The purpose of this meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. If the first Estimates are completed before the allotted time, I propose that we suspend for 15 minutes. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will then be available, having set aside the rest of the day to meet us. Otherwise we would have to adhere to the schedule as set out. I thank the Minister of State at the Department and his officials for attending the meeting.
Vote 30 — Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Revised).
I will first make a statement on the situation as regards the scallop fishermen. Everyone is aware of the events of yesterday, with the blockades at Waterford and Rosslare and the potential effects if they had not been lifted or had escalated. Our ports deal with 99% of our trade and many were discommoded, while more could have been discommoded. I have responsibility for ports and I was aware of the situation. I was pleased, however, to hear that the blockades had been lifted.
I realise the pressure scallop fishermen are under and appreciate the financial implications for them. I am constrained because of the western waters decision, taken in principle in 2002, to conserve and protect while exploiting on a sustainable basis. There is a perception that there is a catch limit on scallops but that is not the case. The method used to conserve the stock is achieved through the setting of limits of the amount of fishing effort each member state can exert. The detail of the principle established in 2002 was confirmed during 2003 and is based on historical activity in the reference period 1998-2002. At that time, the limit was somewhat less than the 2005 kilowatt days.
This is an unfortunate situation. There would not be a problem if we were fishing for scallops off the south-east coast of Wexford and Waterford, which would have been the norm in the past. Unfortunately, those stocks have become depleted and it is necessary for our vessels to travel further down the channel to fish. That has created the problem because it is not the time fishing Europe measures but the time from the boat leaving port to re-entering port.
I have had meetings with the industry, processors and producers and the Wexford Deputies on a number of occasions. I explained the situation in which I found myself and I was anxious from the start of January to put a management regime in place to ensure we could maximise the available kilowatt days. The industry, however, was not prepared to negotiate a management regime and decided to continue to fish. Three weeks ago I was advised that if those involved continued to fish at the same rate, the kilowatt days would be used up by the end of June. Consequently, I would have had no choice but to terminate that fishery.
I was aware of the concerns of the processors, who were anxious to ensure there would be continuity of supply, and, having met the industry in Rosslare two or three weeks ago, I decided it was in the best interests of all stakeholders that I introduce this management regime. It means that there are only eight days per month per vessel and we will review the situation again after 15 June. This will ensure some continuity for the processors and those employed by them.
The Wexford Deputies presented me with proposals from the Irish South and East Fishermen's Organisation and some of the proposals were very sensible. The main proposal, however, was that fishermen would need €4.8 million for a buy out and decommissioning and questions were asked why we introduced a decommissioning regime for whitefish vessels. This was flagged in the modernisation and renewing of the fleet section of the national development plan. Amounts are subject to quota restrictions and for this year there is only €1.5 million, which will not go far in buying out tonnage.
I am available at all times to meet with the parties involved. I want to correct the impression that has been given that this matter resulted from attacks on quotas last year. It arose from the western waters agreement 2002 and there is no quota restriction. I realise there are problems for the industry and appreciate their financial implications as well as the consequences of the kilowatt days at sea limit which has been imposed on us. I will try to deal with any specific questions on that issue.
This is a life and death situation. My colleague, Deputy Howlin, said a whole community faces extinction unless something can be done in the next 48 hours or so. The public feels that the quota restriction based on the effort from 1999 to 2002 is the key factor and the additional restrictions are intolerable. Some of the fishermen concerned contacted me. People who have high mortgages on boats they were encouraged to develop are in a difficult and invidious position.
The Minister of State says it is difficult for this particular fishery to decommission given the resources needed. What can we do to give the people of Kilmore Quay and Dunmore East a viable future? On what will that be based?
The sum of €4.8 million seems very little for a decommissioning buy-out. I spoke to representatives of the fishermen yesterday on the telephone. They mentioned the possibility of reducing the fleet, or the number of boats in it, and offering compensation to those who volunteer to forgo fishing for a year or two to alleviate the pressure on the fleet and the industry. This problem concerns more than the fishermen and their families; it involves whole communities and employment for those who buy and transport the scallops. Is such a compensation clause possible?
Why did the scallop grounds close to the port about which we are concerned become depleted and when did that happen?
I thank the Minister of State for his statement on this. It would be helpful if he could intervene because of the level of financial pressure on the fishermen. As Deputy Ferris said, €4.8 million for decommissioning seems low. What can be done? I heard the Minister of State give an interview on the radio this morning.
Additional licences were granted in the past two years for people to buy trawlers. This predates Deputy Gallagher's appointment as Minister of State but it indicates that the number of kilowatt days available was miscalculated. Can the Minister of State devise any short-term measure for a temporary facility until the new quota is introduced at the December meeting? Is it possible to get any derogation from the Commission to alleviate this problem?
The quota will not be renegotiated in December because it is not part of the December Council meeting on tax and quotas. This issue dates back to 2002 when it was part of the Irish Box negotiations which, ironically, all the organisations welcomed. The stocks were depleted by increased capacity. A moratorium was introduced in 1999; the only licences issued since then and particularly in 2003, were to those who had submitted their applications prior to 1999.
In what years did the depletion become noticeable?
That happened approximately two years ago. The purpose of decommissioning is to reduce the effort. In this case the industry advises me that it requires €4.8 million. The submission contains other sensible proposals on engine power not exceeding 400 kilowatts in the remaining fishery if decommissioning took place. I wish to distinguish between the part of the national development plan linked to demersal fish which are under pressure, and the decommissioning for scallops. Many other fish are under pressure too, including mussels and pelagic fish. Many vessels are tied up at the moment, and fish farming is an issue too. The problem extends beyond scallop fishing.
The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Browne, and Deputy Howlin met the organisations involved this morning. I await a report on that meeting from either or both Deputies. They have been very helpful to date in trying to ensure we resolve this issue and prevent the blocking of ports in the future. While the blockade is intended to impress on us the seriousness of the issue, I am well aware of that. In early January I tried to work out a management regime to ensure we got the best return from the kilowatt days available.
The Irish Fishermen's South and East Organisation is aware that there will be no renegotiation of the kilowatt days and that they must work within the prescribed limits. I maintain an open-door approach and am available for discussions to establish whether we can help to achieve progress on this issue.
I thank the Minister of State for his contribution on this subject. We will now consider the Estimates and listen to the statement of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, on subheads B.1 and B.2; C.1 to C.5; D.1 and D.2; E.1 to E.5 and F. We will then listen to short opening statements by the members and any questions arising from the subheads.
Tááthas orm go bhfuil deis agam inniú an ráiteas seo a chur chuig an choiste maidir le An Roinn Cumarsáide, Mara agus Acmhainní Nádúrtha. The Department's mandate represents a challenging mix of economic and social responsibilities. My responsibilities range from fisheries, coastal infrastructure, maritime safety and seafood, to coastal zone development, enforcement and marine research, as well as the marine environment and inland fisheries. The Department and agencies have a key role in delivering sustainable economic returns through the conservation, management and development of marine and natural resources. The key challenge for the Department is to ensure the sustainable use, development and protection of these public resources to deliver jobs in rural and coastal regions and to contribute to the overall economy.
The net provision in the 2005 Estimates for the marine-related subheads is €108 million, which includes €5 million capital carryover from 2004. The new multi-annual approach to capital expenditure allows for better planning and use of resources and is particularly relevant to the multi-annual fishery harbours capital programme given the complexity and weather-dependency of marine engineering projects. The European Commission is developing proposals for a coherent, maritime policy for the European Union. Consultations are underway on a Green Paper on maritime policy, which will set out an integrated approach to all the sectoral dimensions, including transport, safety, fisheries, research, environment and costal protection. There will be strong linkages with EU sectoral and regional policies. This is the first time that the EU has focused on maritime policy as a whole. Similar strategies are being developed elsewhere, reflecting the growing appreciation of the potential of the marine. Working with the Marine Institute and other key players, the Department will be proactively involved in the shaping and negotiation of this new strategy. We have much to bring to the debate, given Ireland's integrated approach to marine matters since 1986.
More than €38 million is provided in the estimate under subheads B.1 and B.2 and within the carryover provision for critical marine safety services. This includes a provision of almost €32 million for the Irish Coast Guard, reflecting the Government's commitment to maintain and improve maritime safety. In the coast guard funding, more than €25 million is being provided to meet the contracted cost of marine search and rescue helicopter service at Shannon, Dublin, Sligo and Waterford. The all-weather helicopter service operation out of Sligo Airport has been upgraded to a full 24-hour service with effect from 1 June. The commissioning of the Sligo service ensures that national coverage is now at an optimum. The remaining provision of some €7 million for the Irish Coast Guard is for equipping and operating marine rescue co-ordination centres, coast radio stations, the coast and cliff rescue service and counter-pollution operations. More than €6 million is being provided to meet the regulatory and enforcement functions of the Maritime Safety Directorate.
The economic significance and importance of adequate shipping facilities is self-evident. More than 99% by volume of Irish trade goes by sea. My priority is to ensure that sufficient infrastructure at ports to cope with growing throughput and to facilitate competitive shipping services. Subhead C.1 provides for investment of more than €4 million in ports and shipping in 2005. The provision will support essential projects under the national development plan. It will also facilitate the participation of Irish ports in the EU Motorways of the Sea Programme which promotes development of short sea shipping by financing port projects aimed at linking member states. The provision will also provide for continued investment in remedial works at the regional harbours. The Department is in discussion with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the modalities for transfer of the small regional ports and harbours to local authority port control as flagged in the ports policy statements.
The Government's statement on ports policy which I launched earlier this year highlights the need for high quality port infrastructure projects to ensure that capacity shortfalls up to 2014 are addressed now. Meeting these requirements when fully quantified will be addressed in the context of the Department's multi-annual capital programme. The statement also highlights the need for clearer commercial mandates for the port companies, the encouragement of private sector investment and mergers, better dispute resolution and better transport policy co-ordination.
Approximately €21 million is provided in 2005 for fishery harbour infrastructure development. This will support work to enhance the safety, capacity and operational efficiency of the harbour centres and other key harbours with a view to maximising economic activity at and returns from these facilities. More efficient and commercial fishery harbour centres could also exploit Ireland's competitive geographic advantage, particularly during periods of high fuel prices. The opportunities which this presents for both pelagic and whitefish fisheries would also underpin the land-based support industries at our fishery harbours and in supply for the seafood processing industry. The 2005 programme includes intrastructural developments at Castletownbere, Clogherhead, Rossaveal and Dunmore East.
The Castletownbere development is crucial for the south-west fishing industry and will lead to safer working conditions and efficiencies at the port. The investment will secure its future as our premier white fish port. The estimated cost of the two phases of the project is more than €20 million.
Funding of €2.9 million has been provided for coast protection works as part of a total investment programme of €52 million under the national development plan. We are tackling coastal erosion through targeted priority projects and research and development to underpin long term coast protection strategies.
Subhead C.4 provides funding of more than €2 million to meet obligations arising from the budget 2000 announcement of support toward marine leisure infrastructure projects at Kenmare, Caherciveen, Roundstone and Rosses Point. The Caherciveen marina was completed and opened for operation in 2004. As the committee is aware, difficulties have arisen with the three remaining projects, which have not yet been completed.
The Marine Institute is assessing the potential of the marine tourism and leisure sector as part of its overall review of strategy. The Department will also be co-operating with initiatives under the overall tourism strategy, which provides a framework of actions for Irish tourism up to 2012.
Among the key functions of the Department on coastal areas are the efficient and effective regulation of aquaculture and foreshore development. I want to ensure that development in the coastal zones takes places place on a sustainable basis and in accordance with high standards of environmental protection. The provision of €870,000 in subhead C.5 is intended to meet the cost of foreshore valuations, liabilities in respect of refundable deposits paid by some foreshore licensees and possible costs in removing unauthorised structures from the foreshore.
