Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate

Vote 30 — Marine.

Chairman

I would ask the Committee's approval for the following programme: that we deal with the Estimate for the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications on 1 June from 4.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.; that we take the Estimate for the Department of Tourism and Trade on Friday, 4 June from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the Estimate for the Department of Enterprise and Employment on 15 June from 4.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The programme for today will be an opening statement by the Minister from 4.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m.; 4.45 p.m. to 5 p.m., opening statement from the Fine Gael Party; 5 p.m. to 5.15 p.m., opening statement from the Progressive Democrats and 5.15 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., opening statement from the Technical Group. Between 5.30 p.m. and 7.20 p.m. we will have a general questions and answers session. That programme has been agreed by the convenors. We will have to cut back by six minutes but I will not restrict anyone who goes beyond the time limit.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Andrews)

I will have to leave at 6.30 p.m. As the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, is dealing with the Finance Bill in committee at present he was not available for the Government meeting this morning so that meeting is continuing on from 6.30 p.m. With the permission of the Chair I will leave my very able Minister of State, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, to substitute for me.

In the short space of time since the establishment of the new committee system by the Dáil, this is the second opportunity I have had to facilitate the work of the committees. When the Select Committee on Legislation and Security examined the Estimates for the Department of Defence on May 7, I welcomed the opportunity afforded to participate in detailed discussion. I repeat the welcome today, and, together with my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, I look forward to working with this Committee today, in a full spirit of openness.

I am particularly pleased to have the Marine Estimate before the Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy, because, fundamentally, that is what the marine sector should be about, enterprise and employment.

The marine sector is an important part of economic life, both nationally and regionally. It directly accounts for about 16,500 jobs many of them of high quality and in the most peripheral regions of the State. The fishing sector is based on recovery and processing of an indigenous resource, with little import content and a high export value.

We in Ireland frequently speak of ourselves as an island nation. There is, a clear distinction between being an island nation and an insular nation. An insular nation looks inward and has inward concerns, but an island nation looks outward, reaches out to other people and to foreign markets and welcomes people coming in.

During my time in office as Minister for the Marine I am determined to make every effort to develop an island perspective. I want to do so, not as some sort of end in itself, but because if we do so, it can mean increased prosperity and jobs for more people, many of them in the peripheral regions. That is a value to which I subscribe wholeheartedly. My philosophy in relation to the Department of the Marine, is that we should have small harbours with some form of indigenous and native industry nearby in the fish processing area and so on. We need to do much more to put heart into our island and maritime communities. They have a hard and dangerous enough life and deserve well of this State. What I am talking about can be best done in a spirit of co-operation and unity, a spirit of people working together at local level, not necessarily in great or grandiose projects, but often in smaller enterprises that reflect the indigenous resources and culture of their local area.

It is for that reason I am giving top priority to the issue of funding for the Department of the Marine, particularly in the context of the forthcoming National Development Plan. The key to the future is resources. I am seeking the funds necessary to give the people of Ireland the ports, the fishery harbours, the fishing fleet, the processing and the research facilities and all the other facilities that will make a reality of our claim to be an island nation, and not an insular nation.

Against that background, I will to turn to the Estimate. Perhaps the best way of defining our terms is to look at the marine resource as it is encapsulated in the core business of the Department. There are three main elements: ports; fish and maritime safety.

It is essentially from these three headings that the Department's spending and development programmes are derived and policy objectives for enterprise, employment and quality of life are geared.

The Department's programmes for port and harbour development and for sea fisheries, aquaculture and inland fisheries are designed to generate and underpin economic activity and to create jobs. The third element covers the vital responsibilities which the Department discharges in the interests of safety of life at sea and protecting the marine environment.

Before proceeding as outlined, I should note, as Deputies will be aware, that I carry as Minister the two portfolios of Marine and Defence. I am happy to note the usefulness of this conjunction in the execution of a number of important responsibilities of each Department. These include, for example, the provision of air-sea rescue services and the surveillance of our fishing waters. I will be returning to these aspects.

I would now like to elaborate on each of the fundamental themes identified.

Economic development in an island economy is critically dependent on competitive ports. Here we have for far too long adopoted an insular approach to development and have not developed our ports to the levels required in a modern competitive economy.

Ports play by far the dominant role in the external trade of the economy. Almost 80 per cent in volume of all external trade passes through our seaports and they handle nearly 1.2 million overseas tourism visitors. The value of external trade handled by these ports in 1991 was £16.9 billion. However, here ports tend to be seen as the last link in the chain, whereas in an island trading economy they should be regarded as the first and most vital communications link.

Major improvements are required. This means substantial investment. It also means real changes in the way ports are structured and managed. Both these objectives are top priorities of mine. A significant beginning has been made on the investment in commercial ports. The programme for the years 1989 to 1993 involves investment of about £77 million, with support from the European Community. This investment includes projects at the ports of Cork, Dublin, Rosslare and Waterford and at local ports. In addition, the Government has given its approval this year — subject to EC backing — for further expenditure of £13.1 million under the EC Cohesion Fund.

While this is a start, we need to keep the momentum going. A major development programme for the next six years has been prepared and this is being considered by the Government in its preparation of the National Development Plan. This is a major priority for me as Minister for the Marine and Minister for Defence.

A related top priority is the improvement of the management structure of ports. The new harbours Bill currently being drafted will provide for the introduction of commercial semi-State structures. It will ensure that ports in the future will be in a position to respond more effectively to market developments and customer needs.

The development of the fisheries sector, comprising sea fisheries, aquaculture and inland fisheries, is one of the central roles of the Department of the Marine and is one to which I attach a very high priority. These sectors are especially important in that, not alone do they make a significant contribution to the national economy in terms of output, employment and foreign earnings, but also because they play a key part in the economic life of many coastal communities.

