. We can also get a list for the committee.
Is this the budget driving e-government?
Yes.
Is the matter clarified, Deputy?
I was not sure because the e-government budget was under a different heading.
On consultancies, the Minister of State has the figure of €612,000 for modernisation initiatives. Can we have any examples of what that involves?
Management information framework is the new management system for the whole Civil Service. It will provide more financial information for Departments.
On the benchmarking figure, is there a performance related pay element or is it purely a salary increase?
We have targets that are externally verified.
By whom?
By an external body set up under the partnership agreement.
While we got the money, we do not know who is actually determining this.
It is only provided for; it is not yet allocated.
We are half way through the year, with all due respect.
The payment has to be certified by the external body before it is actually granted. The external body will comprise unions, management and Government, among others.
Can we get some details on the workings of this? I do not mean to be difficult about it, but I want to understand how it works.
It is not confined to the Department but the public service, generally.
Anything arising from the review of the Estimates and any information required, the Minister of State can compile and send to the committee secretariat. Did Deputy Ryan have a question on subheads A1 to A12 on the administrative budget?
On subhead A7, consultative services and modernisation initiatives, is some of the financial expenditure provided going to the development of an accrual accounting system in the Department? How complete will it be at the end of the year? With regard to the point raised by Deputy Coveney on benchmarking, for which finance has been provided but not allocated, is it the Department of Finance that will give final approval, taking into account the approval of this external body? It came across strongly from the Minister for Finance that he had the final say in the matter.
We will be operating under that system. The previous Department was the first in the public service to do so.
Which particular system of accounting is the Department using?
It has not been picked yet. It is out for tender. The performance verification group is set up under Sustaining Progress. Again, it is external verification. It is not confined to just the Department of Finance.
The Department of Finance is a member of the group.
The Department of Finance is a member of the group but it will require——
It will require the approval of the Department of Finance.
Collective approval. The Department usually has a fair say in these matters. Departments will have to demonstrate performance.
We will proceed to subheads B1 to B2, Irish Coastguard, Marine Safety and Regulation.
This is one of the areas where we need to give credit where credit is due. However, we must also raise some concerns. The overall budget has increased. It is an indication that the Department is taking water safety seriously. It is something that we need to recognise and encourage even further.
On the helicopter contracts, Shannon and Dublin Airports both provide 24 hour services while the Waterford service has been made a 24 hour service as of today.
Yes, as of today.
Am I correct then in saying a helicopter will be located in Sligo from July for a 12 hour period during the day to cover the north-west region?
Yes, during daylight.
Does the Department have any plans to locate any further helicopters in any other parts of the country?
Not at the moment as the Department feels there is adequate cover. I am pleased, coming for the south-east - Deputy Keogh is aware of the pressures we have been under for a 24 hour service for Waterford - that this service is being provided from today. I will invite Deputy Keogh for a spin on it in the near future.
The Minister of State will be glad to hear that I was off the coast of Waterford two months ago and the air-sea rescue helicopter flew out and requested an opportunity to practise one of its drills on our boat.
It is nice to see co-operation between the Deputy and the Department.
I am keeping an eye on it.
I recognise the money allocated to the building and improvement of Irish Coastguard stations. Recently, the station in Oysterhaven, Cork was upgraded and opened. It is a great success. That needs to be pointed out.
I will continue to hound the Government on the need for an emergency towing vessel until we have the capacity to tow a tanker out of difficulty. Currently, private tugs have the capacity to do that, and the Celtic Explorer has some capacity to tow also, but it does not have the capacity to tow a tanker of any reasonable size. If we consider what happened in relation to the Prestige, and other similar tragedies, significant environmental catastrophes could have been avoided if an adequate towing vessel had been on the scene earlier. That is an issue we need to examine from an environmental protection point of view along our coastline. I encourage the Department to give this issue serious consideration for next year's Estimate or to include it in this year's Estimate.
Most of the policy objectives are self-explanatory, except for the one which is to provide in conjunction with Eircom a marine public correspondence service. What is that and what would it entail? I do not understand what is meant by it.
I had intended making the point my colleague made about the towing vessel. Donegal County Council did a great job in relation to the Princess Eva when we were threatened recently with that type of disaster but, again, maritime experts appear to be clear that we need that kind of resource. It is striking that in the Estimate, under subhead B3, a number of projects were not finished in 2002. That is an area the Minister should clearly examine. We have not had an opportunity to examine the Dumping at Sea Bill, which I presume the Minister will be taking, which deals with the issue of dangerous cargoes travelling, particularly in the Irish Sea, and up and down our sea lanes. That is an area to which we must give the highest priority, but I agree that in the past year or two we have made some significant improvements.
I notice also that the budget for the Marine Casualty Investigation Board is small. I was very impressed with the investigation and report which was critical of the Department in terms of implementation of the 1992 legislation and regulations on safety at sea. The bodies which work in this area, particularly the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, have to be commended.
Paragraph 3 deals with the variation in the grant to the Commissioners of Irish Lights which experienced some problems because of the strengthening of the euro. In that regard, is the Loran C mast saga at Loop Head still an issue?
Will the Minister of State respond to questions on subheads B1 and B2?
Both Deputies have raised in the House on a number of occasions the need for an emergency towing vessel. The purchase of such a vessel would be a large capital investment. We need to review all the options for purchasing and financing such a vessel. As Deputy Broughan said, there has been constant upgrading of our emergency pollution response as is shown by our handling of the Donegal case as compared to one handled by the Spanish and other issues which have been ongoing for several years. The purchase of such a vessel would involve an investment of about €40 million and it is against that background we must consider all the options.
Deputy Coveney raised the policy objectives. The marine public correspondence service is a ship-to-shore phone service. In relation to the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, the Deputy can rest assured that it will not be left short of funds as issues arise. We all compliment it on its excellent report on the Pisces tragedy off Fethard-on-Sea. We all had first-hand knowledge of working with it and being involved with it on the particular day and following days and we compliment it on that. Moneys will be available whenever it needs them.
I referred only to subhead B, not subhead B2, in respect of which I wish to ask two brief questions. The offices of the Irish Water Safety Association are located in Galway. Why is there no mention of it in relation to funding requirements or is it linked to the Water Safety Council?
It comes under the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as is the National Safety Council.
That explains it. Does Ireland have a marine emergency response plan, if there was a crisis off any area of the coastline? Do we have a plan that would click into place immediately or would our response be similar to what happened in Spain, where people were flapping around for several days before a decision was made? It is important that we have a strict protocol and plan that would click into place immediately which we could follow, if a tanker or ship got into difficulty.
We have an emergency response. It is exercised and checked out during the year. The last exercise was held off the Wexford coast.
We will proceed to subheads C1 to C6. Are there any questions?