Subhead D.1, together with the carryover from 2004 provide funding of more than €27 million for marine research activities and, in particular, the operation of the Marine Institute. The Government has invested significantly in major marine RTDI infrastructure capabilities since 1997.The first such investment in the history of the State is making Ireland a centre of excellence in marine research. The Marine Institute is drawing up a new research and innovation strategy 2006-2012 through a major foresight exercise. The new strategic approach is set firmly in the context of the national plan to enhance research and development in Ireland. Some €4 million of the 2005 provision will support the continued building of the RTDI marine capacity, creating strong links between research, innovation and enterprise.
The Marine Institute has relocated to Galway where the new state-of-the-art facilities are due to open in December 2005. More than €4 million is being provided for the national seabed survey being undertaken by the Geological Survey of Ireland and the institute. The seabed survey will provide a series of integrated data sets for the Irish marine shelf area. The Geological Survey of Ireland and the institute are co-operating with agencies and third level institutions in optimising the value generated from the survey data.
The Government is continuing its strong level of investment in the seafood sector since 1997. Subhead E.1 provides funding of more than €28 million this year for the operation of Bord Iascigh Mhara. The provision will support investment in seafood development, marketing and diversification in the catching sector as well as training. Funding is provided for a vessel decommissioning scheme which will remove excess capacity from the whitefish fleet, delivering a better balance with available resources. A sum of €1.3 million will be spent on the scheme in 2005.
EU and Exchequer support for new fishing vessel construction and modernisation has been eliminated under the Common Fisheries Policy. Our focus now is on investing in fishing vessel safety and supporting the installation of safety equipment on board all fishing vessels, especially older vessels. BIM's innovation and sustainability programme will continue supports for fishing communities and the industry, aimed at maximising the sustainable returns from Ireland's fisheries resources. BIM's marketing development programme supports co-operation at company level. The support aims to encourage synergies and economies of scale in the seafood sector. It also helps companies to strategically develop and promote new market outlets in Europe and globally.
The current long-standing arrangements for quota management were put in place at a time when EU fish stocks were in better shape and Ireland's whitefish quotas were significantly higher. An independent economic assessment is being commissioned to review the quota management system, taking into account the views of the sector and informed by the management systems in operation elsewhere. It will take account of fleet structure and existing fishing possibilities. This assessment will inform decisions on changes needed in the system and related fishing fleet policies.
The provision of €1.66 million will support significant restructuring in the seafood processing sector. We must achieve enhanced critical mass and capability to target key seafood markets within the EU and globally. The provision of more than €6 million this year for aquaculture development will support the building of critical mass in shellfish and finfish production with high added value potential. It will also support diversification and new technology to make the aquaculture sector more efficient and competitive.
Some €24 million is provided for the operation of the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards, salmon management, and inland fisheries management and development generally. Some €2.74 million is being provided as our funding contribution to the costs of the Loughs Agency which is a North-South body. Independent consultants have recently completed the first stage of a review of the role of the State in regard to the inland fisheries resource and the current model for the governance of the inland fisheries sector. I am considering the consultants' findings.
The expenditure under the Vote is designed to ensure safety of life at sea as well as sustainable and regionally balanced growth in the marine and inland fisheries sectors. I commend the subheads in question to the committee.
The Vice Chairman, Deputy Perry, will make a short opening statement.
I welcome the Minister of State's proposal for increased funding of €108 million. However, an area of significant concern is seafood development and aquaculture. The national development plan projected that the State would be producing 48,00 tonnes by the end of the plan but the current outturn is only 12,000 tonnes. This must be considered in the context of the significant opportunities that exist worldwide in this sector and the advantage Ireland enjoys in that Irish salmon is an internationally recognised brand. However, despite the increased allocation of funding, the level of production has dropped considerably.
As an island nation, we have a major opportunity to enhance the value of the outturn in food production from the sea. As many as 400 companies are involved in the aquaculture sector and there is significant opportunity for growth. Will the Minister of State indicate his plans in this regard? The increased allocations for fisheries conservation and management, fish processing and aquaculture development are welcome. These are the areas in which much work can and must be done. In particular, we must consider how best to develop and grow aquaculture activity.
In regard to marine research and development, the allocation of more than €18 million to the Marine Institute is money well invested. Will the Minister of State explain the decrease of 21% in the funding allocated to the national seabed survey? I have met the people involved in this five-year project and am concerned that this decrease seems considerable.
The allocation for the marine and natural resources tourism programme is disappointing. I understand the Minister of State has delegated responsibility in this area and is working within the limits. However, there is significant potential within the tourism sector and we should take the opportunity to ensure development in this regard. The Minister of State obtained EU approval two years ago for the development of 25 marinas around the coastline but this scheme was subsequently shelved. Does he intend to reactivate this much needed programme?
I welcome the increased allocation for the development and upgrading of harbours for fishery purposes, including Killybegs and Castletownbere. However, there is a significant number of derelict ports, such as Sligo, in respect of which the Minister of State hopes the local authorities will assume ownership. Where there is dereliction, does he intend to encourage county managers and, where appropriate, a certain level of private partnership in the development of what is a significant but untapped natural resource? It would also be of benefit from a tourism perspective if local authorities were to become involved in developing these significant banks of land that have fallen into dereliction.
There is an allocation for inland fisheries of some €25 million. I understand the Minister of State is reviewing a report which looks at the future of the seven fisheries boards. Does he intend to establish a new structure and when will that report be published? There is much uncertainty in regard to the future management of the fisheries. Has the Minister of State any plans for amalgamation?
I compliment the Minister of State on his good work in the Department and the significant amount of legislation he has introduced. However, I have a number of concerns. Does he believe there are sufficient funds to work with the local authorities in carrying out the extensive work involved in coastal management? I am disappointed that commitments given in the national development plan in regard to aquaculture have not been delivered. The outturn is only 12,000 tonnes as opposed to the 48,000 tonnes envisaged in the NDP. It is not a question of granting new licences but of developing the business of existing firms because there is significant capacity within the existing structure to grow the entire aquaculture business. Is the Minister of State disappointed that this potential has not been reached and that there has been an outturn of only 12,000 tonnes?
The Labour Party spokesman, Deputy Broughan, will now make a statement.
I wish to make some general points before discussing the Estimates. It is disappointing that the system still prevails whereby we are discussing the Estimates for the current year in June. This is the time when Opposition Members and backbenchers should be offering input into the 2006 Estimates. We should be afforded the opportunity to argue the case that Estimates should be increased, for example, or that there should be a greater effort to support maritime and coastal communities. Major reform is necessary in regard to the Estimates process. The current system is unsatisfactory and a remnant of the 19th century. In most other national Parliaments, Members consider the Estimates for the following year rather than the current one.
The Minister of State mentioned an EU Green Paper. What is to prevent the Department from setting forth its own vision for the Irish marine sector in a White Paper? The delegation of Killybegs fishermen to whom the committee spoke referred repeatedly to the Padraig White document on fisheries. There is no reason that we should not undertake our own overview of the marine sector. Moreover, there is a significant case to be made for an independent Department dealing only with marine matters, given the amount of people involved and the importance of the ministry to our national economic life. The part devoted to the marine subsumed in this omnibus Department needs to make that case. What about our vision? Norway was today praised by a commentator regarding how Norwegians have handled different areas of their life including marine.
I was contacted by some of those involved in the scallops sector during the British general election. They referred me to the Conservative Party's policy on fisheries which was to renegotiate or get out of the Common Fisheries Policy. They recommended this to me given that so many British fisherman on the east coast and in Scotland feel the same way as our fisherman in that we need to take another fundamental look at the CFP. Do we have any views along those lines? When this committee visits Killybegs and other ports we hear that the best people to manage the Irish resource are the Irish, and the Department is trying to achieve this with regard to Kilmore Quay and Dunmore East. We should be responsible for this resource. Is there any way we can develop that?
Regarding the Estimate, the amount of money put aside for decommissioning seems ludicrously small. What does the Department intend to do in the real Estimates debate for 2006 from September onwards with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen? Will it be seeking a greatly increased total?
I welcome some of the other comments made and some of the expenditures, such as that relating to the Irish Coast Guard. However, the marine radio co-ordination station should be on the east coast, whether in Drogheda, Leeson Lane or Howth. Will there be any expenditure next year regarding development of the port in Bremore?
Is the Minister of State happy with the general administration of Dublin Port? We have heard of numerous complaints about the use of the landbank in areas which do not relate to the marine, such as the recent proposal to put a convention centre in docklands-owned territory in Dublin Port.
We are all very disappointed that the Department did not take a more robust attitude towards wild salmon fisheries in terms of scientific advice. Will we go through all that agony again in 2006 if we do not adhere to scientific advice until this Government leaves office?
The Labour Party, and probably everybody on all sides of the House, would be bitterly opposed to attempts to yellow pack jobs in the area of Irish marine. We would like a situation whereby mariners had decent wages and conditions in respect of working on ferries. The Minister of State rightly pointed out that 99.9% of our trade is by sea. The marine workforce should be treated and paid properly and we are gravely concerned in this regard. Can anything be done in the remainder of the administration to bring forward the EU directive relating to conditions on ferries and other working ships?
I welcome the Minister of State and his team here today and thank him for all of the work that went into the Estimates.
We will now take a contribution from the Technical Group. I advise members that as I am not allowed to speak on the Estimates, it will be one of the few times I will not speak.
I thank the Chairman. It is a pity that we cannot hear his contribution. I am happy to represent the Technical Group which has a nice ring to it because there are many technical issues with regard to this Ministry. I welcome the Minister of State's presentation. However, rather than congratulating him I must commiserate because he is in a very difficult position. He represents a constituency that is very dependant on the maritime sector and senses something we have ignored for many years which has now come home to roost. The mis-exploitation and overuse of our natural resources will become a huge issue under his stewardship and I do not know how he will address the matter. It will take a lot of political courage to be honest with people as to what has happened and will happen in the future.
The story from Wexford is almost a metaphor for the broader story that is taking place. The Minister of State is in a very difficult situation which the Estimates belie. We can pretend that things are the same year on year but they are not. We know they are not the same and that over-exploitation of the natural resource has led to its diminishment which will have a huge effect on coastal communities represented by the Minister of State and others.
The port issue is hugely important for our economy and society given the volume of trade. Consider the future of Dublin Port in terms of its importance to our economy. Judging from the port strategy and what has been said it seems we are looking to significantly increase the capacity through the port. The Dublin Port Company's view is somewhat narrow in that it is about getting the most volume possible for the port. The Department's remit means that it must take a broader view.
We have the joy of dealing with seven Ministers at once. Whatever the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources thinks about the port, it should not be facilitated for the overall well-being of the city or for the port. The M50, which was designed to take the traffic will not be able for an additional truck. It simply will not work and the NRA admitted as much to the committee last week. It said that it might work if there was not as much economic growth. It behoves the Department to take this into account when making major capital investment decisions regarding ports. It is a bad policy decision to further concentrate on the development of Dublin Port as the largest and fastest growing in the State. The Department should consider the transport implications for the development of the city, which requires the development of other ports which could use capital investment.
Similarly, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources should consult with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in terms of the urgent need for better planning in the city involving concentration of housing developments close to the centre. I can think of no better land than that targeted by Dublin City Council in the south docks area within two miles to the city centre which is currently used to store 40-foot containers. This area should be one of the most vibrant development quarters of the city. The Dublin Port Company will not see this as a priority because its remit is to develop a commercial port. It is up to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to recognise the wisdom of reallocating some of the development elsewhere, as we are supposedly keen to do under the national spatial strategy. We should give over some of the land so that it can be of much more valuable use both in social and economic terms. This is an important point to note when discussing the allocation of significant capital funds for the development of our ports.