The maintenance and development of coastal communities has long been a stated aim of national policy. I share this vision and mission and central Government can play a significant role in supporting these communities through the development of the fisheries sector. Those of us familiar with such communities know the important of local harbour infrastructure which often forms a focus for local economic activity and can serve as a resource for a broadly based approach to development, involving fishing, amenity and tourism activities. Sometimes relatively small amounts of financial assistance can make all the difference. It is no secret, however, despite clearly stated national aims, that securing resources to support such development is a continuing and difficult struggle in these times of financial stringency.

I am glad to inform the Committee that we have drawn up, in the context of the National Development Plan, comprehensive programmes for the development of all elements of the fisheries sector, including fishery harbour infrastructure. We estimate that through the fish processing sector, aquaculture development and inland fisheries, up to 4,000 new jobs can be created and countless others maintained.

In the fish processing sector we envisage, for example, a £40 million investment programme and the creation of over 800 jobs. The aquaculture industry also offers considerable further potential for growth. There has been a five fold increase in employment since 1982 and total employment is now of the order of 2,600 direct full and part-time jobs with indirect employment to related service industries. There is scope to create a further 1,700 jobs over the period of the national plan from 1994-1999.

As regards inland fisheries, a major development programme has been drawn up by the central and regional fisheries boards which has as its aim the creation of 1,300 jobs. Again, funding for this programme has been sought in the context of the National Development Plan for use of EC structural funding.

While many of the programmes mentioned rely on Community financial support, the call on the Exchequer is nevertheless also substantial. The total provision this year for sea fisheries, acquaculture and inland fisheries comes to £18 million.

Underpinning all of our marine development programmes are the crucial marine research efforts of the Department. Marine research spending is a necessary element to ensure that development is undertaken in an environmentally sensitive manner. This, moreover, conserves the resources for future generations. This year sees the investment through the ECSTRIDE programme — Science and Technology for Regional Innovation and Development in Europe — of more than £1.5 million in up-grading our research capability. Without a proper understanding of our fish stocks and of environmental issues, we will not have the basis on which to underpin management and development decisions. Committee members will note the provision in respect of the start-up costs of the Marine Institute. The board of the institute is already working to bring a new focus to bear on the national marine research effort and the institute will, over the next few years, establish itself in the key co-ordinating role.

A key aspect of fisheries policy is, of course, the conservation of stocks. In this regard, a vital role is played by the fisheries protection services, including the Navy, the Air Corps and the Department of the Marine and regional fisheries board fishery protection staff.

There is, I am glad to say, very positive co-operation between all these services. As Deputies will be aware, the costs involved are considerable. The bulk of these costs fall on the Defence Vote. The Department of the Marine, with the full backing of the Department of Defence, has in recent years secured substantial capital funding from the European Community for the costs of providing the fishery protection services. We are now actively pursuing the obtaining of a Community contribution towards the heavy operational costs which arise.

The Department approaches maritime safety from a number of perspectives. In the first instance, we seek to prevent accidents by applying the highest standards of construction, equipment and maintenance to ships under our own flag and to other ships which visit our ports. We seek to ensure excellence in training standards for seafarers. We maintain first-class marine communications facilities around our coasts. When accidents happen, we seek to respond with speed and efficiency to minimise the risk to life, to the marine environment and to those who are sustained by it.

Deputies will note from the Estimate that we are providing £9.1 million in respect of our marine safety and shipping programme this year. The largest part of this expenditure —£5.4 million — covers the work of the Irish Marine Emergency Service and, in particular, the cost of the Shannon based medium range helicopter, the Sikorski.

The Irish Marine Emergency Service is the hub of our marine emergency response capabilities. The service is responsible for the operational control and co-ordination aspects of all types of marine emergency, including search and rescue, sea and coastal pollution, shipwreck and casualty response. To facilitate its work in this regard, IMES has overseen a major investment programme which has substantially improved standards in recent years. Achievements to date include the upgrading to the highest standards of our marine communication system together with the modernisation of the coast and cliff rescue service.

Good communications and co-ordination are a prerequisite for effective marine emergency response. Looking further, the services of the Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre, now located at IMES headquarters, the Coast Radio Stations at Dublin, Valentia and Malin Head and the Marine Radio Engineers will be integrated into the Irish Marine Emergency Service. Three new marine rescue sub-centres will be located at the Dublin, Valentia and Malin Head coast radio stations. Work is underway to set up this structure and the training of staff is well advanced. The opening of the new Wicklow VHF station in December 1992 has completed the marine VHF communications network around our coast.

I must note at this juncture — returning to my earlier remarks — the total integration of the Air Corps and Naval Service into the marine search and rescue services of the State. This comprises many elements, for example, the provision of rescue helicopters, top-cover by fixed wing aircraft during incidents, in addition to vessels.

The other main items covered under the marine safety programmes are the Exchequer costs of the Commissioners of Irish Lights who maintain lighthouse services throughout Ireland, North and South, together with the provision for establishment of the Loran C navigation system. Improvement in standards of aids to navigation are essential in order to ensure safety of life at sea and to protect the marine environment. These improvements are a major priority for the Department, together with the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The Committee will be aware that Ireland has joined with other north west European countries to provide a safe, cost effective navigation system, known as Loran C, for our seafarers. A total of £805,000 has been allocated in 1993 to cover the capital cost associated with the building of a Loran C station at Loophead in County Clare. Both Houses of the Oireachtas have already been given extensive details of the project.

Briefly, Loran C is a radio navigation system used extensively throughout the world and the Commissioners of Irish Lights will act as agents for the Government in constructing and operating this important addition to navigation aids around our coast. I would like to reiterate to this Committee that all local sensitivities in relation to this development will continue to be thoroughly addressed. I have met with a number of groups in the context of the concerns raised and with the public representatives. I will continue to keep in touch with them and take account of the sensitivities of the local community.

Before concluding I should comment on the Department's administrative budget which underpins the staff and other over-head costs of delivering the many services provided by the Department.