Subhead C4 relates to coastal protection and management and I notice a number of projects are mentioned. I get complaints about Rosslare in the Minister of State's constituency and about south Wexford and some other areas. I am not sure to what extent the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is involved in the coastal protection programme. I tabled a question recently which was raised with me by a person from the Rosslare area who considered the railway was being endangered. That is an area to which we do not give enough attention.
I notice there is a small sum under subhead C1 for the payment of pension allowances. There is no provision in the budget, other than for inspections, to take action on crews working for flag ships of convenience such as the Swansea Cork Ferry, a matter which I have tried to raise with the Minister. I am sure the Chairman and my colleague would be interested in this. From a trade union viewpoint, there seem to be serious difficulties about the salary of workers and their treatment. These issues seem to fall between two stools. To some extent they are worker protection issues which come under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, but there is also a grey area concerning flag ships of convenience, particularly on a national route, as in this case, which I acknowledge is critical to the city and region of Cork. However, it is important that allegations of low pay - perhaps below our minimum wage - and bad conditions are addressed for workers on these services, many of whom will shortly become EU workers. I understand there are many Polish and Ukrainian workers employed on the service. What powers, if any, does the Department have to do something about this?
On subhead C5, is our involvement with the Jeanie Johnston, where we had to build the shipyard as well as the ship, coming to an end? Can we expect some income for Kerry County Council in this regard?
On subhead C2, specifically the development of infrastructure in ports, especially priority fishing harbours, to cater for larger vessels, I would have thought in the context of the development of EU fishing regulations on conservation measures that we would be moving towards protecting and promoting smaller boats and the inshore fleet through which maximum employment can be gained and not placing all our resources towards catering for larger boats. I presume what is meant by larger vessels is boats such as the Atlantic Dawn and the Veronica. How does this sit with our conservation objectives in ongoing discussions at EU level? Are larger vessels appropriate? Is this the way we should develop our fishing fleet or should we seek to develop smaller vessels which would create more employment in terms of the total catch?
There is a figure of €331,000 under subhead C5 for the Activities Standards Authority. We sometimes invest a great deal in regulatory bureaucratic structures and, while I welcome the authority and think it is valid, I know from my involvement in the industry that most of those involved in it are working on tight budgets and small operators and that, in terms of the resources we could invest in developing the industry, this figure would make a huge difference. We have a valuable and interesting regulatory authority but it is not necessarily a productive use of money. Is this an annual commitment and will the Minister of State give a rough indication as to what it provides for?
I am pleased that Deputy Broughan has an interest in Rosslare Strand. The problem to which he alluded has been apparent for years and a great deal of money invested by different Governments.
There has been a huge take-up of coastal erosion and protection moneys in recent years. We spent 82% of the planned Exchequer expenditure under the national development plan in the past four years. Every local authority must match 25% of any allocation it receives. The county engineer in Wexford informs us that we would need €15 million just to deal with works in that county alone. Huge expenditure is required, even though there has been significant expenditure in recent years. I am sure it will continue into the future. The 25% contribution can sometimes prove very difficult for local authorities.
Deputy Broughan will be glad to know that there will be a report on the Jeanie Johnston project in the next few weeks concerning the lessons that either have been or are to be learned. We have the Dunbrody in New Ross, which Wexford people would like to see sailing but, given the experience with the Jeanie Johnston, that is a long way down the road.
There is always a difficulty with larger vessels. The Killybegs issue has been ongoing for a number of years. There has been a demand from all public representatives in the area that a major development take place there. Irish boats have been increasing in size but that does not mean they are catching more fish. Killybegs Harbour is not suitable for the boats located there and the Government had to take action. It is generally regarded as money well spent.
I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Broughan about the working conditions of seafarers. It is important that workers are not exploited. That must be the key for any Government. It is important we keep this in mind. Irish seafarers are covered by Irish law but the situation is complicated by the international dimension and how they are employed. It is a much wider issue than we can deal with today. Obviously, the Government will have to take on board some of the suggestions from the Deputy and different areas to deal with it. It is important that we recognise that, regardless of nationality, seafarers should not be exploited and we should not allow them to be.
On the Adventure Activities Standards Authority, is it an annual commitment? I presume it is mainly spent on staff.
The new Adventure Activities Standards Authority funding is provided under subhead C5. Once the authority is established, it will be mandatory for adventure centres and providers to register with it for specified activities. It will operate mandatory codes of safe operation and practice for specified adventure activities and have the power to order providers to cease these activities where they fail to observe the codes. There will be ongoing provision for its costs and operations.
The Minister of State is familiar with the position on coastal erosion in County Wexford. What is the position in other counties? Are they in a similar position to County Wexford? The Minister of State may have seen the two page spread in the Irish Farmers Journal on Blackwater. It is a serious issue. I know local authorities must put money towards projects and that it is difficult for the Department of the Environment and Local Government to put money towards them. What is the position of other counties with respect to County Wexford? Are they all more or less in the same boat?
On subhead C1, seaports and shipping, the Department announced recently that it would privatise a number of ports. Is there a capital windfall for the Department as a result of this? If so, can it be ringfenced to spend on ports or does it go to the Exchequer? Is its expenditure decided upon by the Department of Finance? If there is a windfall as a result of the privatisation of ports, does the Minister have control of the money? Will the Minister of State indicate how much money was raised in this regard, if any?
On subhead C2, the upgrading of harbours for fisheries purposes, the entire allocation is for Killybegs Harbour, which I welcome. I have been to Killybegs a number of times and the harbour needs to be upgraded. It has the largest fleet in the country. There has been huge investment and a great deal of risk-taking by entrepreneur fishermen there. I am glad to see that the State is responding from an infrastructural point of view.
That said, promises have also been made to places such as Castletownbere, Rossaveel and Kilmore Quay. Does the Department plan on following through in next year's Estimate on these promises made preceding the general election last year, or will they be done one at a time? Will it be Castletownbere next year, Kilmore Quay the next and so on? People need to know whether the promises will be honoured.
I agree with the Minister of State when he talks about the cost of dealing with coastal erosion. Projects in County Cork alone would be outside the scope of the Department. Enormous sums are required to deal in a comprehensive way with coastal erosion there. We can only move forward inch by inch.
On subhead C5, I welcome the fact that we got the Jeanie Johnston up and running despite the mistakes made. We had to make the best of a bad situation.
Will the Deputy support getting the Dunbrody up and running?
We will take one at a time. As the State has put a lot of money into the Jeanie Johnston project, I would like it to be involved in any future plans for the running of the vessel, whether it be for sail training purposes, to promote Ireland as a sailing destination, a maritime country and an island on the western seaboard of Europe. Whatever the plans are, the State has a responsibility to ensure the taxpayer gets value for the money which has gone into the vessel. I believe that in ten years' time we, as a nation, will be very proud of the Jeanie Johnston, regardless of where it is located. The State needs to ensure we get value for the money spent so far and that the vessel is not handed over to the Kerry Group or whoever may want to take control. It was the most recent company to bail it out and I welcome its intervention.