I want to make broad points and return to them under individual subheadings. The Green Paper from the European Union recognises that the European fishery policy failed. However, I do not blame the Union or Commission. It failed because individual national governments intervened in the process on a political basis to try to provide jobs which led to dramatic overfishing of European stocks. The Minister said that European fishing stocks are no longer there. The Wexford case is a good example and we must now go further to catch fish we previously caught closer to shore. Oil prices are starting to bite in terms of the development of fisheries and this will be difficult for the industry because it will be much more expensive to catch fish, of which there are fewer.
The madness behind the policy is shown by the fact that up until last year, we invested significant amounts of money in increasing our fleet by funding boats which were designed to catch deep sea quotas, which disappeared this year, because the fish themselves have disappeared, due to the unsustainable fisheries system. Hence, until this year, we invested significant capital funds in new trawlers. Suddenly, we must about turn and spend the same, or lesser amounts of money taking similar vessels out of commission. This is a remarkable admission of the blindness to over-fishing which has continued for the last ten to 20 years.
Although this did not take place under the Minister of State's watch, the European Union will, rightly, no longer tolerate it. Remarkably, in off-the-record briefings I have had with people across the fishing industry, there is wholesale recognition that we have been over-fishing quotas. This must now come to an end and we must begin to adhere to the conservation levels that exist. In order to address the situation, it is about time we stated honestly that we have been over-fishing, that we have depleted the stocks and that we must reduce the level of fishing effort. We must be clever about this. If we simply blame it on the European Union, or, to take the scallops example, blame it on a decision made in 2002, we will mislead our own people and will not make the correct decisions in the long term.
I will try to finish as the committee is on a tight time schedule, given that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is also due to attend the meeting. On a general basis, much of our expenditure is administrative and is still based on the old world view that there are more fish to be caught and that there is not a genuine problem, in terms of sustainability. There has been massive investment in the ports of Killybegs, Castletownbere and elsewhere in terms of increasing capacity, when we must recognise that decreased capacity is what is required. It is hard to marry the massive investment in Bord Iascaigh Mhara which exists as a development agency to increase capacity, with the real essential need, which is for a recognition of over-fishing and for new conservation measures so that we will begin to address the problem, be it in the creation of large areas where fishing will not take place any more or in dramatically reduced quotas and reduced effort. Given that an administration has built up with large staff numbers involved in certain bodies, it still pumps large amounts of money into the old methods. However, the old ways have changed.
Investment in aquaculture is increasing significantly, some of which I welcome, as much of it involves new stocks which do not have the same environmental difficulties as we saw with salmon cages. In this regard, Deputy Perry made a good point — it is almost Parkinson's Law — that the fact that the investment in the area is increasing in inverse proportion to the actual tonnage which we are taking from the main aquacultural areas.
Another example of how we invest largely in administrative systems rather than real development is in the Vote for inland fisheries. While I believe the capital budget has increased from previous years, the minuscule fraction of the total expenditure devoted to the inland fisheries area stands out. For example, if we are serious about protecting the salmon, the same sort of capital investment which we made in previous years in fishing fleets, ports and the entire industry to catch the dwindling fish should now be made in counting equipment, proper control of drainage systems and development of the rivers and their hinterland in a manner which would build up that resource. We should now be putting the big capital budgets into the genuine improvement of the environment which might give those natural resources a chance to recover. Unless we do that, the Department will be a dark and difficult place to be in the years to come.
In their opening addresses, the members covered a number of subheads. Will the Minister of State respond to some of the issues which were raised under them? The committee will then seek clarification.
I will take the questions in the order in which they were raised. Deputy Perry made reference to the national development plan and our objective to increase the capacity of farmed fin fish to 48,000 tonnes. It is now somewhat over 12,000 tonnes. There are a number of reasons for that including major competition from Norway, particularly over the last two to three years. Moreover, members will be aware of the serious situation in Donegal Bay, where three of the companies there had been producing substantial quantities of salmon. Only one of the companies has returned on a small scale. The Department is anxious to ensure that in the not too distant future, they will continue production in Donegal Bay, as their contribution towards the national tonnage was relatively high.
I acknowledge the necessity to have critical mass but, unfortunately at present, we are hovering around or slightly below it. However, together with our Scottish counterparts, we have taken action. Two months ago, I met Ross Finnie, the Scottish Fisheries Minister and we discussed a strategy, as we share a common problem. We are the only areas which are experiencing serious difficulties as a result of the quantities of salmon being imported from Norway. Subsequently I met representatives of the directorate general for trade and there are now anti-dumping measures in place which have been warmly welcomed by the industry. However, they only concern Norway and do not affect any other countries. There are also substantial quantities coming from South America. We are now in discussions——
The press will be after us for two weeks if the Minister mentions that region.
I understand. The Chairman was well able to defend himself and he was not muzzled then as he is today.
New arrangements are in place. There is tremendous potential for an increase. As Deputy Perry rightly noted, the infrastructure is already there and should be extended and developed. It is not necessary to provide new licences. There are opportunities in the most remote areas of the country, where there is no alternative source of employment and this complements the reduction in fishing opportunities.
When we think of aquaculture, too often we only think of fin fish. The farming of shellfish has been one of the great success stories of the aquaculture industry. I do not have time to go into it in detail, but one can examine the situation in Bantry and the added value to the mussels there, which go into the top markets in the United States and are comparable to the best.
The seabed survey is a programme in which the main work has been carried out over the last two years, hence the reduction. I am a supporter of marinas. The more marinas we have around the coast, the more vessels and yachts can be attracted, again into remote areas of the country. The Deputy rightly stated that there are state aid difficulties. We have been working with the Attorney General for some time on this. Departmental officials are going to Brussels later this month to have discussions with the Commission regarding state aid. The existing programme, which was introduced in 2002, has been suspended at present. However, I hope that we can make progress.
The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, the Department's officials and I are very supportive of marinas and are anxious to resolve this. Deputy Perry has been in constant touch with me about Rosses Point and others such as Roundstone. We are anxious to deal with this. I will keep the committee and the House informed as matters develop. However, it is a complex issue. It is not the amount of money involved but the principle.
The local authorities have been working in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government since I launched the ports policy statement earlier this year. I am negotiating with them and am prepared to hand over the ports to the local authorities. I am very anxious to ensure that the ports are developed in their best interests and that the developments will be in the best interests of local communities, for example, Sligo. I will keep a watching brief on this to ensure my aims are met.
With regard to Sligo port, I met with the chairman and members of the board who hold definite views about the development of the port. I will monitor this. As members of the committee possibly know, our officials will be meeting with them to impress upon them our views regarding the development of the ports.
I accept that not enough is being done in the area of coastal protection management. We could use all of the funding provided to the Department for coastal protection. We are looking at a medium-term strategy and will examine the funding priorities. The amount of funding is never enough and being an island state, it creates more and more difficulties for us. However, we are closely monitoring the situation.
Deputy Broughan referred to the fact that we are discussing the 2005 Estimates in mid-June and stated that we should be looking ahead and that there should be a new form of Estimates procedure. The Minister for Finance will bring proposals to the Government in due course with regard to this. It is a matter for the Government and I will not second guess what it does. I expect that it could be quite be pragmatic about this and move us into the current century.
The EU maritime Green Paper, which was announced by the Commission, will cover a wide range of issues, including maritime transport, trade, development, sustainable exploitation of the marine environment, marine safety resources, responses to pollution, coast guard operations and environmental impact on maritime developments. The Green Paper's objective is to set up an integrated framework for the development of different elements. Meetings will begin in July 2005 and representatives from each country will attend. Ireland will be represented by the Department's assistant secretary in that area or one of his officials. There will be considerable interaction between the countries. We will be closely involved in the Green Paper, which will clearly reflect our views on marine matters.
Deputy Broughan spoke about the former Conservative Government in the UK renegotiating the Common Fisheries Policy. I do not recall the Conservative Party making any great effort to renegotiate when it was in government. Perhaps I would be the first to say that we have been in that position for a while ourselves and that sometimes we have all the answers when we are in Opposition. In saying that I am not being critical of Deputy Broughan's side of the House. I am prepared to take some of the responsibility myself. We had the mid-term review in 1992 and the review in 2002 but it is a very difficult process.
If I thought that we could make any progress regarding the renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy — we will have wait for some time for it — I would be leading Ireland's effort. I mean no disrespect to those who negotiated our entry to the EEC in 1973 and those who renegotiated the Common Fisheries Policy in 1983 but I do not believe that any of them foresaw the developments that would take place. We have gone from being a country with an inshore fleet to one that can mix it with the best. I am pleased about that but we must remember that when we negotiate we do not have too many friends. If we are to succeed and get a bigger slice of the cake, others must be prepared to give ground.
Deputy Ryan is familiar with and referred to regional advisory committees. I was quite supportive of them in my time in the European Parliament. It is very important that the stakeholders have an input into the management of the fisheries because it is not possible to manage fisheries by imposing measures. It has to be done by interaction. The western waters regional advisory committee will have a base here and we will provide the secretariat for it. There are other committees that will be important to us, such as the pelagic stocks committee. I once thought that the committees were very much a cosmetic exercise aimed at keeping everyone happy but it is much more serious now and we will see the fruits of their work in the future.
Mention was made of the port of Bremore. We launched the national ports strategy and it is a matter for each of the ports to make a submission to us. They have done it on a very general basis but the focus will now be more specific, the ports will be filling in the gaps and we hope to have consultants to look at that. One thing is certain, we are the victims of our own success. I am not making a political point in saying this. With the growth in the economy — growth of 5% each year and hopefully more, as forecast by the OECD — we will need to prepare for the future. A total of 99% of trade goes through our ports. I understand that we will be short 12 million tonnes of capacity by 2012. As members of the committee are aware, there is a long lead-in time. Therefore, we need to plan with due diligence and know exactly what is our capacity. If we require additional capacity, it does not necessarily mean that it all has to be in Dublin.
References have been made to Bremore. If one comes up the M50 onto the M1, it could alleviate the traffic congestion. We had a meeting with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport about this. We must wait and see what proposals are made. I made it very clear at the time that there is the possibility that the private sector and stakeholders can be involved. The Department will provide any funding only as a residual in the event of a national strategy. We indicated to the ports that they may sell off their non-core assets to help finalise such developments. There is considerable emphasis on the 21 acres in Dublin and we indicated to the relevant authorities through a letter that it is not necessary for us to provide a fore-shore licence and that they can submit a planning application on the basis of a letter which we have forwarded to them.
Regarding the issue of salmon, which was raised by two Deputies, I have only followed the advice of the national salmon commission. I have done nothing differently to my predecessors. There was a three-year strategy but at the end of the three years, the scientists decided to change from a 75% risk assessment to a 50% risk assessment. If there is to be good will, that is something we must discuss when I re-establish the national salmon commission in the summer. Members of the committee, the public and many hundreds of people sent me e-mails and letters but it was not possible to respond to all of them.
On the question of inland fisheries, I have no difficulty in being associated with St. Patrick. He banished the snakes from Ireland and I supposedly will banish all the fish. It was quite a clever ploy on the part of those who drew the comparison but I am a responsible person with a very difficult job and I fully recognise the importance of inland fisheries. All of the tourists coming to Ireland to fish are very welcome and I am anxious to ensure that we have a sustainable fisheries policy. We can have this, provided we do it in a balanced and sustainable way.
Deputy Ryan referred to BIM and its funding. BIM requires more funding now than ever before because funding and development are not just associated with tonnage of fish. We are trying to develop new fisheries, especially in regard to blue whiting, where there are tremendous opportunities. Many years ago, all of the mackerel landed in Ireland went into fishmeal. As a result of the involvement of the Department and the BIM officials at that time, mackerel, the scavengers of the sea, went from going into fishmeal to going into markets all over Europe and further afield. The same developments are occurring now, therefore, BIM will play an important role in the research and development and marketing of those fish and others. We must also place more emphasis on other species of fish that can be farmed.