Committee members will note the large increase provided within the administrative budget for salaries and wages. The figure has risen to this extent because, in addition to the increases provided under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, 1993 sees the full implementation of the Irish marine emergency service programme for rescue co-ordination and marine emergency response to which I referred earlier. The Government is determined that the highest international safety standards should apply. This has necessarily involved additional recruitment to run the upgraded facilities which have been built and commissioned in recent years. It is a measure of the national importance of this measure that we have provided for this level of service in spite of overall financial stringencies.

The technical staff profile of the Department is remarkably varied convering, as it does, scientists, engineers, marine surveyors and specialised inspectorate staff for the sea-fishing industry. This relfects once again the complexity of the resource itself.

Before commencing our discussion, I re-emphasise my wish and commitment to bringing openness to the proceedings of this Committee. I earnestly hope that my preliminary remarks have provided a focus for our discussions together with a broad sense of what it is that I hope to achieve within the Marine brief. If there is any additional information required by members I will be glad to give it after the meeting and certainly between now and the next meeting I will have with the Committee.

Mr. Barrett

I welcome this opportunity of addressing this committee on the Marine Estimate. Very often, what is obvious is the most difficult thing to see and there is no better example than the Department of the Marine. Potential for investment in jobs in the many sectors for which this Department is responsible has been ignored for far too long.

The waters around Ireland represent approximately 16 per cent of total European Community waters yet our fishing industry has never developed to its full potential due mainly to ineffective negotiations at European level particularly in regard to fish quotas and the development of our fishing fleet to enable us realise the potential of this very valuable industry. We are surrounded by probably the richest fishing grounds in the world and other nations see our territorial waters as easy prey for their huge trawlers and factory ships. Our Naval Service does not have the resources to prevent our seas being ravaged each year by indiscriminate and illegal fishing by foreign boats. The fact that this is continuing shows the value of the catch justifies the risk of being caught. It is time we put a stop to this and sought assistance from our partners in Europe for the introduction of a get tough policy even to the point of having regular confiscation of ships and equipment. We must also continue to increase the resources available to the Naval Service both by EC investment and investment at home. It is also time that the Common Fisheries Policy provided a better deal for Ireland to allow the severely under-developed state of the Irish fishing industry to change.

I would like to refer to aquaculture. In the short period of ten years fish farming has become one of the most significant indigenous industries based mainly along the coastline but also using some inland sites. It is estimated that fish farming has created 6,500 jobs, 2,500 directly and 4,000 other jobs in industries securing and supplying materials and equipment. This industry is worth more than £40 million a year and production levels stands at more than 30,000 tonnes. From recent surveys it is estimated that over the next three years the total employment generated by fish farming should grow to nearly 10,000.

This developing industry needs ongoing support particularly in the area of research. There is a divergence of views and the debate still rages on this branch of the fishing industry. It is important that through proper research solutions are found to any possible environmental problems so that we can learn from the mistakes of other countries and build a clean environmentally friendly industry with strict measures applied so that this valuable sector of our fishing industry can prosper in our coastal communities.

There is now a growing demand for Irish shellfish on the Continent which is attributed to the clean waters around our coast. The existing grant-aid for shell fish farming should be extended to include major cost items such as seed, labour and transport. We should also take into consideration the fact that people can suffer great losses through storms or the release of fish into the sea.

I would like to refer to the fish processing and marketing sector. The Estimate before us does not show any change of heart on the part of the Government in developing the potential of the fish processing industry. It is so important that we encourage investment in facilities which will give added value to our fish exports and also create a large number of jobs particularly in areas where it is difficult to find jobs at present. We are quite capable of competing with anybody in the world in the area of high quality fish products which will meet the highest health and hygiene standards anywhere. While appreciating that there is a market for fresh fish we should not ignore the huge market for processed fish properly packaged and promoted on the world market. It is time that, through Government, EC and private investment, we developed the processing side of the industry to cater for the demand of the marketplace and, indeed, the growing level of consumption of fish. Eastern Europe is experiencing food shortages due to their inability to produce enough food to meet the needs of their people. We are reminded daily in documentaries of the incredible——

Chairman

I regret I must interrupt the Deputy and draw his attention to the fact that a vote has been called in the Dáil. The proceedings of the House takes precedence over those of the Committee.

Sitting suspended at 4.55 p.m. and resumed at 5.20 p.m.

Chairman

In the event of any further votes this evening, could we agree to a pairing arrangement between members of the Committee and inform the Whips accordingly? Is that acceptable? Agreed.

Mr. Barrett

Eastern Europe is experiencing food shortages due to their inability to produce enough food to meet the needs of their people. We are reminded daily in documentaries of the incredible level of pollution which has destroyed their fishing waters and environment generally. The image that Ireland has of being in a position to produce top quality fish from a clean healthy environment should be of tremendous benefit to us in the area of marketing. Let us use this opportunity. The Minister should tell us if he proposes to extend and develop the fish processing sector and, if so, will he outline these proposals for us?

Before moving away from the area of marketing, I would also point out to the Minister that the last annual report produced by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara was for 1990. I find this completely unacceptable particularly when up to date statistics are not available in an area that has so much potential but which we continue to ignore.

I despair when I see a 4 per cent reduction in this year's Estimate for inland fisheries compared to 1992. Without underestimating the value of our seas we must recognise that our inland water-ways are quite unique and valuable in terms of their potential for the creation of wealth and jobs. The fishery boards need adequate resources to ensure that stocks are protected, conserved and developed and, of course the co-operation of the angling community is of vital importance in this area. Considerable success has been achieved in convincing the public that the pollution of our rivers by whatever means is totally unacceptable and that those who continue to engage in that practice are helping to destroy one of our greatest natural resources. I sincerely hope that the reduction in the Estimate for inland fisheries does not indicate a lessening of the commitment on the part of the Government to support the fishery boards in their efforts to protect our rivers and lakes.