The marine tourism grants scheme was launched in February 2002 and just over one year later has been suspended. There is an element of farce about introducing a scheme and suspending it 12 months later. I know a number of people who are suffering as a result. They invested both time and money on the strength of being granted money under the scheme. The Minister of State should indicate when it is likely to be up and running again and whether, for example, people can go ahead and invest in developments on the strength of being given an assurance that they will be paid under the scheme next year or the year after. This is an important issue on which he should follow through.
There are 19 projects included in the 2003 coastal protection programme in counties Kerry, Cork, Clare, Mayo and Wexford - right around the country.
To try to answer Deputy Kehoe's question, coastal erosion problems differ from county to county. There is very soft sand in the south-east where coastal erosion presents a major problem. I remind the Deputy that Blackwater received €100,000 this year. Therefore, it is not doing too badly and is quite pleased. It is a major issue and perhaps we should look at how we should deal with it in the future. Some 82% of the money allocated under the 2002-06 national development plan has already been spent on dealing with coastal erosion. As this is a significant amount, we will have to look at different counties. Local authorities are making various suggestions as to how the issue might be addressed. We must consider how we will cover the cost.
On Deputy Coveney's point in relation to ports, a review has been carried out which is currently in the public domain for discussion. The Department has not decided to privatise or sell off any port. Members will be aware that many of them are losing money and will find it very difficult to survive. Following the review, discussions will take place with stakeholders and within the Department. Obviously, decisions will have to be made but there is no decision as of now to sell off or privatise any port.
Deputy Coveney and others raised the issue of the Jeanie Johnston. Once the report is published in a few weeks' time, it will open up the debate. No doubt private investment will be one of the options considered. I agree with members that it is very important to get value for money. With regard to the Kerry Group, or any group, the Department's assets have been and will continue to be protected. The intervention is timely in the sense that the report will be published shortly, when I hope we will be able to have a varied and frank discussion of all the difficulties. A lot of positive elements can be taken from the experience with the Jeanie Johnston for tourism promotion and other promotions of Ireland. This will be dealt with comprehensively in the report.
I am pleased the expenditure on Killybegs Harbour was welcomed. There are also the harbours of Castletownbere and Kilmore Quay. When I was in Bantry recently, it was said it should be developed as a stand-alone port and not tied to Cork Harbour. The Department will be considering a strategic approach when obviously Castletownbere and other ports will figure prominently in such a report.
I was referring to specific promises made in regard to developments at the ports mentioned. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State is taking a strategic approach. However, pre-election promises were made in relation to developments at Castletownbere. I want to know if they will be honoured.
My party is planning to publish a selection of pre-election letters from the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister of State, Mr. Fahey, which will make very interesting reading. These famous letters included vast promises which were never honoured.
I certainly did not make promises in the last year. Castletownbere, the premier whitefish port in the country, is in need of upgrading. Obviously, it will be top of the agenda, depending on the finances available next year. However, I cannot give a commitment today that this will happen.
Killybegs Harbour has high priority. The Government decided to run with the issue of funding and will take on board what Deputies have said in regard to Castletownbere and other ports. Castletownbere has high priority.
I asked a number of questions relating to marine tourism.
The reduction in funding for marine tourism in 2003 meant that the marine tourism grants scheme was suspended. As a result of this reduction, a review was initiated. The initial position is that the Department should develop linkages with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and other appropriate bodies in areas of common interest. On completion of the review, recommendations will be made to the Minister on the appropriate role of the Department.
What about those who were planning to build on the strength of the scheme which has now been suspended?
I do not think they should have been building on the strength of any commitment. The scheme is suspended and negotiations are taking place with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, the principal tourism body. We should not work in isolation but jointly to see how we can develop programmes. A consultants' report was recently carried out for the Central Fisheries Board, which made strong recommendations in respect of marine tourism. It also mentioned working in conjunction with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism.
My information from the tourism end is that nothing is happening or has happened in the area of angling tourism, that it is falling between two stools. Each Department is denying responsibility.
Another of the famous promises made by the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, was to trout fisherman. This is connected to angling tourism. He promised an additional €1 million to clean up some of our lakes and rivers.
That comes under the heading of inland fisheries.
On coastal management, I pay tribute to our colleagues in the Green Party who asked about the legislation ad infinitum in the last Dáil and continue to do so in this one. Will we ever see it? We did not have the opportunity to mention the savage cutbacks in the area of coastal protection and management in our curtailed presentations to the Minister. Is the Bantry Bay charter included? Given the information about Bantry Bay and Castletownbere, we presumed it would be a lead project for the future but instead the Minister cut the allocation.
The Department has a swathe of Bills. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is speaking in the Chamber and pontificating about his Department, which has the number one list of Bills. The Minister of State's Department has the second longest list. Where are the Bills dealing with coastal zone management, electricity and telecommunications? The Minister has valiantly introduced some legislation this year, such as the Fisheries Bill with which we will deal next Thursday. The list seems to be growing. Now that the Department has developed an institutional shape, where is the legislation?
The Department is responsible for dealing with the issue of global warming. Rosslare in south Wexford is one of my ancestral areas. Part of my constituency encompasses a polder, yet it is planned to build massive numbers of houses in the area. What will the Department do in that territory?
I ask members to ask any questions they like as they are entitled to do but to confine themselves to the sections indicated.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is number one on the list but we are at number two which is to the credit of departmental officials and this committee which has facilitated us on a regular basis.
On the coastal zone, the aim is to have legislative proposals published in 2004 which will take account of the programme for Government commitment to develop new devolved service structures to support sustainable development and protection of the marine coastal zone and seafood resources. This was always planned to happen in 2004. We will keep up the pressure to ensure it does. Significant legislation has been introduced in recent months.
The Bantry Bay charter was not funded under subhead C4 but subhead C6. We were not the lead funder. The situation in Fethard and south Wexford is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
We will now consider subheads D1 and D6.
I welcome the construction of a research vessel now completed. This is linked to the national seabed survey dealt with under subhead D3. Ireland's greatest natural asset is the sea that surrounds us and the seabed underneath the water. We have no idea what is in the sea and on the seabed in terms of gas and oil exploration, fish habitats and maritime wildlife and heritage. There is an entire world waiting to be discovered. I do not wish to sound overly romantic about the subject but the State has a responsibility, as a sovereign nation, for 11% of European waters and we have no idea what is on the seabed. The completion of the vessel mentioned marks real progress and should be recognised as such.
It is stated in section 3 that the explanation for the variation in the Estimate in the allocation for the Marine Institute is the construction of the research vessel. When the sum involved is added to this year's Estimate, it gives an amount equal to last year's Estimate which gives the impression that the reduction is nil. Examination of subhead 2D shows, however, that the Salmon Research Agency will be incorporated into the Marine Institute, which will add to its workload and expenditure. Will the Minister of State, therefore, accept that there has been a cut in funding for the institute which is not attributable purely to the research vessel? The cuts in this area, however, are not as dramatic as those under some of the other subheads.