A few other issues were raised but I will continue speaking on my point about BIM. We want to get more value for the fish we land. There is a reduction in terms of quantity. We are past the days when we were just salting herring in barrels and sending them off for freezing or primary processing. We want to add more value to the available catch to ensure we can protect jobs and create more in the remote areas of the country. Regarding white fish renewal and decommissioning, we built a number of new vessels to have some long-term safe vessels. There was no question of increasing capacity as these were intended to replace older and less safe vessels. We now have vessels that can go further out to deep sea to exploit types of species that are not yet subject to attack or quotas.
When we speak of harbours we think of the main ports and harbours that are now being handed over to local authorities. I also think of the small harbours in which, with very little financial assistance, we can provide facilities for many of small fishermen, those who are fish farming and those who are cutting wrack off the west coast. I have ring-fenced funding for fishery harbours in the overall fund of approximately €20 million and we are committed to the continuing work on the larger harbours, such as Castletownbere, Clogher Head, Rosaveal and the plans for Dunmore East. I recently met a deputation from Greencastle where there are serious capacity problems, which I will examine closely over the next number of weeks.
I hope I have answered all of the questions. I will clarify the issue concerning the different speeches. The long speech covering the entire Vote was circulated to the committee on Thursday, 2 June. Following interaction with the committee, arrangements on the timeframe meant there would be two separate speeches, one from the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, dealing with the administrative subhead A and the other subheads for which he has responsibility, and one from me dealing with marine issues. As such, it makes sense for me to hone in on that area. If there are other specific issues, I would be pleased to address them.
I thank the Minister of State. I will point out to him that it was Deputy Broughan who mentioned the Conservative Party.
I think it was.
My apologies go to Deputy Eamon Ryan.
I wanted to correct the record. Are there further questions on subheads B.1, B.2 or C.1 to C.5, inclusive?
Are we going through each subhead? It is not apparent from our standing orders.
The Deputies have asked many questions regarding the different subheads in their opening addresses. Are subheads D.1 and D.2 agreed?
Can we go back over subheads B.1 and B.2? I had one or two small questions.
Yes.
On subhead B.2, I have a question that relates to our deliberations this morning concerning the Maritime Safety Bill 2004, when the point was made that we sometimes legislate but do not see any enforcement. Approximately three or four years ago, we passed a Bill establishing the Adventure Activities Standards Authority. It has a budget of only €1,000. Has the authority been established? This small figure struck me as an example of our ability to legislate but our inability to follow through on the ground.
That arose out of an incident in Dunmore East some years ago. I met the gentleman whose son was tragically lost at the time and he has been a great proponent of the Bill. The then Minister introduced the Adventure Activities Standards Authority Act 2001, which provides for the enactment of a new legislative regime to promote and enhance the safety of all persons who are engaged in adventure activities. With all due respect, this appears to be too narrowly focused. I am anxious to examine the matter further in order to broaden or merge it. I am reviewing it in light of the Minister's decision that the safety services provided by our Department, the Irish Coast Guard and the marine safety directive should be brought together under a single agency responsible for all elements. I assure the committee that I am not long-fingering this matter. I am working to ensure it is more encompassing and hope to have something done sooner rather than later.
I thank the Minister of State for the extension of the maritime safety service in County Sligo. Prior to being a 24 hour service, it was quite restricted and the change is appreciated.
Are there any other questions?
On subhead C.1 and the allocation of €3.958 million, there is a sentence that reads:"The payment of grant aid award under the seaports measure in the National Development Plan 2000-2006 to private sector applicants operating within the key commercial ports". Is most of the €4 million going to people developing inside State ports in the form of private sector grants?
A total of €12.7 million in the central fund does not come into the Vote. The main components of the €4 million are the payments of grant aid assistance under the seaports measure of the national development plan to harbour authorities under the Harbours Act 1946, payments for remedial work and private sector applicants operating within the key commercial ports. There are also grants for improvement works at secondary harbours amounting to €280,000. The overall amount also includes payments of pensions and allowances to seamen of €139,000.
On the ports matter, does the Minister of State plan for a facility that would allow concessions at ports, such as 30 year concessions to private enterprise to develop and upgrade facilities? In light of Dublin Port being at 98% capacity, what is the Minister of State's opinion on developing a separate port at Drogheda? Is he in favour of the proposed reclamation of lands?
I presume the Deputy is taking the view that the ports should grant concessions to private enterprise.
Yes.
We, as shareholders, do not regulate the ports so it is a matter for the port authorities. It seems a sensible idea that there would be opportunities to attract companies to establish within the port.
ConsiderDublin Port, which is at 98% capacity, and the fact that 95% of goods enter Ireland via Dublin Port. What is the opinion of the Minister of State on what Dublin Port could do to meet that volume of business?
Dublin Port is a commercial port and most of it is privatised. The authority will come to us in a matter of months with its plans for the future. I am not sure the port uses 98% of its capacity. There are opportunities for lo-lo. With this method of transport it is possible to stack, whereas roll-on roll-off does not offer the same possibility and takes up more space. I do not know the ratio between the two methods.
Is there the possibility of using 20 foot equivalents, taking the containers into Dublin Port and then taking some of the loose goods into another port? Would that allow greater development in Dublin?
At the moment we are doing due diligence. I am asking all the ports to consider and advise me of existing capacity as well as future potential. We have no difficulty with lo-lo units but the roll-on roll-off units are more difficult, with all of the shunting that is necessary, and one cannot stack roll-on roll-off units.
With regard to the 1946 Act dealing with the ownership of ports the Minister of State has indicated that he will delegate responsibility for ownership, management and future development of ports to the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. How much ministerial power can be accumulated to get a development plan involving private enterprise and local authorities? Can the Minister of State see that being effective and can he drive that forward?
The last thing I want to see happening is a transfer of State assets from the Department to the local authorities. I will closely monitor developments on that front. I am anxious to obtain a copy of plans for the future. I would be disappointed if no progress had been made in a reasonable number of years. I do not mean that valuable assets should be sold but rather that harbour areas be developed.
Does the Minister expect that county managers would have to get departmental approval for a business plan or a development?
It is standard for any port authority that it should present its business plan to the Department.
There is great potential in the ports and the Department should drive the concession model, whereby private enterprise invests money. The local authority could be involved and the dereliction I see in the ports could be transformed. Tourism could also benefit.
I will encourage private sector investment in our ports, particularly those that are being handed over to the local authorities. It is not a question of simply handing it over, there is a great deal of detail to be resolved. Officials from the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will meet. It is not a transfer for the sake of it.
It is a partnership.
It is a transfer to ensure that this is in the best interests of the country and the local authorities.
On a point of clarification did the Deputy refer to the Argentinian and Chilean models of concession?
That is correct.
We might be able to assist the Department on that point.
What number are we on?
I am coming to the end and I hope the Deputy will come with me.
Is there an increase or a reduction of €821,000 for Rosses Point?
At what is the Deputy looking?
Subhead C.4.
The committee is now considering subheads D.1 and D.2 but we can go back to the point the Deputy has raised.
It is prudent accounting, and we hope we will be able to do something for Rosses Point.
Are we agreed on subheads D.1 and D.2?
On subhead D.1 the Marine Institute will open its offices in Oranmore, BIM will relocate to Clonakilty and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will go to Cavan. Will Athlone be the new centre? Where will everyone meet? Will the Department do its business in Athlone bus station or train station? How will this lead to joined-up thinking in the Department, when there is required co-operation? I do not know where the Central Fisheries Board will go, perhaps Clonakilty, which is far from central.
No, the location is Carrick-on-Shannon.
Athlone will be convenient for the board. How will the Department work on one area, such as the marine, when there are people travelling from Cavan to Clonakilty to Oranmore to Carrick-on-Shannon?
We will make full use of information technology, including video conferencing from time to time, if necessary. It is difficult for the Minister of the day to find one's way. This is a Government decision and we will use all sorts of modern communication to join this up.
Will this include the Government jet?
There is no provision in the Vote for jets for Ministers or for the Department. I do not think it will be that difficult to join this up, and the people of Cavan, Clonakilty, Carrick-on-Shannon and Drogheda all welcome the development. The Secretary General, all the officials and the Department are working very diligently to move decentralisation on.
Referring to the scallops fishery in the south east, where overfishing occurred in the past four to five years, the Minister of State mentioned additional licences being issued to existing fishermen. I inferred from the Minister's words that this was part of the reason for the overfishing. Let us consider the case of this confined, targeted, well understood fishery, which could be a well managed fishery. Was it the responsibility of BIM to examine this and estimate the number of scallops that could be taken from the seabed, or was it the job of the Department or of the Marine Institute? Whose job was it to point out to the local fishermen that the fishery would continue to be productive if they took a certain number of scallops from beds and that if this number were exceeded it would not work? Whose responsibility was it to ensure that the fishery would be managed responsibly?
It is often said that it is much easier to be an historian than a forecaster. Unfortunately we find ourselves in a position where the stocks are depleted. The decision in 1999 to place a moratorium on additional licences suggests that the problem was becoming obvious. Otherwise the Department would not have proposed the moratorium to the Minister. Subsequently it was decided that any licence applications submitted should be processed, though not necessarily granted. The applications were processed and licences were granted. The reference period was 1998 to 2002. There was growth in the sector in 2003 and greater capacity and possibly that was one of the reasons for the additional fishing in those grounds. Now that the boats have moved elsewhere I hope those grounds will revive.
I use this as an example. I do not want to go into the issues there, but why do we have a Marine Institute, BIM and the Department? That fishery could have and should have been managed. Whose responsibility was its management? Was it the Department, BIM or the Marine Institute?
Whether we like to accept it, this is an EU resource managed by the EU. The Marine Institute is responsible for research, BIM is responsible for management and the Department is responsible for control. I hope both the EU and ourselves can learn from this experience.
If I may return to my main point, in answering the Minister stated that BIM is responsible for management.
No, it is responsible for marketing.
The Department is responsible for control and BIM is responsible for marketing. Surely BIM is responsible for more than marketing when one considers the notching of lobsters and the training programmes. BIM is the one agency that works with the fishing industry in terms of management. It is not just a marketing agency, is it?
It is also responsible for training. It has both training schools in the north at Donegal and Greencastle, and in the south it is responsible for the ice plants around the coast. It is responsible for development and safety measures, and funding is available for those. It is also responsible for processing applications for potting licenses. BIM has a wider range of responsibilities than marketing and plays an important role in the development of the fisheries around our coast.
Would this deserve a session on its own, perhaps when we are examining aquaculture in the autumn?
Yes.
We must conclude at 3.35 p.m. I thought the Minister of State would have left at 3 p.m. as committee members indicated they would finish early. Is the committee satisfied with subheads E.1 to E.5?
My key question is on subhead E.2 and as it is important, if it means the committee sits for five minutes longer it should do so and if the Minister has other work to do he can use his laptop. The Minister of State said the main operational priority under fisheries conservation and management is to procure essential surveillance equipment to support fisheries control and enforcement services, and the effective and efficient management of the planned refurbishment of Howth Pier.
This goes to the point I made in my main address. There seems to be widespread acceptance, off the record if not publicly, that tolerance of overfishing will come to an end, and the regime will be more strict. I understand the fishing industry generally recognises this. This is not just for pelagic fish for which there are serious concerns, but in other white fish where we have been overfishing the quotas set by the European Union.
Reading between the lines, the new surveillance equipment to support fisheries control and enforcement measures signifies such a change. Does the Minister of State have any further indication as to what that implies? What control mechanisms are being examined? If everyone across the EU were honest we would all admit it is not a question of doing what the Tories did and try to get a bigger slice of the cake, it is recognising the cake must be smaller if it is to survive. Can the Minister of State give any further details of those surveillance measures?