In relation to harbour development, in reply to a recent parliamentary question I was advised by the Minister that he intends carrying out a major reorganisation of commercial harbours. I understand that a new ports and harbours Bill will be published with a view to putting in place new management structures for our commercial ports. Will the Minister say when it is intended to publish this Bill and will he outline some of his thoughts in this regard. It is vitally important that we continue with substantial investment and development of our commercial ports and, indeed, our fishery harbours. In respect of the latter, I ask the Minister to abandon the idea of expecting local authorities to contribute a percentage of the costs of the development of harbours under their control as they do not have the resources to carry out this work. This results in no work being done and a very valuable resource going to waste. The Minister is well aware that the funds available to local authorities are very limited indeed and it is unrealistic to expect them to be in a position to make the level of contribution required in respect of development works at local authority owned harbours.

The implementation of a proper plan for the management and control of our commercial harbours is vitally important to the Irish economy. In recent years, much trade has been lost to ports in Northern Ireland due to high costs and inefficiency at some of our harbours in the Republic. The efficient management and running of our commercial harbours is essential to our economic wellbeing and it is vitally important that proper investment is now put into the development of commercial harbours, particularly in light of the Single Market which, of course, came into being on 1 January last.

I would ask the Minister to bring us up-to-date on the position regarding Dún Laoghaire Harbour. I know he has committed himself to retaining the car ferry facility at Dún Laoghaire Harbour which, of course, is vital to the wellbeing of the economy of Dún Laoghaire and its surrounds. But, having got that commitment, I would now like to know when we can expect work to begin on the updating of the facilities and the other developments mentioned in the development plan prepared by Professor McAleese and his group.

The ongoing destruction of important sections of the national coastline is something that we cannot continue to ignore. The fact that a sum of only £200,000 is included in this year's Estimate for coastal protection is disgraceful. We are all well aware that the land around our coast is fast disappearing and that acres of land in public and private ownership are being lost to the sea each year. Will the Minister say if EC structural funding in 1994 will be made available for coast protection? What level of commitment is there on the part of the Government to do something so that this serious erosion can be arrested before any further damage is done?

I understand that the Irish Chamber of Shipping recently made a submission to the Minister for the Marine and in that submission they stated that up to 2,000 permanent new jobs would be created over the next six years if the Government gave a firm commitment towards maintaining an Irish flag merchant fleet. I understand that only 20 per cent of export/import traffic is still carried under the Irish flag.

It is vitally important that shipping be made eligible for EC cohesion funding and that an integrated national transport plan encompass shipping policy, otherwise Ireland, as a peripheral location, will continue to be at a considerable disadvantage. It is important that we create the right financial climate to encourage growth in this area and we must provide more grant-aid to ship owners to help expand and modernise our merchant fleet under the Irish flag. It is important also that tax incentives be introduced for employees, allowing Irish shipping companies to recruit more Irish employees and increase their investment in training.

Before leaving the topic of shipping, I would like to refer to the former employees of Irish Shipping. It is more than eight years since the Irish Shipping workers were made redundant and, despite continuous commitments, they are still waiting for the payment of pensions and severance payments. I ask the Minister when replying to outline when a final decision will be made regarding the additional payments due to the workers of Irish Shipping.

There are many other matters to which I would like to refer, particularly in relation to the role of the Irish Marine Emergency Service, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. I would also like to refer to the maritime leisure industry which has tremendous potential. However, due to time constraints, and recognising the difficult job the Chairman has, it is my intention to deal with the very important roles played by these services during the course of the question and answer session which I understand will follow these statements.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my constituency colleague, the Minister for the Marine, every success in his portfolio and I sincerely hope that his colleagues in Government will recognise the importance of the Department of the Marine and provide adequate funding to enable it to perform the important function it has, particularly in regard to wealth generation and employment.

Mr. Clohessy

I welcome most aspects of the Estimate brought before this Committee by the Minister. In general, I welcome his move to balance the increases in essential services against savings proposed in other less crucial areas.

In particular, I welcome the increase of 67 per cent to the coastal life saving service and the improvements proposed for the network of coastal radio stations. I welcome the amalgamation of the Marine and Defence Departments into the new ministry as it is becoming more obvious that as a small island nation we face grave and serious challenges to the security and safety of our citizens. Because of our remote location on the periphery of a new Europe we are vulnerable to many dangers such as the importation of illegal weapons and drugs. Building on the strength of Marine and Defence functions united into one departmental policy approach, we must also strive, now, to streamline the vital services of coast surveillance and co-ordination.

The Department's role in protecting the integrity of our national coastline should be upgraded and expanded. A conscious strategy must be developed to co-operate fully with the Garda Síochána and international police authorities to ensure that our country is not used by the drug barons and arms dealers of the world. We must have a well planned and efficient security blueprint to tackle the importation of drugs and arms in remote coastal areas such as isolated parts of the southern coast and small inlets in the south. It is no secret that the Garda authorities suspect large cargo vessels are dumping drugs overboard off the west coast. These drug consignments are equipped with sophisticated radio controlled devices which enable small boats or trawlers to track the packages, retrieve them and supply the illegal drugs market of Cork, Dublin and the North of Ireland.

Another serious threat to our security and safety is the illegal importation of arms, amunition and plastic explosives which are used to kill and maim people here and in Britain. It is a sobering thought to consider that the bombs which wrecked the lives and property of people in Belfast, Armagh and Portadown in the past few days could have been smuggled across the Border. Such missions of death and destruction have no place in a civilised society. By improving our coast surveillance and by upgrading our contacts with the intelligence services of our European partners we can make a positive contribution towards preventing the dealers in death from getting their evil hands on weapons, drugs and explosives.

Of course, there are many successful operations by the Garda Síochána and the Community police forces which, of necessity, have to be carried out without the glare of publicity or public acclamation. I would like to pay tribute to the Garda Síochána, the Customs and Revenue officials and the officers of the Department for their roles in seizing arms and drugs in recent weeks. The work they are doing is vital in the national interest because — let us make no mistake — we are under siege by the men of violence. We are under siege by those who deal in death be it by bombs and bullets or by drugs and disease. Our response must not be any less sophisticated than the tactics used by those who are threatening the fabric of our society.