The management of salmon fisheries is a question on which the Minister seems to be kicking to touch. It is remarkable that he was in possession of the Indecon report for a long time before he released it. I endorse the comments made by my colleagues in that regard.
There are 147 members of staff in the Marine Institute. I presume benchmarking will require an increase in the Estimate this year for salaries. When the cost of the new research vessel is subtracted from the costs of the institute, the Estimate for 2002 is the same as that for 2003. Where are the cutbacks occurring? Will there be cutbacks in staffing, research capacity or research and development?
I do not believe there are any cutbacks in the Marine Institute. The whole area of marine research has developed enormously during the years. In 1992, £130,000 was spent in the institute, compared to €20 million this year. Obviously, there is a strong commitment from the Department and the Government to ongoing marine research. The Salmon Research Agency has been part and parcel of the institute for the last five years and this has been, as it were, the final chapter in putting it totally within it. In terms of efficiency, it is probably the best place for it.
I visited the Marine Institute's research ship very recently. The seabed survey is a very informative and educational operation. I encourage Opposition Deputies, at some stage in the future, which can be organised by the Department, to view the operations of the institute and the research vessel. Perhaps the committee might consider such a visit to see operations at first hand.
On benchmarking, if there are payments due, the money will be found.
I thank the Minister of State. We will proceed to subheads E1 to E5.
On subhead E1, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, what is the explanation for the variation between 2002 and 2003? I would like more detail - there is no explanation given, other than a statement there has been a change in priorities and scheduling under a number of programmes. Will the Minister of State give some detail as to what the impact of the cutback will be?
On fisheries conservation and management, we need to consider putting money into technical conservation measures to beef up our arguments in relation to Common Fisheries Policy negotiations. The industry has been outstanding, in some respects, in financing itself and, in a voluntary capacity, taking on certain technical conservation projects in relation to set-aside areas at sea, mesh size, net design and so on. Perhaps this is not the appropriate section but I would like to see the Department, through some agency under its control, putting more funding and effort into the technical conservation side of fishing. I believe this would strengthen our arguments significantly.
On subhead E4, aquaculture, the explanation given for the variation is that the scheme is demand-led and the Estimate is stated to be in line with requirements for 2003. Does this imply that there are fewer projects under way in 2003, relative to 2002? What is the implication of the substantial reduction?
In relation to BIM, the reduction from 2002 reflects the adjustments to the NDP schemes, arising from the deliberations of the Estimates review committee which concluded that the pace of implementation envisaged in the NDP should adjust to reflect the economic and financial environment, particularly the public expenditure budgetary ceiling set by the Government and wider budgetary priorities. I have had considerable contact with BIM in recent months. Despite these adjustments, continued sectoral support has been included in the BIM provision in respect of fleet development, fisheries innovation, seafood marketing and training. In particular, the 2003 provision is adequate within the context of contractual commitments and ongoing organisational needs.
In relation to aquaculture development, the spend is broadly steady, year on year, in terms of grant aid in this vital sector, to which the Department attaches great importance. The allocation is more or less in line with what is required.
If there are no further questions, we will proceed to subhead F - inland fisheries. Are there any questions? Deputies Broughan and Coveney have become very quiet.
Having regard to recent correspondence, does the Minister of State anticipate any significant new income in this regard?
As Deputies will be aware, we are about to review the entire operations of the Central Fisheries Board and regional boards. Consultants will review their operations in terms of value for money and the number of boards involved. Some suggest that the structure is somewhat like that of the health service. We have eight regional fisheries boards and the Central Fisheries Board. The question has been posed as to whether we need all of them in a small country such as this. In conjunction with departmental officials, I considered that the best approach was to bring in consultants, review the entire operation, have discussions with stakeholders when we have the consultants' report and then make decisions on the way forward.
There is a view that we are not getting value for money. I am not saying this but that is a view. Certainly, within the overall structure of the boards, I have found, from contact with the angling sector, commercial fishing and other areas, that nobody seems to be happy with the operation of the sector. Accordingly, it is very important to review the situation comprehensively and make decisions on the basis of the review.
We now proceed to subhead G - forestry.
I believe we gave the senior Minister a good run on this matter.
We are making a mistake in this area by cutting back significantly on the hectarage being planted at a time when the forestry industry is beginning to take off. Irish forestry is now being taken very seriously in the European context. We have achieved a very professionally run industry in terms of forest nurseries, planting and so on. In essence, those involved in it regard this Estimate as a 40% cut in funding, taking account of increases in costs.
I ask the Minister of State to give a number of assurances. First, if we reduce funding for the premium and planting programmes, are we in danger of losing matching funding from the European Union? If not, why not? People involved in the industry have told me that the response from departmental officials is that the money coming from the Union is secure and that if we cut back from 15,000 to 10,000 or 12,000 hectares, we are not in danger of losing the matching funding or any percentage thereof. I do not believe that position is sustainable. If we plant 15,000 hectares of trees over a two-or three-year period and then cut back to 10,000 for two or three years, we cannot possibly expect the European Union to continue to provide the same level of matching funding as previously, without any deception on our part. Are we making this decision in an effort to make savings in the Department? Will a consequence be a loss in grant aid to Ireland from the Union? If that is the case, it represents bad economics.
The forestry sector is of great importance in meeting our Kyoto obligations. The strategy of making cutbacks in the sector is particularly short-sighted. The sector was earmarked by the famous three wise men but I am not sure whether they have any idea about how it works. We will discuss our Kyoto obligations within and outside the EU later. One of the easiest ways of ensuring we make a positive impact on carbon emissions - greenhouse gas emissions are carbon emissions, by and large - is to plant trees. If we analyse our greenhouse gas emissions, we will find that various sectors such as agriculture, industry, energy generation and households need to take responsibility. Forestry can play a key role in the agriculture and energy sectors. When one plants hectares of trees, they act like a carbon sink by sucking carbon from the air. This has a twofold positive effect in terms of emissions. By-products from the timber industry can be used as carbon neutral fuels, for example, as a replacement for peat.
Are these issues taken into account when we make a decision to cut back on the number of hectares of forestry being planted? Are such decisions taken purely on a short-term basis to try to balance the books for 2003? It has been announced that an extra 2,000 hectares will be planted this year, to be funded from next year's budget. Perhaps I am misreading the situation but I understand that, in order to increase the number of hectares being planted, the industry has been told to plant an extra 2,000 hectares, carry the cost and expect to be paid from next year's allocation. What impact will this policy have on next year's allocation? Will the figure be reduced to 6,000 or 8,000 hectares next year if the budgetary situation does not improve? What message is being sent to those planting seeds in nurseries who need to plan for three years' time?
The Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government decided to prioritise forestry for cutbacks when it had to make some hard decisions for the first time. The level of cutbacks in the sector is significantly higher than that in many others. I appreciate that general cutbacks will hit it hard as its budget comprises a significant proportion of the overall budget but the percentage decrease in the forestry budget is higher than the decrease in other sectors. I will come back to this issue when we are talking about renewable energy. A range of arguments can be made in favour of Ireland using its natural resource - its climate - to grow trees. Ireland has the most suitable natural climate in Europe for growing trees but the Government is cutting the legs from under the forestry industry just as it is finally taking off. I recognise that the figures for 1996 and 1997 do not stand up to comparison but the use of such statistics is political pettiness as it is not comparing like with like.
The Government has stated clearly in four different policy documents - Growing for the Future, which was adopted, the 2000 rural development plan, the programme for Government and Sustaining Progress, which only lasts for 18 months - that it will develop the forestry sector. The programme for Government and Sustaining Progress contain references to a target to plant 20,000 hectares. Now that there is pressure to make savings, however, the Government has decreased the planting programme from 15,000 to 8,000 or 10,000 hectares. I do not blame representatives of the forestry industry for being sceptical or worried. The private sector has made significant investments on the strength of the Government's commitments and policies.
The industry has just started to develop and it could be a massive success in terms of our Kyoto commitments and the timber industry especially as we have all sorts of natural advantages over our European competitors. I am dismayed that forestry seems to be suffering more than other sectors at the first sign of real financial pressure. This reduction is a short-sighted measure. I hope a Supplementary Estimate might be considered, as it was last year when the figure was increased from €106 million to €116 million. A similar increase this year would at least bring the figure to about €90 million, which would be welcome. The main reason I am making such a song and dance about this issue is that I am worried about next year. The planting element of the forestry industry might be able to take a hit for a year but we cannot expect it to take two or three years of under-funding and continue to grow as normal thereafter. I have asked a number of questions and would appreciate it if I could be given specific answers.
Let me add to that discourse. I have read a minute of the meeting of the management committee of the Department on 27 October 2002. The Minister of State must have been at another function on that day as the minute records that he sent an apology for not being able to attend but the Minister was present. I presume that this information is available under the Freedom of Information Act. There is a reference in the minute to the fact that forestry was reviewed in the context of the Department's Estimate.
The Minister for Finance put pressure on the new Department and all other Departments last September. He set off on another such escapade in recent days, according to the distinguished journalist, Mr. Stephen Collins. The civil servants and Ministers who sit on the management committee felt they had to bite the bullet, to some extent, in relation to the Cinderella industry of forestry. It was decided that it would have to bear the brunt of the Department's cuts. Was it not unfortunate that the Department decided to take the easy way out by halving, in effect, the funding that was to be made available to continue the Growing for the Future policy? Can the Minister of State outline how this policy evolved in the Department? How can further reductions be avoided in the forthcoming Estimates?
Is it the case, therefore, that the Minister and the Minister of State have decided to abandon Growing for the Future? There certainly seems to be some sort of review, or consultancy, in relation to this matter. Deputy Coveney has outlined the statistics. I believe there was a target of coverage approaching 20% of the land mass by 2030, which would have many spin-offs in terms of energy policy and management. The strategy of the former Minister, Ivan Yates, and the rainbow Government has been abandoned. I noticed that the figures given to us earlier by the Minister for 1996 were seriously disputed in the minute to which I referred. Has the prevailing policy in this area not been abandoned? Is it not incumbent on the Minister to say, "Mea culpa” and apologise to forestry workers across the country and the industry? He should sit down with them to construct a progressive policy.
The Chairman, on his watch, should ensure we do not fail to develop a critical national resource. In previous times, a foreign administration ripped out the forestry element of our environment almost in its entirety. Eighty years after independence, the Minister has not delivered and I hold him responsible for the current position. He destroyed by burning ten million trees in an act of unbelievable vandalism. I ask the Minister of State to respond.
I echo the sentiments of Deputies Coveney and Broughan on forestry cutbacks. The sector has made significant achievements during the past 20 years, notably in areas such as nurseries and research and development, and has earned respect in other European countries. If the current cutbacks continue, the forestry service will return to the position it was in 20 years ago and all the hard work of the past two decades will be lost.
For the past seven weeks payments from the forestry service have not been made due to a computer error. This is unacceptable and incomprehensible and would not be tolerated in any other walk of life. If a company encountered a computer problem, it would be sorted out in a couple of days.
One would not expect computer problems to occur in the Department with responsibility for communications.
What is the current position on payments from the forestry service? Farmers and nursery workers have been waiting for cheques for the past seven weeks. Will the Minister of State explain the position?
Deputies have raised a large number of questions. Deputy Broughan referred to figures given by the Minister. If the Minister of State is not in a position to respond to the Deputy's query on figures, I ask that the figures in question be clarified for the committee.
I listened to the earlier debate between the Minister and Opposition spokespersons during which he adequately dealt with their questions. I repudiate any suggestion thathe vandalised 10,000 trees or caused such damage.
The figure was ten million.
We had numerous meetings with the industry during the early part of the year to try to find a solution to the difficult problem we faced. The Department was allocated a sum for forestry which did not compare with the amount spent last year. In difficult times one has to make difficult decisions. I met the industry on a number of occasions following requests made by it and Deputy Kehoe, who, while he may not have a vested interest, has a direct interest in the forestry sector.
Deputy Coveney referred to an announcement that an additional 2,000 hectares were to be planted. The industry asked that I approach the Secretary General of the Department of Finance with Peter O'Neill and Michael Prendergast from my Department to see if it would be possible to carry out additional planting in order to address the difficult circumstances faced by the industry this year. It is true this additional planting will be funded from the 2004 allocation, which has not yet been made. Like Deputy Broughan, I read in the newspapers that the Minister for Finance is looking at other Departments. Usually, however, I take newspaper reports with a grain of salt.
I also met the Irish Farmers Association, which was heavily involved in Sustaining Progress. It has been written into the text that the forestry sector will be considered favourably with a view to planting 20,000 hectares per year. I would prefer to be honest with the industry, some of whose representatives I met last Saturday when I asked them to come on board to discuss options for 2004. I do not believe we will reach the target of planting 20,000 hectares in 2004. That is the reality and it would be wrong to say otherwise. We need to be realistic. This year we will probably plant more than 12,000 hectares. Representatives of the industry have told me that for the sector to be viable, some 15,000 hectares need to planted per year. I have asked them to sit down to discuss what we will do in 2004.
We are operating under financial constraints. It has been reported that tax revenues for the first half of this year are down 9% to 10%. In such circumstances, I cannot see where we will get money to plant 20,000 hectares next year. If we were to plant this number each year until 2006, annual payments to meet Government commitments would amount to some €140 million.
That is the real issue, the cumulative payment of the grants.
Although the Government will be in power in 2006, regardless of which Government was in power, this figure amounts to a large sum. Perhaps it is time for all of us to be honest and sit down with industry to agree a reasonable level of planting. I have the greatest respect for the forestry industry, a significant proportion of which is located in my constituency. Probably the highest number of workers in any company in the forestry sector - around 200 - are employed in the constituency I share with Deputy Kehoe.