We should be aware of what is happening across Europe. The European Union has decided on a new fisheries control centre at Vigo, which will be responsible for controls generally. Each member state will have its own responsibilities and we must recognise that we have come a long way in terms of satellite monitoring.
I am not sure if the committee visited Killybegs but I understand the committee will visit Castletownbere and one of the items on the agenda is that there is too much fisheries control. It is a question of finding a balance. This is the funding available for us to work with the navy to ensure there is control and we want to ensure our fisheries are sustainable. We learn from experience. We are the custodians and must find that balance and ensure we have a sustainable industry for this and future generations.
Does the Minister of State believe there is too much control?
There are regulations in place and we have responsibility to ensure the regulations are implemented.
We must conclude at 3.35 p.m. Are there any questions on subhead F, or any concluding remarks?
Can the Minister of State indicate what plans he has for the inland fisheries? Out of €27 million, the level of funds available for angling tourism, which is the key to developing our potential as a tourism destination, is quite small. Could the Minister of State increase that funding? When will the new body to replace the seven fisheries boards be in operation?
I apologise as I missed some of the Minister of State's replies on the individual subheads.
I take the Minister of State's point on aquaculture development under subhead E.4, that there is major success in many areas such as shellfish. Is there any indication of what percentage of the €6 million spend will go on salmon farming?
When answering the members' questions, the Minister of State might also conclude.
The majority of that will go on mussel seed and laying them out. Approximately €3 million will be spent on the BMW aquaculture investment and approximately €3 million will be spent on the south and east aquaculture investment.
We hope to take the opportunity during the rest of this year to build a critical mass in the production of species with higher added value, shellfish in particular. We want to create additional peripheral coastal income and jobs in species with relatively lower capital costs and potential for added value and we want to promote the diversification of the aquaculture industry through setting up projects for the production of new species. We want to promote the introduction of new technology to improve infrastructural support for the sector and contribute to funding measures to minimise the impact of existing and new aquaculture operations on the environment, and to facilitate the development of less-developed areas through improving the quality of life in the rural and peripheral areas of the country.
The difficulty in Lough Swilly in Donegal is an emotive issue, as only three oyster beds are not contaminated. What plans does the Minister of State have to safeguard the three remaining oyster beds in light of the dredging of the Foyle?
Before I reply to that question I want to answer Deputy Perry's earlier question on the inland fisheries review. Major consultation and interaction has taken place in recent years. I have the report from Farrell Grant Sparks and have had discussions of a general nature with the Minister. I hope to present that report to Government by early July if not during this month. Then the Government will make a decision and I am sure the report will be publicly available after that.
I am pleased the Deputy raised the question about Bonamia and in particular, the situation in Lough Foyle. My Department has asked the Marine Institute to investigate a potential case of Bonamia in a wild oyster bed in Lough Foyle. Bonamia is a parasite which affects flat oysters but has no impact on human health. While it does not affect the edibility of oysters and poses no risk to oyster consumers, it results in heavy mortality rates in the affected stocks.
This is the first possible isolation of the parasite in Lough Foyle. It was identified through the Marine Institute's routine monitoring programme, when 13 out of 30 oysters sampled were identified as suspect positive for the parasite. Slides have been taken to the Community reference laboratory in France to undergo further tests for confirmation. The procedures followed by my Department and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, DARD, regarding the suspected outbreak in Lough Foyle are in line with the requirements of the EU directives of 91-67 and 95-70, which do not require a ban on all shipping activity. Pending the confirmation of the tests for Bonamia, no approval will be given in Ireland for movements of shellfish in our out of Lough Foyle. This does not affect human consumption but it affects the moving of shellfish within Lough Foyle.
I am concerned about dredging currently taking place and whether there is any restriction on dredging in the area. Can the Department issue a directive that will prevent the Bonamia from spreading? Is dredging ongoing in Lough Foyle?
We will conclude on that question.
The jury is out on that question but the Department will ensure that there is no movement of fish out of the Foyle area so that the parasite does not spread. It is early days and we are anxiously awaiting the results from the Community reference laboratory in France, where the samples are undergoing tests at present. I will keep the Deputy——
The Minister of State is taking a firm stand regarding the problem.
I will keep the Deputy informed of developments.
It is the Minister of State's own county, after all.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending. This concludes our examination of the estimates for the marine area of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
Sitting suspended at 3.45 p.m. and resumed at 3.50 p.m.
I welcome the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to this committee. We will now discuss subheads A.1, A.9, G.1, G.2, H.1, H.2, I.1, I.5, J, K and L. The Minister will make his opening statement, following which opening statements will be heard from spokespersons from each of the three different groups.
With the Chairman's indulgence, I join the committee in expressing condolences to the family of Mr. Seán Doherty, who died recently. Mr. Doherty was a great character, a good colleague and a loyal friend. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.
I circulated a comprehensive speech because I wanted members' notes to be as comprehensive as possible but members will be delighted to learn that I will not go through it in detail. I will touch on a number of issues and leave as much time as possible for questions and other submissions.
The 2005 Vote reflects an ongoing commitment to change and transformation which began in 1997. The breadth and diversity of the Vote reflects the Department's wide-ranging remit. As a driver of sustainable economic growth across many sectors, the Department makes a key contribution to productivity, competitiveness and capacity. We also contribute to social cohesion by supporting jobs and building infrastructure in peripheral coastal regions. This Estimate will ensure continued progress on the priorities set by the Government and by me as Minister. The goal is to successfully address sectoral challenges in order to deliver sustainable growth, regionally balanced development and an inclusive society.
A large proportion of the Vote is geared to programme delivery through various State bodies. A key objective is the significant improvement of efficiency and value for money delivery by State bodies. At present, there is a focus on enhancing corporate governance of the State bodies. Continuous improvement is needed to ensure they are best equipped to deliver on the Government's policy objectives. Key priorities for commercial state bodies include the creation of effective markets and the imperative of competitiveness. Emphasis must be put on measurable outputs and outcomes. My consistent message to the Department and State bodies concerns the need to ensure the highest standards of service provision and best use of available resources.
The energy and communications sectors have a vital role to play in delivering a competitive economy. In terms of the energy sector, the development of an all-island energy market is well advanced. I am committed to working on a range of fronts to develop the economic dimension of North-South co-operation.
Research, development and innovation are fundamental to sectoral and national policy objectives and to building the knowledge society. New research and development strategies for the energy, marine, and digital sectors are being developed and will set the direction of policy until 2010 and beyond. Our strategies will be set in the context of collaboration between Government, industry and education to improve Ireland's research and development capacity and to deliver on the EU Lisbon Agenda. Our strategies also link into capacity building throughout the education system and the private sector. I believe in a greater role for economic players in delivering the social policy agenda. This is reflected in our priority programmes, where we are working to integrate the social, environmental and economic dimensions of development. Broadband is crucial for business but also underpins progress on health, education, and disability services as well as tackling disadvantage and peripherality. Sustainable energy initiatives make sound economic sense and represent investment in a better environment for the future and a better quality of life for all.
The contribution of public service broadcasting to artistic, cultural, educational aspects of a multicultural inclusive and fair society is self-evident. The new multi-annual approach to capital spending enables the carry over of funds into the next year and allows for better planning and strategic use of resources. It is a good first step and I fully support budgetary and expenditure strategies in the interests of transparency, scrutiny and better planning.
The Vote provision for expenditure on communications and multimedia reflects this Government's commitment to delivering the knowledge economy. Open access broadband for all businesses and all citizens is imperative. We will expand quality broadband infrastructure across the country through the MANs programme in partnership with the local authorities from 26 towns to 90 towns by the 2007 target. This represents a once in a generation investment in key State infrastructure. The overwhelming response to the group broadband scheme underlines the hunger for on-line access in all communities. Government and enterprise are working together to deliver the broadband for schools programme, with a target of broadband in every school by the end of this year. The new National Digital Research Centre will complement Government initiatives in digital media and technology. I want to see this initiative deliver real value added through its contribution to education research, innovation and indigenous enterprise.
The three main pillars of energy policy are security of supply, a future of sustainable energy and the competitive, efficient and appropriate regulation of the energy market. Investment support for sustainable energy and conservation programmers delivered through Sustainable Energy Ireland will be important. Sustained attention is being given to changing the energy mix, improving energy efficiency and realizing the benefits of the all-island market. Renewable energy will contribute to the security of supply as well as addressing environmental challenges. My objective is to achieve at a minimum the target of 13.2% of consumption of electricity from renewable energy sources. Delivery by the wind technology sector is a key factor in reaching that target. The roll-out of a new energy research and development strategy this year is critical. In recent months, submissions have been made to a consultation paper on this issue. Future decisions on the structure of the electricity sector will affect all consumers and have implications for economic competitiveness.
Fundamental analysis of the sector, including the dominance issue, is and has been needed for some time. Consultants have been appointed and officially commenced work today. They will undertake the analysis and report by the end of this year.
In the broadcasting area the increased funding provision for the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland will resource it to deliver the new programme codes. It will also support the administration of the new public service broadcasting fund which I expect will deliver exciting, imaginative and innovative programming. The plans for the separate establishment of TG4 as an independent entity are being developed. External advisers will be appointed shortly to assist in the process. The roll-out of digital terrestrial television is getting under way with a pilot project which should accelerate the momentum with the private sector and viewers.
As regards the Department's administrative budget, there is a strong commitment to ICT initiatives and training and development where 7% of payroll will be committed again this year. I stress the need for greater efficiency and value for money as an organisation and across all programmes. Productivity across the board is the watchword. The Department has an ambitious modernisation and change agenda under Sustaining Progress. Change in non-commercial State bodies is also supported through the change management and innovative fund established last year and expanded for 2005.
The Vote expenditure in 2005 is underpinned by explicit policy priorities and a clear strategic focus aimed at delivering on a wide range of economic and social objectives. For that reason, I commend the Vote to the select committee.
I will take opening statements from Deputy Durkan, the Fine Gael spokesperson, and Deputy Broughan, the Labour Party spokesperson. We will then go through the subheads rather than trying to cover everything in the opening statements.
Like other speakers, I join the expressions of sympathy to our late colleague, Seán Doherty, with whom I worked for many years on the Committee of Public Accounts and other committees. He was a great character and a practical joker which we all experienced from time to time. He was also a great story teller and raconteur. He was a lovely person and it was always great fun to be with him. It is difficult to believe he has passed away. I extend my sympathy to his wife, Maura, and their family. We worked together for ten or 15 years of our parliamentary lives and never had a row. While he wound me up on a few occasions, he was a character who will remain with us for as long as we are around. Ar dheis láimh Dé go raibh a anam.
The Minister is correct to outline the important and central role the Department will play now and particularly in the future. The area of communications, energy and natural resources will govern many facets of our lives. If we fail on any one of these major elements, we will pay a high price. The Minister's speech is different from the one we received last Thursday. However, we will do our best to discuss it in the shortest possible time.
The speech I have is the one the Minister delivered.
He only referred to it; he did not go through it in detail.
I asked him to summarise it.
We will do our best to compete with him. The greatest criticism I have of his Department concerns the area of communications. I know he has only been in the Department for a relatively short period but someone must accept responsibility for the lack of progress in rolling out broadband facilities. I have listened to discussions about broadband roll-out, roll-off and roll-on for the past five or six years. It is amazing that a country which was at the cutting edge of telecommunications has fallen so far so quickly in the European and world leagues. There is no excuse for this.
The availability of broadband in Northern Ireland is better than it is here and is likely to accelerate at a greater rate. The Minister may make conciliatory noises about the reasons for this. However, it will not be the Department which will pay the price but the country's standing in the area of modern technological advances and its ability to facilitate industry investing here now and in the future. I cannot believe we are not leaders or contenders in this area. The revised targets set by the Minister since he took office are revisions of revisions. We are still as far back as some critics anticipated we would be a couple of years ago. Why have we fallen behind and why are we not accelerating the process?