We cannot afford to have inferior communications and radio scanning equipment in this fight against international crime. We must not place our security officials and other colleagues in many branches of intelligence and crime prevention at a disadvantage in the increasingly sophisticated world of international crime, which acknowledges no national boundaries. I ask the Minister to take these points on board in regard to the Department's role in protecting our coastline and to use his influence in drawing up an overall national plan of co-ordination against maritime related crime.

I welcome the assistance being proposed for State harbours and I am sure the Minister, after his visit to Foynes Harbour, County Limerick, yesterday, would agree that the Shannon estuary deserves to be promoted as an international trans-shipment facility linking Europe and the rest of the world. For far too long there has been much talk on the potential of the estuary. Perhaps it is time to press our claim with the European Commission to locate part of the proposed Euro Protection Fleet in that area.

I am somewhat alarmed by the Minister's proposal to reduce the allocation for marine emergency. The funds must be provided to deal with any marine emergency and event and the related anti-pollution and clean up costs. Our environment is at the mercy of major international shipping companies. The shipping of oil and chemicals can be a risky undertaking and recent events in Scotland indicate that maritime companies may be prepared to put profit before people and the avoidance of pollution.

I note the increased costs for the Irish marine emergency services and the related costs of the search and rescue helipcopter which was involved in 146 missions from Shannon last year. These men and women are dedicated professionals whose historic actions in the most difficult circumstances have saved many lives. Helicopter training is intensive and it is also expensive but in the event of a life threatening incident it is gratifying to know that the marine emergency services can be airborne in a matter of minutes.

While many emergencies at sea cannot be anticipated and happen without warning there have been some incidents in recent times which demand an inquiry or at least an explanation from the Department. Damage has been done to fishing nets by underwater vessels in the Irish Sea. We are all aware that this occasional damage is caused by submarines. What is in doubt is the purpose of these vessels in Irish waters.

It would seem that the nationality or identity of these submarines is also difficult to ascertain in the event of an underwater incident. Will the Minister address this point and spell out how many submarines have departmental permission to operate in Irish coastal waters?

I welcome the contribution of EC funding to marine research and development. However, I am concerned that no concrete action has yet been taken on a plan to arrest the declining stocks of sea trout. As an angler I am sure the Minister is aware that the problem of sea lice is a major one and, perhaps, some of the funding could be used to search for a solution. There could be a role here for the Salmon Research Agency to undertake a special project on this area and put forward a framework for action.

I am also pleased that the Department is assisting in the payment of grants to fish and shell fish processors as there is a huge potential in the international market for Irish fish products.

I wish to acknowledge the role of the Coast and Cliff Rescue Service. It is now undergoing an intensive programme to upgrade its nationwide network of voluntary units. These men and women deserve the highest praise for taking part in the service.

Allied to the Coast and Cliff Rescue Service is the growing problem of coastal erosion and I am disappointed that there does not seem to be any urgency within the Department on the matter. The Minister should initiate a study of the serious problems of coastal erosion we face and draft an action plan to tackle it.

Mr. Gilmore

I join with previous speakers in congratulating my constituency colleague, Deputy Andrews, on his appointment as Minister for the Marine and Defence. I also congratulate the Minister of State on his appointments. I wish them well in their portfolios.

Reference has been made to the fact that the sea has traditionally been regarded as the poor relation to the Irish economic scenario over the years. An almost penitential attitude has been adopted in relation to the sea and fishing down the years. It was hoped that the establishment of the Department of the Marine would have reversed that considerably. Its establishment has been a very welcome development. The difficulty we, and the Department, are faced with, as far as fishing is concerned, is that in the early 1980s our fishing industry was sold out. The arrangements which were arrived at at EC level in relation to quotas and tonnages represented a sell out of this country's national interest to the point where, now, somebody wanting to get involved in the fishing industry, to get a licence and so on and make a living from it, has to go through an obstacle course that would have made somebody ready for joining the Fianna in Fionn Mac Cumhaill's time look like a piece of cake.

Although efforts have been made in recent years to renegotiate the package, by and large, our fishing industry has lost out considerably. There is an urgent need to renegotiate the EC arrangements in relation to the Irish fishing industry. It does not make a great deal of sense that we have one of the largest expanses of territorial waters in the European Community but one of the smallest allowable catches.

The Minister touched on shipping in his contribution. It is an area I would like to see teased out. We need to establish which Minister is responsible for shipping policy here. There is a degree of confusion as to whether it is the Department of Transport and Communications, or the Department of the Marine. Both Departments seem to have some involvement but it is not clear who has overall responsibility for shipping policy. It is important that, as a State, we have a shipping policy but it does not appear that the Government has one.

Reference was made to our peripheral location in the European Community, the implications of the building of the Channel Tunnel and the low volume of our exports and imports which are carried on Irish flagged vessels. There seems to have been a straightforward refusal by the European Community to allow European funds to be used for mobile assets. There has been a great deal of investment in roads, both here and on the continental mainline, but no assistance is either given or allowed by the European Community towards the financing of shipping. In terms of economic implications, shipping is absolutely vital. The CII at one stage estimated that our peripheral location put Irish exporters at a 9 per cent cost disadvantage.

There is a critical necessity for a shipping policy to be devised by the Government and for us to seek a change in the EC's attitude in relation to providing financial assistance for shipping.

One of the problems in regard to shipping arises from the liquidation of Irish Shipping. There is an outstanding issue in relation to that liquidation that I raised at every possible opportunity, the promise that was made to former employees of Irish Shipping that a severance arrangement would be arrived at. The last occasion on which I raised the issue with the then Minister for the Marine was on the day the last Dáil was dissolved. What is the latest position on that? Will former employees of Irish Shipping be paid the severance package that was promised to them and what will be the amount?