I appreciate the views expressed by Opposition Deputies and the commitments given by the Government in Kyoto. As well as my Department, the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Finance also have a role in addressing the issues of greenhouse gases and carbon taxes. While I agree forestry is important in the context of Kyoto commitments, we have tried to deal with the issue facing us in 2003. We brought forward planting on 2,000 hectares which was appreciated by the forestry industry. I give a commitment that we will sit down with representatives of the industry in the near future. However, the commitment made under Sustaining Progress to plant 20,000 hectares of forest was written into the agreement subject to the caveat that finance would have to be available.
It is important to be clear on this issue. The IFA needed two changes to be made before it would agree to sign up to Sustaining Progress, one of which was the removal of the wording "subject to budgetary requirements" from the action plan. While it is correct that this term is in the text, it was specifically removed from the text of the action plan to get the IFA to sign up, which it did. As far as that organisation was concerned, this was a signal of intent, the reason its members feel so sore about the cutbacks in forestry.
I spoke to Pat Lehane of the IFA in the past two weeks and did not find him sore. He is pleased the IFA came on board and supported Sustaining Progress, given that it contains probably for the first time a Government commitment to support forestry into the future. We will work towards this commitment and make every effort to deliver it. It is important to be clear, however, that it will be very difficult to plant 20,000 hectares in 2004. The position with regard to Johnstown, from where all payments are made, is that it is up to date.
This is a matter which we might leave for another time. In its work programme the committee is scheduled to look at afforestation in September or October. Perhaps the Minister of State and his officials will come before us again on that occasion. We are behind on the communications module.
We will proceed to subheads H1 to H3. Are there any questions?
I have a number of questions in respect of subhead H2 which primarily deals with the alternative or renewable energy sector. Efforts in Ireland to promote renewable energy have been a hopeless failure, although I admit there have been some successes in regard to wind farms and hydro-powered plants in certain areas. I acknowledge those developments and successes. However, if one compares us to any of the progressive countries in Europe in the context of the renewable energy sector, we have been a hopeless failure. This is despite the fact that we have probably the most consistent wind speeds in Europe for wind turbines and, as I already mentioned, better conditions for growing wood biomass than any other country in Europe, in addition to wave and tidal potential.
Although the AER programmes have failed to promote renewable energy, successive Governments have continued to use the same model. Contracts are being considered as we speak for AER VI. In 1994, 73 MW of contract was given out under AER 1, yet only 45 MW were developed. In 1997, 137 MW of renewable energy projects were given out, yet only 40 MW were developed. In AER V in 2001, 345 MW of projects were given out, but not a single one has been developed to date. A definite trend is visible in the price support contracts in respect of AER VI. I am sure the Minister of State understands what I am talking about in regard to AER VI because I do not wish to waste the committee's time by explaining it. Fewer and fewer of the price support contracts that have been given out have actually materialised into working developments, yet we are still going ahead with AER VI. The only change is that some slight pricing and indexation improvements were made on what was offered under AER V.
We are about to give out 500 MW worth of projects under AER VI. The Minister expects it to reach our target of the creation of 500 MW of extra renewable energy projects by 2005 when, under AER V, not a single project was developed. Although less than 30% of projects were developed under AER III, we are expecting 100% uptake on AER VI to meet the targets we have set for ourselves. The Minister is being naïve in respect of the AER VI contracts which are currently being considered and will be given out in the next couple of weeks. It is unrealistic to think that 100% of the contracts given out under AER VI will result in renewable energy projects being built and developed by 2005. If we are to learn anything from previous AER programmes, surely it is that a significant percentage of the contracts never materialise into developed projects.
Let us call a spade a spade - this is primarily about wind turbines. The AER model basically offers price support to prospective developers of wind energy farms. If we are to stick to this model, then we have to give them a decent price. The reason we are being so unsuccessful in this area is because the support price that is being offered is the lowest in Europe for large-scale wind energy. We are currently offering 5.2 cent per kilowatt hour. Let us not worry about the technicalities of the matter. In Scotland the rate is 7.5 cent per kilowatt hour. In Spain it is 6.6 cent per kilowatt hour and this is over a 12 to 15 year period. In Germany it is 9.2 cent per kilowatt hour for the first five years and then 6.2 cent for the remaining ten years. In France it is 8.4 cent for the first five years and over 6 cent per kilowatt hour for the remaining ten years, yet in Ireland we are offering 5.2 cent per kilowatt hour. In some cases the price is 40% lower than what is being offered for renewable energy projects in other European countries.
We have to get the balance right because, at the end of the day, the consumer pays. We have to ensure we get value for money and that people who are developing wind farms are not getting super-normal profits. However, unless we give this industry a kick-start by putting a proper price support system in place, it will not happen. That is the experience from the previous AER programmes, yet we still plod on with the same methodology and the same strategies that failed in previous years. Although the price has been slightly improved, it is still the lowest in Europe. Any rational person would say AER VI is doomed to failure also. Even if we get up to 70% uptake on the contracts that will be given out over the next two weeks, we are still nowhere near our targets. That is the reality and it is about time the Department accepted it.
I would be supportive of the Minister if he was to show a realistic initiative in regard to promoting renewable energy. We have a hopeless record in this respect and it requires a fundamental change in mindset and a commitment of funds if we are to make it happen. This is not a green issue. It is not merely a case of replacing fossil fuel energy with wind turbines because it is good for the environment. It is also an economic issue because if we do not meet our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, both within Europe and outside, we will be heavily fined. It will quickly become an economic issue. We have two choices: either we put money into renewable energy and invest in the future, or we have to start putting money aside now for the fines we will be charged in the European Union for not meeting our obligations. Those fines will not go away. They will be imposed on an annual basis.
Consumers matter, but there is a strange phenomenon developing in the energy market. There is ongoing deregulation but, to have this, we must have dearer electricity. The experience with waste management has been similar. What is the point of the exercise if consumers do not benefit?
Other countries, including what Labour Party members would regard as sister social democracies like Finland and Sweden, have a very large nuclear component. France is another country heavily dependent on nuclear energy. I know that is not renewable energy but it influences the kind of structures they can introduce in regard to the part of the market they want to come from renewable energy. According to the magazine Deutschland, which most Deputies get, Lower Saxony is moving towards something like 12,000 MW per annum from wind. It is interesting that the visual environmental issues are starting to impinge. Something like 14,000 MW needs many wind turbines. In Germany one sees the odd one here and there.
The Minister competently makes targets, but we must be careful. While I presume we will have a hydrogen type economy in the middle to later part of this century, in the meantime we should ensure the alternatives we use are sustainable and do not have impacts we do not realise, not least in terms of very high prices.