The Minister referred to various broadband schemes and said it was impossible to provide services for remote communities with populations of less than 1,500. I was in the Black Valley in County Kerry a couple of weeks ago which does not and is unlikely to have broadband facilities. It is amazing that we can put men and women on the moon but cannot provide broadband technology for an area in the middle of our planet.
There is a satellite.
There is an outdated satellite in operation but it is operated by one person. It is slow and does not work properly. That is only one of the issues which must be carefully considered.
The Minister referred to mobile telephony which has played a central role in the industrial and social life of the country. I do not understand why this is the second most expensive country in Europe in that regard. I presume it has something to do with competition. I do not understand why we cannot inject competition into the marketplace, which is what deregulation is supposed to do. Why has this not happened? Surely it should have happened a long time before now. The suggestion was made at the beginning that we were using mobile telephones to talk too much. Irish people tend to talk too much at the best of times but, as the Chairman knows, a further analysis was carried out, and it was proven that we did not talk any more than anyone else but that we paid more whenever we talked. That is serious and a sad reflection on this country.
Whenever we table questions in the House, we have great difficulty obtaining answers on the basis that it is a matter for the regulator. Regulators were introduced after the French Revolution and more were introduced after the American War of Independence. The further we or anyone else go down that road, the greater the extent of the trap for Ministers and Governments. The more information which can be put into the public arena the better for Ministers and those with responsibility and the less chance of something popping up out of the wilderness, of which we are not aware.
The Minister did not spend much time discussing the digital hub which is a fine concept. However, it is not intended to be a political objective for local consumption but a centre of excellence. That centre of excellence lost its anchor tenant and the Minister referred to the fact that the search was on to find a replacement. The provisions and activities to date have been expensive. I hope the end will justify the means and that results will be forthcoming. I hope it will not be a flash in the pan as we approach the next general election, whenever that might be. Perhaps the Minister will shed some light on the subject.
I am totally in favour of utilising modern technology in our daily lives. However, regardless of what we invest in, it is imperative that it is well costed and soundly based economically. Failure to do so will create problems for us down the road.
The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources covers a wide brief, including energy. While I would have preferred if the announcement had been made in the House with the full fanfare it deserved, over the bank holiday weekend the Minister announced the Government's energy policy. He is correct in identifying the mission statement as the safeguarding and securing of supply. If somebody turns on an electric kettle in the morning and nothing happens, that is when the fun will start. The Minister is also correct about the development of sustainable energy sources into the future. However, the speed at which this issue is now being pursued is a source of concern. We could have gone down this road and developed our energy policy considerably earlier.
The Minister proposes to increase the rate of consumption of electricity from renewable energy sources to 13.2% of total electricity consumption by 2010. The planning permissions granted for wind energy stations on land — very few have been granted for development at sea — represent approximately 30% of wind energy potential. I appreciate that this area has the potential to be developed further. I commend Airtricity and its colleagues for identifying areas at sea that offer good potential for this purpose and which could also serve as navigational aids.
As an amateur tree grower, I could never understand why it was not possible to tie all the elements of the energy sector together. For instance, to have an energy policy we must have good energy conservation. It is estimated that a considerable saving in energy consumption could be achieved through conservation, without anybody losing out. Based on the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, it is also known that with a good tree growing regime it is possible to counteract greatly the carbon emissions that affect the ozone layer. Such a regime should be implemented as a matter of urgency. As I have often said, we need a good mix of the trees that positively impact on the environment. Some trees being planted are not native deciduous trees but conifers which can thrive. It is well known that some of these trees have the capacity to absorb up to five times the rate of carbon that can be absorbed by some native deciduous species.
People should be able to balance the effect of buying a new car by taking other specific steps. This is what we will need to do from now on as the issue is now serious and not just one for chit-chat.
The Minister made reference to broadcasting. The broadcasting Bill has been floating around for some time. I have done my utmost to encourage the Government to proceed with it, as I would like to see it passed sooner rather than later, although this seems unlikely. The Minister made little reference to An Post. The Postal (Miscellaneous Services) Bill disappeared from our screens some time ago. I do not know why this happened. It might be the result of an electronic glitch.
In his long speech the Minister made several references to the work of consultants. While I am sure these consultants are eminently qualified and well able to do their jobs, I still worry about them. By virtue of our experience going through life, each of us has gained some knowledge in these areas also. I draw the Minister's attention to his foray in his previous incarnation when I presume consultants had something to say about e-voting. While we are on the subject of communications, I hope the consultants employed in the delivery of energy and communications policy generally provide information that is more soundly based than that provided by the consultants who advised on the matter of e-voting which has not only proved to be unfeasible but also very expensive.
I welcome the Minister and his team from the Department. I would like to ask questions about An Post, broadband, broadcasting, energy and decentralisation.
In the Minister's speech today and a broader one prepared last week he mentioned virtually nothing about An Post and the ongoing crisis in the company. Is it not time for him to prepare a proposal on the future direction of the postal service? He has reacted to the debate on a Labour Party motion in the Dáil before Christmas and the different twists and turns in industrial relations. While he has reacted, the four postal service unions led by the Communications Workers Union presented a very interesting and informative analysis of the postal service the country needs, An Post — A New Vision. It is striking that despite being so well funded, the Department does not have any such vision. Where does the Minister see this matter progressing? While we have a copy of his speech, it mainly reacted to some of the remarks other Opposition spokespersons and I had made.
It is now the summer of 2005 and all the officials and Members of the Oireachtas received increases under benchmarking and Sustaining Progress. However, assessors appointed to examine the finances of An Post have recommended that staff receive a 5% pay rise. I am not clear on the status of the recommendation. More than two years have passed and 10,000 workers have not received their due entitlements. Even more shamefully from a public point of view, the pensioners who served us very well for 40 to 50 years during the decades of the 20th century have also not received increases. This is an ongoing and upsetting problem, on which the Minister should be leading from the front.
I occasionally read publications such as the New Scientist, as I am sure the Minister does. A recent edition informed us that on 5 May the Noel Dempsey of the Ethiopian Government had launched an ambitions plan to wire all of Ethiopia for broadband within three years. Initially 100,000 people in Addis Ababa will have access and by November he hopes to connect up to 300,000 businesses and homes. The EU broadband readiness report places us 19th, with the performance of our singers at the Eurovision Song Contest being emulated by the Minister and the Department on broadband roll-out. We are slotting in nicely behind Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia and the rest.
Every time we look the indicators are shameful. What did the Minister do? He went to a conference on broadband and threatened Eircom, saying it must get its act together. The Department has suddenly found out that there is a colossal market failure in broadband; it is not happening for Ireland. Two years ago we were two or three years behind the United Kingdom. We watched Prime Minister Blair with his e-envoy and all his wonderful plans for broadband which now reaches eight million businesses and homes.
I do not blame the Minister primarily; his predecessor was in situ when we should have been taking strong measures. What will the Minister do? His target was to be in the top 10% by the middle of 2005 but we have hopelessly missed it. Previous Administrations had much to do with it but we have missed that target as well as the target the Minister set in UCD recently of 500,000 subscribers by 2006. Week after week the Opposition meets luminaries from the broadband providers who are upset about the matter. They complain about the logjams with the local loop and ComReg’s lack of power but nothing happens. It is hard to interest the wider public but this is a critical failure on the part of the Government. What will happen? When will it take action?
Some of the measures taken to resolve the difficult situation in RTE have greatly improved the position and the company's fortunes have stabilised. Some of the new accountability measures the civil servants had insisted on such as the charter were wise moves.
Logging on to the website of OfCom, the British regulator, we find paper after paper on digital broadcasting with clear dates and plans. While it will cost a lot of money, we are lagging behind here also, emulating what is happening in broadband. Will the Minister tell us what he will do about digital broadcasting?
The Minister talked about renewable energy but we get weekly reports on peak demand and the level of the market. Peak demand at 5 p.m. on 18 May was 3,674 megawatts but wind energy sources were contributing only 190 megawatts at 12.45 p.m. that day. Less than 3% of energy was wind generated. The Minister talks the talk about renewables but what is happening? According to this report, wind energy accounts for a tiny proportion of the grid.
I note the PR campaign building up behind nuclear energy, with countries such as Finland feeling they are well ahead of us because of their nuclear power base. We reject this approach but if we do, we must put a significant effort into using sustainable energy sources. Will the Minister say to the Minister for Finance in September that he wants financial backing for wind and biomass energy? I will put it up to my party and others to bite the bullet also.
I would not mind if Navan became the capital of Ireland, or Cork city or Athlone. I have the same view as the former director of University of Limerick, there must be a capital city. The Department's core, however, will be in Cavan, with the divisions dealing with seafood in Clonakilty and marine safety in Drogheda. Is this not a flawed policy? I believe in subsidiarity, letting local people run local areas, but we need a significant national capital. This is a mad policy which will be changed after the next general election.
When the Minister of State was here earlier, I commiserated with him because he was in an invidious position. He will be Minister of State when his industry will have to retrench. It will even happen in his own constituency. I envy the Minister, however, because he is in a position which offers a remarkable opportunity. With the Department, he will be judged on how well they grasp the opportunity and what changes they make. It will be hugely important for the economy that he makes some changes.
The report on the administration of the Department was a good one. I agree with the assessment that there should be more output for less input using the technology in which we have invested so heavily. We must see the capital investment in IT translating into lower operational costs but I do not yet see any gains. There are increases across the board, including transport costs, as a result of benchmarking and Sustaining Progress. The reality has not translated into the figures but there is the intent and it will be interesting to see how it works out.
Deputy Durkan mentioned consultants. There are numerous terms in the document such as "upward feedback training", the Department being in "decentralisation mode", "knowledge management projects" and "disaster recovery planning". Some of these terms come from consultants we have employed but I am keen to get behind them to find out the real change the Minister wants to secure in his Department's administration.
In regard to the two main policy areas, I will speak first about energy. The Minister referred to communications first which may simply reflect the order in which these areas appear in the title of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I envy the Minister because of the potential for new technologies to benefit our economy and society. However, a serious challenge or threat also faces our economy. I raised this shortly after the Minister took office but the forthcoming depletion of global oil production will be an issue unlike any other we have faced.
I recently attended a conference on whose findings I hope to report to the committee. Economists there showed the correlation between economic growth and the available supply of cheap energy in the form of oil and gas. Figures from companies such as Exxon-Mobil show that when the depletion begins it will move at a rate of 4% to 6% per annum. That will have a serious effect on an economy. When I raised this in November last the Minister took the Department's line, which is also the International Energy Agency's line, namely, that we do not need to worry about this depletion for another 25 years. Since then, the IEA has called on governments to take dramatic measures to reduce energy because of the changing prospects for oil availability.
Recently, President Bush, who is an oil man, and whose Vice President is an oil man like no other, admitted the United States must radically change its ways because of its dependence on foreign oil. We may not know the year when this depletion will begin but it is on the immediate rather than the long-term horizon. The US department of energy published a paper recently highlighting the need to invest in advance of any such depletion occurring. It advocates taking at least a ten if not a 20 year change of tack, before any such depletion occurs in order to bring the economy around to a position that will in some way mitigate these circumstances. That should be one of the central matters the Minister takes into regard in his work but it does not appear to be part of the work of his Department.
We are remarkably fortunate in having potential for future energy development because we have a mild growing climate which is good for bioenergy products, whether biofuels or biomass. We have wind, tidal and wave resources but the Minister has failed to grasp these opportunities. This is not entirely the fault of the Minister, who has been only a short time in office. It is in part the fault of the regulator and large energy producers such as the ESB but the Department must take major responsibility.