I was surprised that the Minister did not make any direct reference to State harbours. I did not expect him to be parochial in relation to the issue of Dún Laoghaire Harbour, which Deputy Barrett referred to, but under Appropriations-in-Aid more than 50 per cent of the income arises from charges at State harbours, most of which derives from income at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. The extent to which the Departments of the Marine and Transport, Energy and Communications are responsible comes into this because there is an issue at present relating to port policy in Dublin for which a review group was established. I have been informed that the review group reported some weeks ago. I tabled a Question to the Minister last week on that issue and in his reply he stated that he expects to receive the consultants' report within a matter of weeks. I do not know whether he meant the same thing when referring to the consultants' report as I did in regard to the report of the review group, but I would like clarification on that because it seems that will have considerable implications for port policy in Dublin Bay and for the Minister's stated commitment, which I accept, to the retention of the ferry terminal in Dún Laoghaire.

On the issue of inland fisheries, an item in the Estimate shows that in 1992, £432,000 was spent on commissions and special inquiries. That relates primarily to the Ballycotton inquiry. The Ballycotton report made a number of specific recommendations, many of them dealing with staffing, supervision and management of the inland fishery services and the services that they provide. Shortly after the publication of that report, a number of Questions were tabled in the Dáil on 6 November 1991 to the then Minister for the Marine and in his reply he stated:

I shall continue to press the case for additional funding and staffing of the boards so as, in particular, to enable the posts of deputy managers to be filled, a protection co-ordinator to be appointed, additional boats to the purchased and adequate safety equipment, training, etc. to be provided.

I acknowledge that the equipment, clothing and so on were provided, but a number of critical recommendations in the Ballycotton report have not yet been implemented. It recommended specifically that deputy managers should be appointed to the regional fisheries boards but that has not been done. It recommended that particular emphasis should be placed on supervision. I understand a number of supervisory posts in the inland fisheries boards are still vacant and that the level of staffing in those boards is now less than it was at the time the Ballycotton tragedy occurred. It does not make sense to spend £432,000 holding an inquiry into a tragedy and then do nothing about the report of that inquiry. The recommendations in the report were very specific about the appointment of staff, management and supervisory personnel in the inland fisheries boards and that has not materialised. I would like some information as to when that will be addressed.

I welcome the increase in the allocation for the RNLI. Reference was made to the Marine Institute and there is provision in the Estimate for it. A great deal of hope was placed on the Marine Institute when the legislation went through the Oireachtas. The amount of money provided for its establishment, however, seems very small. If we are to fulfil the hopes the Minister expressed in the area of marine research, then the establishment of the Marine Institute, its financing and resourcing, are fairly important. In that context, the Minister should give some attention to the maritime museum which currently operates on a voluntary basis. It is run on a voluntary basis and the people responsible find it increasingly hard to do so. They have made a very valuable contribution in assembling various items and artefacts over the years. The Minister should give some consideration now to allocating some additional assistance to them.

Perhaps I missed it, but I did not hear any reference in the Minister's speech to the report by the city and county engineers regarding coastal protection, in which they set out a programme for such work. What was the Minister's response to that report and how does he see it being implemented. On coastal protection, the need to update the Coast Protection Act, 1963 has been referred to before. It is probably the most cumbersome Act that exists. Effectively, the procedure it provides for coastal protection schemes is unworkable. Previous Ministers indicated they were willing to consider introducing better legislation than the existing Act. Will the Minister consider fulfilling that commitment which was made by some of his predecessors?

Chairman

Five members have indicated that they wish to speak but we agreed at the outset that we would take the Estimate programme by programme rather than by individual subhead. Deputies Sheehan, McDaid, Haughey, Ray Burke and Richard Bruton have indicated that they wish to speak. Do they wish to speak on administration, the first programme, that would cover subheads A.1 to A.7? I would ask Deputies to refrain from speaking until we move on to the appropriate programmes.

Mr. Sheehan

I congratulate and welcome our new Minister for the Marine, Deputy Andrews and his Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, a fellow Cork man. I have no doubt they will row in together and do their best for the industry.

The Minister of State said he is spending £38,247,000 this year in his Department and yet, as far as safety is concerned, the Department has refused the request——

Chairman

Deputy, that refers to programme No. 2, on marine safety and shipping service. I ask for the Deputy's co-operation.

Mr. Sheehan

Will the Chair give me time to return to this?

Chairman

We will get to that later. The Deputy is still in order to speak on matters arising under subheads A.1 to A.7.

Mr. Sheehan

Those subheads are tailor-made according to the report in front of us. Most of them show a reduction in the Vote between 1992 and 1993. Under these headings perhaps the Minister would consider transferring a section of the Department to west Cork, if possible, perhaps to Castletownbere or Bantry. Castletownbere is a major fishery port now and it deserves some recognition. Perhaps a section of the Department could be taken out of Leeson Lane and transferred to west Cork. It would be a step in the right direction. The Minister should bear that in mind, because the section could, perhaps, be run more efficiently and economically in my constituency than anywhere else.

Mr. R. Bruton

The figures for the Minister's Department show an increase of 1.5 per cent in numbers employed as against a 14 per cent increase in the total cost of administration and a 21 per cent increase in wages and salaries. It seems extraordinary that a change in numbers of 1.5 per cent should give rise to a 21 per cent increase in the cost of paying them. Will the Minister comment on that?

The purpose of this meeting, particularly for generalists like myself who do not know enough about fishing, is to ask the question: do we have an excessively bureaucratic structure running the marine sector? For example, I would like to know how the cost of administration compares with the fishermen's net income.

Apropos administration, it seems extraordinary that, for example, in the case of Bord Iascaigh Mhara the administration budget which is £3.5 million is more than the total budget that goes in development, grants to fishermen or grants to the mariculture sector. There seems to be a great deal of administration going on. I question whether the services being delivered to fishermen match the scale of the administrative structure.

Mr. Creed

Like previous speakers I congratulate the Minister, and the Minister of State on their appointments.