In relation to AER VI, there has been a huge response and we are in the process of allocation. It is surprising that Deputy Coveney says it will not be a success even before it has been allocated. He talks about AER V and AER VI being failures. They were developed in conjunction with the industry. With AER V, there was some interest but it was not taken up; there was a huge interest in AER VI. For 18 years there was only a 3% increase in the price of electricity in this country and there was no investment in infrastructure over that period. We have a problem because electricity is generated from gas that comes from Russia and the United Kingdom which is reasonably costly. We do not have nuclear energy. Some of the Deputies mentioned Spain and other countries, some of which use nuclear energy, which is obviously cheaper.
In relation to wind turbines, we are becoming more advanced in terms of onshore wind farms. There has been much talk about offshore developments, especially the proposed development off Arklow. However, these projects are only at a very early stage. We see wind turbines dotted around. I was down at Carnsore Point recently at the launch of the wind farm and there are others in other parts of Wexford and across the country at present. There are also problems, however. We are all aware of the environmental problems and objections that have been lodged. Wexford County Council refused permission for the wind farm at Carnsore Point; it was granted by an Bord Pleanála. It was refused because there were ferocious objections. We should give AER VI a chance and not deem it a failure before it even gets off the ground.
I hope the Minister of State is right about AER VI. All I am saying is we do not seem to have learned the lessons from the previous AER programmes. The price is still too low. The only way we can compare is to other European countries. For example, in Northern Ireland they are getting 7.5 cent per kilowatt hour, whereas we are offering 5.2 cent for exactly the same wind farm. How do we expect people to compete? I hope the Minister of State is wrong and that we get 500 MW of development and go on from there to develop much more.
As that is an item the Deputy suggested for the work programme, we will be having a very busy autumn in relation to these matters.
The Minister of State has all but acknowledged what I am saying in that he said he will be setting up a forum on renewable energy promotion this summer. Before AER VI has even been allocated he is telling the industry that he is setting up a forum on the future of renewable energy. If that is not an admission of defeat I am not sure what is, but, having said that, I welcome that announcement and I look forward to——
We are already seeing a great interest in it. In relation to Northern Ireland, a consumer pays much more for electricity than people do here. There is a cost factor involved and the balance must be kept right for the consumer also.
What is happening with the offshore projects for wind energy?
Eleven foreshore licences have been issued to allow the investigation of the suitability of sites for the development of offshore wind farms. They are going through the process. These projects are largely concentrated in the Irish Sea. One foreshore lease has been issued to allow the development of an offshore wind farm at the Arklow Bank. One, at negotiation stage, is proposed for the Codling Banks. The Arklow Bank lease provides for 200 turbines producing 520 MW nominal generating capacity. Construction of the first phase, producing 25 MW, is expected to commence this summer.
Not under the AER VI project.
It is important to clarify this. Under AER VI the number of kilowatts given out for offshore wind farming was relatively small. What we are doing is putting a price support in place for a pilot project.
It was 50 MW.
It is around that. People are being given the false impression that we will see 150 turbines on the Arklow Bank in the short-term. I hope I am wrong - I would love to see that happen.
That is what the allocations are for.
We do not have the wattage under AER VI. We only have 50 MW. As each turbine gives out 2 MW, 25 turbines gives 50 MW. Why are we talking about 150 turbines? It is nonsense. There needs to be a new pricing structure for offshore wind farms to follow up AER VI if the Arklow Bank project is to happen.
It is important to recognise that AER VI is, for the first time, putting in place a price support system for a pilot project offshore to see whether it is viable. It is significantly more expensive than an onshore project at the moment; it is offering 8.4 cent per kilowatt hour rather than 5.2 cent. Let us not kid people - we are putting a structure in place for a pilot project, not, as has been announced in the press so many times, developing the largest offshore wind farm in the world. I wish we were, but under AER VI we are not providing for that. After AER VI we will be dealing with that issue.
The Department is not stating we are providing for the largest wind farm. The company is saying that.
Is the company to do it without any price support?
That is what it keeps announcing.
We are now dealing with subheads I1 and I2. Are we agreed on the regional broadband and multimedia developments? We are doing our own ICT report in which there will be a number of recommendations.
The one word I have to say about that is "appalling". We will leave it at that, but the Minister missed the bus on the issue. We have had this discussion already.
I am forbidden from commenting, as the Deputy knows.
Yes. The Minister of State will be engaging in discussions over the next three or four months. I do not know whether I will be able to get any more minutes of the management committee meetings.
They are on the website. The Deputy can get every one of them.
Good.
There is great openness, transparency and accountability.
It gives us a little background to those decisions, which is what we need. My point is about the lowering of costs in broadband provision. The 19 town demand project is so unambitious. Will it not be possible this year, in relation to those types of savings, to ensure other important areas of the Department, like those we have stressed, do not have a big shortfall? I remember Chris Horne and various people telling us that costs in this area had fallen dramatically. One can therefore do much more with a smaller budget.
I know the Chairman is anxious to move on. I will not give another Second Stage speech like I did on the last topic. I do not want to bore people any longer.
What you said was passionate.
I feel passionate about renewable energy because it is something this country could give a lead on with very little effort.
We gave you latitude.
I have noted that the Chairman is in very mellow mood today and allowing matters to proceed. I appreciate it.
You are entitled to say whatever you like about the Estimate. I know you are conscious of the timeframe.
Regarding progress on broadband in the past 12 months, there is now a realisation of what needs to be done. We are aware of how quickly we are falling behind our competitors. There are two specific questions. Will a levy be introduced on the industry to put together a fund to provide broadband access for schools? That is a straight question. The media have reported that there will be a broadband fund of about €30 million for the Minister to spend annually. If that is so, will the Minister or an independent body allocate the money? Second, when will we hear who has won the contract for the management of the fibre rings project and what is the likely timeframe for phases two and three of the fibre rings project?
Regarding broadband in schools, we are addressing this issue as part of the Broadcasting Bill. A short Bill will come before the House within the next few months. In response to Deputy Broughan, the 19 projects are pathfinder projects. We will evaluate them and move on. Every country in Europe is grappling with the broadband situation and the real problem is to drive demand from now on.
Everyone who came to this committee last week said the opposite. The demand is there. Perhaps because the Chairman and Deputy Coveney are both Cork men, we have had many visitors here from the south. They were passionately in favour of moving on. The problem is the Minister's planned roll-out and his lackadaisical attitude in relation to competition. I agree he has taken some initiatives on FRIACO and so on, in the directives to ComReg, but he was slow to get into this game, which is ultimately so important for the country. The bottom line is that Ireland is bottom of the league when we were used to being close to the top.
Having received a number of presentations from the industry and interested parties and players, the sub-committee will be reporting on this issue. The Department will also be invited to give its views. We hope the report will be helpful to the Department and to the Government and that the Department will act rapidly on the recommendations, which we expect to issue from the report.
It may be critical.
In relation to phases two and three of the fibre rings, it was my understanding that after phase three there would be 123 towns or centres with fibre rings. What is the timeframe?