This is the view of people in the industry and last week the Taoiseach acknowledged the AER system is a disaster. It has failed to develop any other renewable energy sources, whether biomass or biofuels. Deputy Durkan alluded to the Minister's statement at the end of a series of programmes on RTE about renewable energy that his Department will change. I hope the change does not come too late and that the Minister realises the magnitude of the change required and the potential.
That change will be expensive in the short term. Deputy Broughan is right, the Minister must twist the arm of the Minister for Finance to invest in these technologies before they become commercially viable, which will happen in five to ten years' time because the price of oil will be $110 a barrel, as Goldman Sachs predicts. The Minister's role in the Cabinet is to ensure the Department of Finance backs this research. Otherwise, the Minister's tenure will be judged a failure.
The Minister mentioned the difficult political decisions in the structures. I read a report from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on the cost of energy in our economy and the effect it has on large employers, for example in software and pharmaceutical companies, which are intensive energy users. The report included an energy bill of over €400 million per year in those companies. Many are seriously relocating because our energy prices are far above the European average. It will be necessary to restructure the delivery of electricity to favour small companies and encourage competition. That will be a difficult political nettle for the Minister to grasp and will be another measure of his success in his post. Hopefully, I can go into more detail on these points later.
On the subject of communications it is not certain that we are grasping the opportunity before us, for example, in broadband. The Department's investment in metropolitan area networks is a serious financial commitment but I am not sure it will work. When representatives of the various companies involved visit us there is a sense that for all the fibre we are ploughing into the ground unless we resolve the issue of the last mile it will not work. I heard the Minister say last week that there is no return from these networks. This is a warning sign that while the investment is a laudatory aspiration and commitment to broadband it may not deliver. That we are ranked 19 in the list of European states with broadband access is an inescapable matter of concern.
I have greater concerns about overall competition in the telephone and mobile telephone market. The regulator's effectiveness is improving but it seems that we remain uncompetitive in this market. The Minister could consider more radical solutions to reintroduce competition to the market.
I agree with other members that the RTE presentation here last week was more positive than those we have previously heard. It was a good decision to invest money in State broadcasting and for the company to invest that money in programming. This is an example of public service providing the quality of programming people want. The market will bear witness that the Department was right to make that investment.
However, the Department's record on grasping new opportunities in this area is one of failure. When I joined this committee three years ago reports indicated that digital services would be available in the following year. I do not understand why it has taken so long to establish what we want to do in regard to digital services, despite the large sums of money paid to consultants.
The pilot project the Minister mentioned is not the answer. I do not see how the digital services will be provided. This is another example of the Minister recognising and talking about opportunities available through changing technologies but not delivering. Some of the delivery systems will be expensive, some will be politically difficult and the time in which the Minister can implement these changes is running out, if there is to be an election within 18 months or two years. That is the challenge for the Minister.
The meeting is running 12 minutes behind time, partly because it was late starting. I will list the subheads and invite the Minister to respond to any questions raised under those subheads rather than taking them in random order.
Were there any questions on subheads A.1 to A.9, the administrative budget? We will follow that with subheads G.1 and G.2.
Deputy Durkan asked about consultants in the context of the administrative budget. I am not sure whether he wished specifically to raise that question about the Department or to have a dig at me about electronic voting. If it was the latter I do not agree with his summary.
That is for a different committee. Will the Minister speak to his brief because if we start the Deputy off, we will not get home until tomorrow morning?
In deference to the ruling of the Chairman, I will not go down that route except to say the Deputy will be proven to be wrong.
The members of the committee are well aware and have acknowledged the importance of the Department's role to significant sectors of the economy. It is necessary to ensure that the Department gets the best available advice. The civil servants who accompany me will be the first to admit that they do not know everything about every aspect of their brief and it is necessary in a fast moving sector such as communications to get the best possible advice. For that reason we need to employ consultants. I am confident that we do not use the services of consultants excessively and it gives us good value for money.
Can the Minister quantify how much of the €34 million has been spent on decentralisation? It is stated that the Minister meets in "decentralisation mode". What does that mean? Does somebody go down to Cavan——
Portlaoise.
——or Carrick-on-Shannon and telephone the Department? Does the Department have 3G phones?
We have nothing as exotic as 3G phones. What the expression means is that MAC meets every fortnight to discuss decentralisation specifically and to ensure the programme proceeds. It is on target. As the Deputy rightly points out, this is funded under the administrative budget and does not cost the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources anything as of yet. Not a penny of the €34 million can be put down to decentralisation.
I note the emphasis on knowledge development training. Is there a danger that when civil servants acquire that knowledge they will move to the Department of Agriculture and Food or other Departments so that the Minister will need more consultants to advise him?
I remember when the Central Statistics Office relocated to one of the Cork constituencies, there was an interim period when there was a difficulty in getting new staff up to the levels of expertise required. The same issue will apply here.
That is a valid point. The Secretary General has made this point on a number of occasions when assessing the risks and threats involved in decentralisation. One of the risks is that knowledge and expertise built up over years could be lost. The Department is aware of that issue and an initiative of knowledge management which preceded my time in the Department was put in place. Systems have been put in place. Knowledge management is a system of capturing the explicit and tacit knowledge in the organisation, including all the processes, procedures and the knowledge built up during the years. I believe the system that is in place will be copied and used not only by other Departments but by the private sector. The percentage of the total payroll spent on training and development of staff is 7% and I do not believe that anybody else in Ireland spends that amount on it. It is well worth highlighting this important issue.
Has Deputy Durkan a question on subhead A.4?
On subhead A.4, postal and courier charges, which courier company was used? The Minister may not have all the information on mobile phones, but which company is dominant in the provision of mobile phone services to the Department?
On the latter point, there is a framework Government contract for this service and all business is done with Eircom. I do not have the information to hand but I will forward the information on the courier company to the Deputy.
One of the complaints about the provision of services to Government is the dominant role of Eircom. For instance, Eircom retains dominance in the fixed line telecommunications market and holds 87% of the domestic calls market, 99% of the lower level calls market, 77% of the higher level calls market, 68% of the international calls market, 80% of the revenue of the market for the minimum set of leased lines, 70% of the calls transit market, 80% of the wholesale market for call termination and 100% of the market for copper local loops. Would the Department set a lead in encouraging competition, which it is believed is a major stumbling block in the provision of telecommunications services countrywide?
Does Eircom hold the contract for the mobile phone service?
No, Vodafone does. CMOD makes these decisions on behalf of all Departments. Last year the contract was worth €100 million and this year it is €60 million because various services were taken out of the contract. The Deputies are preaching to the converted on introducing competition. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources opened up its energy consumption to a wider market and a company other than the dominant one got the contract. The same will happen with the telephone service.
Will the Minister influence the awarding of Government contracts along those lines?
I would never try to influence Government contracts, but it would be the Department policy——
In a positive way.
That was made public before. We are running behind time. I am sticking to the schedule that was laid out under Standing Orders, so we will deal with subheads G.1 and G.2 — energy. We will ask the Minister to respond to the questions already put in the opening statements by members and Deputy Durkan will have an opportunity to put more questions.
Deputy Durkan, among others, raised a question on the potential of energy from wind and trees. I wore a different hat when the Kyoto Protocol was agreed some years back and it will have profound effects on energy and environmental policy in the future as well as on our economy if we do not get it right. We must get our energy efficiency targets right. Deputies Eamon Ryan and Durkan spoke in terms of biting the bullet in regard to renewables. I am committed to this approach and agree that to make progress in this regard, we must take a long-term view. This is the approach we are taking. I already mentioned that we are working on the compilation of an energy policy out of all the different work that has been undertaken on renewables and so on.
However, there is little point in striving towards some type of Mom and apple pie scenario. We must recognise that it is the consumer who pays for all this. I am obliged to strike a balance between achieving and exceeding our targets in regard to the wonderful opportunities that exist in the area of renewable and alternative energy and, on the other hand, protecting the position of the consumer who is at the receiving end of the cost increase of 5% or 6% necessitated by the public service obligation in respect of turf in the midlands and renewable energy. It is important that both these considerations are balanced.
On the point raised by Deputy Eamon Ryan regarding oil stocks, I again refer to the response I made earlier. I agree with the Deputy that we must have a long-term perspective. This will allow us to take a more realistic view of costs and of the actions necessary to shift from our dependence on oil stocks.
I do not wish to dwell on this issue because the committee will take two days to complete our energy modules in the coming weeks. We hope the Minister will be available to address the committee at the end of those modules in order that we can have a full debate on this matter.
I have a question on subhead G.2 which relates to what the Minister said in regard to energy conservation and the EU directive on energy efficiency in buildings. One might assume that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would ensure that local authority houses currently being constructed would comply with the anticipated EU directive on energy conservation. On the contrary, it seems local authorities, through the Department, are not--
Is that an issue for this meeting?
Yes. It is a case of one Department being in conflict with another.
We are discussing departmental Estimates. Deputy Durkan seems to be raising a local government issue.
No. It is a question of whether local government policy is in conflict with the Department's stated policy on energy conservation.
Has the Minister a view on this?
I ask the Chairman to allow me to continue. It seems a false economy that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should take the stance that it will comply with the regulations only when they come into force in 2007. It is much more economically viable that they should be adhered to now rather than in two years' time.
We might refer to this in the energy module.
I assumed the allocation of €3.5 million to energy efficiency and the built environment relates to the proposed directive. Will Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI, be responsible for training and appointing inspectors as is required by the directive?
Research seems to be negligible on the issue of peaks in global oil production and when they are likely to occur. Has the Department considered carrying out specific research in this area? There are people with access to significant resources, including former geologists from oil companies and others. Many of their offices are now publicly funded and have the resources to examine this issue. This committee recommended last autumn that the Department should invest in research that would allow us to reach some type of consensus on what is likely to occur in terms of the supply of oil and gas, an issue of some consequence. Will the Department consider this?
On Deputy Durkan's question in regard to building regulations, I have experience from my time in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government of the lead-in time required for such changes. It is not possible to decide one day that new regulations will be introduced and have them implemented the next day. All affected parties must be given notice, including the construction industry, architects, engineers and so on. There is no conflict between local authorities and departmental policy in this regard. Local authorities have generally been co-operative in working with SEI to develop housing schemes that use different options in regard to energy efficiency and so on.
In response to Deputy Eamon Ryan's question, SEI will put in place the regime in regard to the inspectorate and so on. I have recommended that SEI should work with third level institutions to ensure the new regulations are adequately covered in the curricula of all relevant disciplines, including engineering, architecture, technician courses and so on. This will ensure that all concerned are qualified to implement the regulations.
We are trying to build capacity in energy research and development. As I already mentioned, we are compiling a report, submissions in respect of which were received until the end of May. We hope to publish all the outputs of that during the summer and to collate the findings into a policy document.
We will now move on to subheads H.1 and H.2.
I have one final question for the Minister in this area. Has SEI been successful in spending the research and development budget it has been allocated?
SEI was initially slow to get on course in its activities. A sum of €3 million was spent in the first year or so but this has been ramped up and the expenditure is approximately €12 million now. I am repeatedly assured by SEI that it will be able to spend any amount of extra research money it is allocated. After an initially slow start, it is making rapid progress.
Are there any questions on subhead H.1 which relates to the information and communications technology programme? Several questions on broadband were raised in the opening addresses by the party spokespersons. The Minister may wish to respond to those first and members will then have an opportunity to put supplementary questions.
Members made a number of points on this issue and it is important that a clear response should be given. Deputy Durkan asked why there is a difference between this State and Northern Ireland in terms of broadband provision. I hope I am not unfair to anybody in offering the simple answer that the difference arises because BT, the incumbent telecommunications provider in Northern Ireland, decided to invest in the provision of 100% broadband coverage. There was not the same commitment from the incumbent in this State.
A deal was made between the Government and telecommunications provider in Northern Ireland. There was no such deal here.