On subhead A.4 — Postal and Telecommunication Services — I note there is an almost 30 per cent increase envisaged in postal costs. On the second item — telephone, telex and fax — there is a reduction in the allocation. When was that decided? Was it in advance of or in anticipation of the Government decision on telephone charges, as recently announced, and will the Minister need to amend that provision in the light of the recent Government decision?

Mr. Barrett

I note that 43 officers from the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications carry out certain duties relating to marine safety. Will the Minister give us some indication of the type of work they do? Should marine safety be transferred to his Department?

Mr. R. Bruton

What is the national plan and who has evaluated it within the administrative structure of the Minister's Department? The Minister seems to be talking about a national plan with very glowing promises from it. What access will we, as a committee, have to the evaluation of this plan we are hearing about? Can we have an assurance that there will be professional evaluation of it? Can we, perhaps, be circulated with some of the evaluation of this plan which is to transform this sector?

Mr. Andrews

I acknowledge the quality of the questions.

To refer to Deputy Bruton's last query about the preparation of the national plan, the Department of the Marine is at present in very serious negotiations in relation to the tranche of money we requested to make the future of the maritime tradition here meaningful. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and I, at Edinburgh, negotiated a sum in excess of £8 billion. A sum in the region of £6 billion had been anticipated but we did much better than we had hoped. The national plan, and the input from the Department of the Marine, is being conducted by highly qualified officials in the Department. I would like to think that at the end of the day in order for the Department of the Marine to give effect to the plan it envisages over the next five years, a fairly substantial sum of money will become available. It is being professionally assessed by the Department. It is being produced as a plan in the context of what we would like to see available in the future of the marine industry such as fishing, aquaculture and so on in addition to ports and harbours.

I appreciate Deputy Sheehan's kind remarks expressed to me and the Minister of State. We are co-operating closely to ensure an enthusiastic approach to our joint portfolio. With regard to moving certain personnel to Castletownbere, a number of personnel operate there on behalf of the Department of the Marine. Maybe we could have a look at some prospects in that regard in future.

Mr. Sheehan

I would welcome that.

Mr. Andrews

In relation to Deputy Barrett's reference to 43 officers, as he properly points out, the majority of the Department's staff are remunerated from subhead A.1. They carry out certain duties relating to marine safety on behalf of the Department together with payments to volunteers in the coast and cliff rescue service. These moneys are charged to that subhead. Forty-three officers from the Department of Transport were transferred on 21 May 1993 to the Department. They keep a 24 hour watch, 360 days a year on the various facilities.

Deputy Bruton queried some matter. I do not have a note of it but maybe the Deputy would be kind enough to pose the question again. I think it was in relation to the 21 per cent increase.

Mr. R. Bruton

Under subhead A1 there is an increase in staff from 308 to 312 which is over 1 per cent increase in staffing. The corresponding vote in money terms is up by 21 per cent. What lies behind those figures? I also raised the wider question of whether we have a top heavy administration system running the marine sector.

Mr. Andrews

We do not have a top heavy bureaucracy. We are understaffed in certain areas. People may be unaware that the Department of the Marine is a very heavily decentralised Department. We have locations and personnel widely dispersed throughout the country, in the various fishery harbour centres and in other installations throughout the length and breadth of the land. It has been suggested and the Department of Finance have requested that we decentalise certain personnel from the Department to Kilkenny but that is not possible or tenable. The suggestion is unacceptable in the context of the type and number of personnel available in the Department of the Marine in Leeson Lane. I would strongly resist an attempt to transfer any further officials from headquarters in Dublin.

Mr. R. Bruton

I do not want to appear obtuse but how is it that for a 1 per cent increase in staff numbers there is a 21 per cent increase in the salary bill? With regard to administation, Bord Iascaigh Mhara spend more on administration than on development services to the people they serve.

Mr. Andrews

The best way to deal with that is to give the Deputy the information. I do not have it readily available but I will be glad to give it to him after the meeting.

Mr. Barrett

Will this Committee have an opportunity to discuss in advance the proposals in respect of the allocation of cohesion funding and will there be any discussions with local groups in respect of local projects?

Mr. Andrews

We have had many submissions from diverse and numerous groups requesting large sums of money. As Deputy Clohessy said in his opening remarks, yesterday I visited Foynes and Limerick. Limerick are seeking a figure somewhere in the region of £71 million for the development they envisage and Foynes seek in the region of £19 million. That is the draw down being sought from the moneys that will become available. We would need substantial sums of money if that is the type of request we have to meet. I am not certain whether in those two cases we can meet the sums requested.

In relation to the Deputy's question on pre-consultation, we would like to think that we would have the national plan ready and delivered to Brussels around the end of June or the beginning of July. That is the intention but whether it becomes reality is another matter. I am not certain whether we will come back to the committee in advance of the preparation of the figures but I will look at the Deputy's request. On the basis of Ministers coming before these Committees proclaiming openness and transparency, I do not think it is an unreasonable request and it is my intention to have a serious look at it.

I would not wish to mislead the committee or give any undertaking to come back to it in the context of whatever figures we might be preparing.

Mr. Sheehan

Under subhead B.1 — Coastal Life Saving Service — I compliment the Minister and his Department for establishing this excellent cliff rescue service. It is an outstanding service and I hope the Minister will continue to streamline it further. The provision of rescue boats for the service is vital in several areas throughout the country, particularly in the south west and west coasts which are open to Atlantic storms. A rescue boat in each area would be essential for the service. They should be equipped with blankets and so on which would enable the rescue service personnel to carry out their job properly.

I would like to ascertain from the Minister when his Department will remove this wreck from the entrance to Castletownbere Harbour, as it is a great threat to life and limb.

Mr. Dukes

I support Deputy Sheehan's last request. The wreck of Mizen Head was moved very quickly. If they moved as quickly in Bear Haven Harbour, it would be grand.