Towns are listed in the spatial strategy plan. The idea would be to evaluate the success or otherwise of the 19 centres and then to move on to the next phase.
We will move on because the committee will be making a number of recommendations in relation to "no one size fits all". In an effort to help the officials, our clerk went to see the satellite launch in Caherciveen last week, which was very successful. We will have a number of proposals in relation to the wireless systems and hope to assist by adding value to the process, helping the Department in its endeavours to proceed at full speed without having to evaluate or re-evaluate, but to plough ahead, in order that Ireland can return to the top of the league table in this area.
Subhead I1 does not include any cost for the management structure of the new broadband network. We have heard that the Minister, perhaps with the local authorities, is setting up a management structure for what is to be a new national communications grid. Can we expect to see funding provided for in that budget section?
It will be outsourced. It will be put out to tender.
The Minister and departmental officials will shortly come before the committee to discuss these matters. We are now proceeding to subheads J1 and J6. Are there any questions?
The Broadcasting Authority is due to be set up this year, or at any rate the legislation is due this year. The BCI will become the BA - it will be a regulator for RTE and the private sector. That was one of the conditions under which the licence fee was increased. When are we likely to see the Broadcasting Authority set up?
During the second half of next year.
The second half of 2004. It does not have an impact on the Estimates for 2003.
No.
Will we have the legislation this year for the Broadcasting Authority? Will some elements of the BCI merge with the BA and continue as a single authority with a similar budget and staff to that of the BCI? I understand we are to have the BCI representatives before the committee soon.
Absolutely. They are very anxious to appear before us.
The short Bill will have to be implemented in the autumn. There is €8 million in the fund this year. Therefore, it must be spent before the end of the year. We look forward to the co-operation of the Opposition to get the Bill through in the autumn.
Does the Minister of State mean the Broadcasting Authority Bill?
This is a short Bill to deal with the levy and the special fund for broadcasting.
We will have a lot of legislation in the autumn.
We will proceed to subhead K. Are there any questions?
Although it is retrenchment time - which it certainly is now with a capital "R" under the Minister for Finance - we are still keeping up all our affiliations, with our subscriptions to international organisations, an area that is overlooked.
Those affiliations and subscriptions are not discretionary.
We will proceed to subhead L - Appropriations-in-aid.
Could we get an explanation of what this involves?
It is a receipt. It relates to income.
What is the net figure? We had this issue regarding social welfare when the Minister of State's colleague was Minister for Social and Community Affairs. The question related to how much of the budget was provided by the workforce for its own social welfare benefits. To what extent is the Minister's Department self-funding?
We are talking today of a figure of €301 million. That is the net figure.
I thank the Minister for State. We will sum up with concluding remarks by the Opposition spokespersons. Perhaps they could shorten their remarks. I had allowed five minutes but we have gone way over time.
The Chairman has been generous. I have complimented him on it.
We might agree on two minutes.
That is fine. I have made my points clear in relation to where I am critical - forestry, renewable energy and fisheries. I did not get an answer to my question as to whether, in the view of the Minister, we will need a Supplementary Estimate. The Minister of State may not be able to respond to the matter of compensating fishermen for the loss of tonnage because it was not being used in January 2003. I may pursue that matter separately with the Minister.
We are hoping no tonnage will be lost in order that compensation will not be needed.
I trust there is a strong determination that there will be no such loss.
There are some positive aspects that need to be recognised, particularly in the area of marine safety and the coastguard sector. I would like more co-operation with the RNLI. The Minister of State made a point of stating that close co-operation with the RNLI was ongoing which I would like to continue.
In the broadband area there is a recognition of just how badly we have been doing which is a start. A determination is developing, certainly within this committee, to make things happen in the broadband area. This will be reflected more in next year's Estimate than in this year's. The decisions have been taken on the Estimate and there are no votes in relation to them. Therefore, the only positive aspect of debating it is that we can flag issues that need priority treatment next year. We need to continue to prioritise water safety, improve matters for the forestry sector and ensure broadband gets the priority that other physical infrastructure gets across the country. I emphasise renewable energy again.
Last year the Department sought €607 million from the Department of Finance before the budget and was allocated €472 million. Will the Department aim high again? Is that the best strategy, in the view of the Minister of State, with his years of experience?
There is no scope for answers. There have been four hours of questioning.
Yes, and I am still enthusiastic.
The Deputy is making my job more difficult because other Deputies must sum up.
I am closing now. I thank departmental officials for briefing us with as much detail as they can provide. That is very helpful from an Opposition perspective. It is an opportunity to explore policy as well as expenditure. I thank the Chairman also for the latitude he has allowed and the Minister of State in the absence of the senior Minister.
I said at the start to the Minister that if I was marking his performance, I would give him perhaps four out of ten. Having reviewed the record in more detail now, I would be struggling to give him four. Such marks sum up the past six or seven months since I have been looking at this portfolio. To some extent the Minister has been successful, particularly in recent months, in relation to the PR spinning of the Department. When we open up supplements, we see the picture of the Minister looking out at us, perhaps in a wetsuit giving a demonstration of windsurfing, or opening something or other. There are critical areas of his vast Department which he seems to have offloaded to his Minister of State. He ensures the bad news is kept at bay as much as possible. There is much more to be done. I hope the two Ministers will, in the critical months to come, go in and battle hard.
I was looking at the speech I gave to the Labour Party conference in relation to this portfolio. Regarding the valuable natural resources for which the Department has responsibility, we in the Labour Party feel we have an important guardianship role. There was once a Department of Public Enterprise, which no longer exists. To some extent we see vultures circling around the rich resources of our nation, for which the Department bears responsibility, and which must be used for the best benefit of the people in order that in ten or 15 years time, committees such as this, following all kinds of PPPs, will not be looking back and asking if our generation of politicians got the best value for the people.
I accept the point the Minister of State made about forestry. It is an issue in which the Comptroller and Auditor General will be interested. Fisheries remain a huge problem. The Minister said at one stage that this was an industry which must be intensely managed in the future.
Regarding broadband, we have been given much information in recent weeks, as well as the table that showed us close to the bottom of the broadband connectivity league, just ahead of Greece. Belgium, for example, has 20% broadband take-up and some 40% of the Belgian public has access. The Department has a huge task in that regard. We have already mentioned forestry, where we urge the Minister to reverse his policies.
The Minister of State has in his usual amiable way been very pleasant to deal with. I thank the senior Minister too, all the staff here tonight and the Chairman, who has listened very patiently. All of this has been about wanting the best for people.
I thank the Minister and the Minister of State and the officials for attending today. That concludes the select committee's consideration of the revised Estimate.
I thank the Chairman and the committee for helping us to get through the Estimate. I thank the Opposition spokespersons and the Deputies on the committee for their contributions. We are listening and taking on board some, although not all, of their suggestions. I also thank the officials from the Department. Any commitments we have given about follow-up information will be complied with over the coming week.