The deal in Northern Ireland related to the last 5%. Deputies have stated that foreign industrial investments may be at risk because of the lack of broadband coverage. We have not lost any industrial investment because of a lack of broadband. The contrary is true if one considers major companies such as Google, Aventure and Amazon. However, such success should not mask the fact that we have difficulties with the roll-out of broadband to homes because market investment collapsed after 2001, the private sector would not invest in advance of demand and the cable industry was not as well developed here as in other parts of Europe. These are the reasons behind our slow start. We are responding to that and I thank Deputies for their acknowledgement of the roll-out of broadband through the metropolitan area networks, MANS, school broadband and the group and county scheme.
Northern Ireland has achieved 100% broadband availability and 90% is predicted for the Republic by March 2006. Some sources believe that 20% of current lines are incapable of providing broadband. How is it intended to achieve that target?
There will be a greater commitment from the incumbent which has indicated that it will enable all of its exchanges up to a coverage of 90%. The alternatives of wireless, wi-fi, satellite and cable will also be used to achieve the target by the end of——
We get glorious press releases about wi-fi from ComReg and sometimes from the Department. However, a company that uses wi-fi, such as Irish Broadband, can barely get it in Killester, never mind Killeshandra. The service dies out once one hits Killester and the north side of Dublin. When one examines the facts, it turns out to be complete hype and rubbish. The Houses of the Oireachtas broadband connection is also questionable. There is a huge gap. Has the Minister any sympathy for ComReg's idea to take a tougher approach with Eircom in respect of the national grid?
The Minister mentioned the incumbent was becoming more co-operative, but I thought it was involved in litigation with a view to retaining its dominant position rather than the other way around.
The Deputy is right with regard to the incumbent trying at all times to ensure that it remains so. It has contested the most important aspect of getting broadband coverage through local loop unbundling on the last mile, as referred to by Deputies. The incumbent has pursued every available avenue to ensure that roll-out of broadband by anybody other than itself is as slow as possible. It has a legal right to do so and is challenging the local loop unbundling directive and also the timescale imposed. It has appealed the matter to the electronic appeals commission and has taken many of us to court.
From the point of view of trying to ensure that it is the only one rolling out broadband, it is fair and true to say that the incumbent will continue to try to be the dominant party for as long as possible. It would shrug its shoulders and say that is business and that is why it is there. To be fair to the incumbent, it has also made commitments to which we have all referred to enable all exchanges and to ensure 90% broadband coverage at a certain level by the end of 2006. It does not seem to see any incompatibility regarding the way in which it is going. I am not being unfair to the incumbent, but it has taken the attitude that all is fair in love and war and business and that the longer it can keep out competitors the better.
Is the incumbent not obliged to comply with legislation on local loop unbundling and EU directives?
The legislation is in place and ComReg has used it to try to secure local loop unbundling. However, we have a wonderful democracy and a written Constitution and everybody is entitled to their day in court or before an appeals system. We must go through those particular procedures.
To ascertain the status of the March 2006 deadline, what percentage of the entire country is covered in terms of availability of broadband?
Depending on the technology used, or the combination of technologies such as wi-fi, wireless and satellite, one could have 100% coverage at this time. It is possible, at a price, to get broadband in any part of the country. The issues are quality, type and cost and most people are referring to DSL broadband. When we speak of penetration rates, we are generally speaking of DSL.
Is that the most modern type of broadband?
No, it is not.
That is my point.
It is the commonest type of broadband at this time.
It is important for the Minister to note that the committee has engaged a consultant to review our broadband report which made 12 recommendations to the Oireachtas, the Minister and his Department. Perhaps some of that information will be made available when dealing with Department officials.
Would it be possible for the Chairman and the Secretary General to go to Ethiopia and find out——
No, I cannot go there.
We might be able to get broadband quickly rolled out if the Deputy were willing to agree to the suspension of our rights.
That is not on the agenda for my next excursion or fact-finding trip. We will move on to subheads I.1 to I.5. A number of questions were put to the Minister by the three spokespeople in their opening addresses. Does he wish to respond to any of them?
Deputy Durkan has been most consistent in asking about the broadcasting Bill. Work is continuing in that regard and I have been approached by the Government Whip who is anxious that a number of Bills be dealt with through e-government whereby people will be able to make their views known and discuss items with the public. I have identified the broadcasting Bill in this regard. I imagine the Deputy will consider it himself and will come back to the committee on the subject. I expect that the Department will probably be ready for some consultation with the committee and the wider public on it by July. We are still on target for publication of the Bill in the autumn of 2005.
As far as digital broadcasting is concerned, at present Ireland has the second highest digital penetration in the EU due to satellite technology, Sky and the cable companies. As for digital terrestrial television, DTT, in general and the fact that the Department is rolling out a pilot scheme, in the early 1990s there was a major rush throughout Europe to switch to DTT. Many countries, including our nearest neighbour, which was cited here earlier, got their fingers badly burned and lost a great deal of money on it. The Department will conduct a pilot scheme over a two-year period. I estimate that the platform will be ready towards the end of this year. The Department will establish the pluses and minuses over a two-year period and will then be in a position to make definitive decisions regarding the move from analogue to digital and to give people plenty of notice — I believe the Deputy referred to this — as to when we will make the move.
Will the move to digital be facilitated by bodies such as Sky to a greater extent in the future? Does that carry any dangers with it, given the debate we have seen in the UK regarding conventional television and pay television services and the debate between the BBC for example and BSkyB1, BSkyB2 and all the other Sky channels?
On the same point, last week I asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, a question regarding the fact that, as I understand it, Chorus or its parent company has effectively taken over Cablelink or, more correctly, NTL. The key figure in that company is John Malone, the famous "cable cowboy", a well-known American entrepreneur who is also the second key figure in Sky Television. Was it not a grave error to have allowed the cable system to be taken over by a terrestrial broadcaster, which we did approximately 20 years ago and to have sold off the national telecommunications grid? Has the Minister any concerns that two of the major delivery platforms for all kinds of development in broadcasting and in broadband might be owned by the same company? I do not know how the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, will respond, but that appears to be the case.
I will check on it. The issue may still be before bodies that are obliged to make decisions on it. I am not sure.
I asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment whether he would direct the Competition Authority to investigate the join-up of those two companies, given the connection that one of them has with Sky Television.
That is a matter which the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment must consider for himself. The question should be directed to him and I do not know what he will do. I do not believe that there will be a single platform for the delivery or provision of DTT. I envisage a mixed solution not unlike the broadband situation where one has different means of provision, with DTT itself, satellite technology and the cable system.
I share the concern the Deputy has in this regard. No matter what we do and how we move forward, we must ensure that public service broadcasting is available on a free-to-air basis to everyone. That is my concern and from the manner in which the Deputy has phrased his question, I believe it is also his. As to the point made by Deputy Broughan about Cablelink, when it was owned by two public bodies, namely RTE with a 25% stake and Telecom Éireann with a 75% stake, there was no investment in digital terrestrial television and no forward planning was done. Just because a body might be under private sector management does not make it any worse than it was previously.
On a point of clarification for members, it is the intention of the committee to spend a full day discussing the broadcasting Bill which the Minister intends to bring before the Oireachtas. The intention is to bring the different players before the committee to hear their views before the Oireachtas goes into recess in July. This might also be helpful to the Minister and his officials and, if he wishes, he is welcome to speak to the committee on that day.
The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland received 55 expressions of interest for commercial sound broadcasting services, which shows a high level of competition. To what extent is the Minister aware of the takeovers of some local radio stations by larger, bigger brothers, so to speak? To what extent have takeovers taken place which have involved interests overseas? Are any pending? Local broadcasting was once meant to be just that, which it may not be in the future if there is too great an erosion of the area by larger players.
I have a question about the broadcasting fund, given that the committee discussed it some years ago. What is happening with the figure which is quoted in the Estimates at present? Have there been any drawdowns? I remember asking the Minister a question regarding TV3, which did not appear to be interested in the fund. What is happening in respect of the 5% of television licence fee revenue?
I would be surprised if any private sector company had no interest in trying to get free State money. We will wait and see. As far as the fund itself is concerned, it was obliged to receive state aid clearance. The Department had informal discussions with the European Commission early this year and at the end of March, we formally sent it notification under the state aid rules. We should receive a reply shortly as the normal timescale is that it must respond to us within two months. However, I do not anticipate any difficulty with it. Consequently, the BCI will be in a position to advertise and look for commissions.
One point which has been stated to me fairly consistently — I do not know if anyone has mentioned it to the committee — is that the Commission does not want all the fund to be released straight away because it will cause difficulties for everyone. I am sure the BCI will take that on board and perhaps it will release the funds over a period. For the committee's information, the most recent figures I have are for 31 May 2005 and reveal that a total of €20.33 million from television licence fee income has been paid into the fund.
I remind the Minister that the committee intends to invite the BCI, the screen producers and others to discuss the broadcasting Bill and undoubtedly these matters will be discussed in more detail. Are there any questions on subheads J, K and L?
I referred previously to the postal services Bill as one that had been floating around for some considerable time, was on the radar screen and then disappeared off it with no indication in the meantime as to what happened to it. Given the importance of postal services and the role they play, we would like to know a bit more about the status of the Bill.
On the carried over deferred surrender of capital, we are due to spend that money this year. Is it possible to know at this stage, given the multi-annual envelope, how much funding might not be spent in 2005 and could carry over again?
That would not be known because while we would be able within a few weeks to give the Deputy a good idea of the underspend, as opposed to targets, to the end of May or thereabouts, that would not normally be a very reliable guide as to what might happen towards the end of the year. It would probably be nearer autumn when we will be able to say that we will be 10% short or whatever.
Regarding the postal services Bill, the Deputy usually has a very colourful way of putting these things. It sounds as if this Bill disappeared and nobody knew anything about it. We had to put a motion before the House to have it withdrawn from the list of legislation. We explained at the time that it was because the major issue it was dealing with was the employee share ownership plan, ESOP, in An Post and, in light of current circumstances and everything that was happening and perhaps not happening in An Post with regard to change, there was not much point in leaving the Bill on the list, so we withdrew it. If the changes are brought about, there is the kind of transformation and so on that we are talking about and the Bill needs to be put back on the drawing board, we will do so.
Will it be a revised Bill?
If the Bill needs to be revised at that stage, the principle would remain the same, in accordance with Government policy. There is a proposal for the liberalisation of the postal services by 2009 and both sides in An Post need to get their act together over the next two to three months to try to meet that challenge.
I thank the Minister for his contribution. Do members have any concluding remarks? Has Deputy Durkan said enough or would he like to conclude with some nice remarks?
I thank the Minister and his officials for staying with us and giving of their time. The debate has been useful but I emphasise the importance of this portfolio in the development of the country and technology, in the investment in the country in the future and the need for us all to be aware of this importance.
I echo Deputy Durkan's comments. I thank the Minister, Secretary General and all his staff for coming before us and giving such an interesting presentation. I also thank the Minister of State for his presentation. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is almost like three Departments in one. In most countries, it would be three Departments with perhaps a little extra in communications. This is something that whoever is in Government after the 2007 general election will have to examine because we owe it to the country to ensure that all critical decisions about communications, energy and marine matters are made with the full resources of the State behind them. I thank the Minister for the presentation and wish him good luck with the implementation of the rest of these Estimates.
Would the Minister like to conclude?
I do not want it to sound like a clapping-people-on-the-back exercise but I acknowledge the work the committee has done and continues to do. It is very focused on the brief, wide-ranging as it is. I do not mind where the committee goes to get best practice and use it to the benefit of the State. The committee has produced some very valuable reports and I look forward to working closely with it into the future.
I thank the Minister, Minister for State and officials for attending and for their ongoing support of and co-operation with the committee. We look forward to meeting the Minister at our energy module and our broadcasting day which we hope will be of use to him in formulating policy on energy and the forthcoming broadcasting authority of Ireland Bill.