On subhead B.6 — The Marine Emergency Service — I am delighted we are getting good value and good service from the search and rescue helicopter contract. Will the Minister tell us where we will go from here? When that service was set up the intention was that it would be provided on a contract basis for an initial period and that we would use the time of that contract to prepare for a service which would be an integral part of our own Air Corps services. Has any progress been made in the provision and planning of that definitive phase of the service?

On subhead B.7, can the Minister say if there is any code of conduct, or code of procedure, in relation to the relief of distressed seamen? The Minister may remember that some months ago a German vessel spent quite some time in New Ross. There were debts to be paid and a number of the crew had to spend a couple of weeks in New Ross. The only assistance they were able to get came out of the goodness of the hearts of local residents who looked after them, fed them and had to take up a collection to pay the fare home to Germany for one of the crew who was in dire straits at that stage.

On subhead C — the Construction of a Loran C Mast at Loop Head — the Minister and I have had discussions about this on other occasions, in the Chamber. While I appreciate what the Minister said in his speech, that he is taking account of the local sensitivities on the matter, I wonder what that means? It seems to me it would mean that the mast would not be built where it is proposed to build it as that is probably the most inappropriate place, on a bare flag plateau. It would be very obtrusive there. I would like to know if the Minister really means what he says and if he has looked at any other sites for that mast?

Chairman

Eight members have indicated that they wish to put questions to the Minister. It would be unfair to ask the Minister to respond and keep a record of all the questions put to him so I will break them up into groups. I will ask him to respond to the first two then I will proceed to the next two, depending on the length of the contributions of members.

Mr. Andrews

I am grateful to the members and for this facility, because otherwise I genuinely could not keep up with the many queries raised.

I will deal with Deputy Dukes's questions first and then I will return to Deputy Sheehan's.

In relation to IMES, to the Air Corps Service and the Sikorski contract, I assume the Deputy was asking if the Air Corps should have a central role in all of this. I imagine that, at the end of the contract period of the Shannon based Sikorski element, we could have a look at the possibility of the Air Corps taking over the service. I would like to pay tribute to Irish Helicopters. They are doing an exceptional job. The spokesman for the Progressive Democrats mentioned the number of lives they have saved, the number of rescues they have been engaged in and so on. Certainly, this is something we could have a look at.

The question of the relief and repatriation of seamen was also alluded to by Deputy Dukes. He is aware that Part IV of the 1906 Act deals with the relief and repatriation of distressed seamen and seamen left behind abroad. In the present day context intervention by the State in the repatriation of the seaman rarely, if ever, arises. When it does arise, I assure the Deputy that these seamen are well catered for.

Mr. Dukes

They were not in the case to which I referred.

Mr. Andrews

It is a case I could have a look at.

On the matter of the Loran C Mast at Loop Head and the cost of £805,000, as the Deputy is aware, I indicated during the course of this discussion, in replies to parliamentary questions and elsewhere, that I would meet with the interested local people who are sensitive to the electro-magnetic and other emissions from the 720 ft. proposed mast. I indicated to them, and made available to them, the reports from Professor Walton of UCG, and Dr. McManus, from the Department of Transport and Power. Dr. McManus's report is the most recent one available and he made the point that there is very little or any effect or any danger to the local citizens.

In order to show my consideration for the concerns of the local people, I indicated that if they are still unhappy with the two reports — I know they are unhappy with the Walton report — I would consider a third independent evaluation of the situation. That remains the position.

Deputy Sheehan referred to the coast and cliff rescue service. I agree that it is an exceptional service. The 600 men and women involved in it operate from 50 stations. The reason for the increase in the allocation is that buildings are being repaired and redecorated where possible and the equipment, including boats, is being upgraded to modern standards.

He also mentioned subhead B.2 — the Development of Coastal Radio Stations. This subhead covers the purchase of equipment, electricity and telephone bills, rental on buildings and refuse and water rates for the three manned coast stations at Malin Head, Valentia and Dublin as well as the 12 remotely controlled VHF stations around the coast. The Deputy mentioned Bardini Reefer.This vesel has been stuck in the mud for a considerable number of years. The cost of the removal of this wreck has been estimated at £1 million.

Mr. Sheehan

I heard it was estimated at £100,000.

Mr. Andrews

A figure of £1 million has been mentioned and figures of hundreds of thousands of pounds have also been mentioned. If we can come up with the money I have no doubt we could consider its removal but the Deputy will appreciate it will be a very expensive exercise.

Miss Coughlan

Under subhead B.6, while commending the work done and the tremendous facility provided, will the Minister consider the purchase or hire of a larger helicopter similar to the Hercules as the RAF is still called in the event of accidents occurring far out at sea. I know it would cost an astronomical amount of money but I do not know how much it costs us to call out the RAF.

In relation to subhead B.1, I am glad there has been an increase in relation to the coast and cliff rescue services because they have done tremendous voluntary work. Is this provision adequate given that equipment is expensive and that more stations are now operational?

Mr. Creed

On subhead B.7, including a token allocation is meaningless. Either the Department washes its hands of its responsibility in relation to not just the Bardini Reefer but other wrecks scattered throughout the country or they make a once off allocation to address the problem. It is not just a shipping obstacle; it is also an eyesore and is in one of the more scenic areas of the country. There is a wreck in the Dingle Peninsula and another in west Cork. Will the Department pursue the owners to see if their insurance could be used to defray the costs of removing the wrecks?

Mr. Killeen

Under subhead B.3 — Compensation to Maritime Local Authorities towards the cost of clearing beaches — my understanding is that the Department pays one-third of the cost and that the other two-thirds are borne by the Department of the Environment and local authorities. In County Clare in recent years there are two fairly major incidents and in both cases the local authority was saddled with the cost in the short term. I understand that subsequently the Department paid one-third of the cost but from what I heard the council would very strongly oppose having to pay one-third of the cost in future. I urge the Minister to look very strongly at having the cost of clearing beaches met by the Department of the Marine. The fears of the local community in west Clare are far from allayed by the two reports mentioned by the Minister. I urge him, in the strongest possible terms, to proceed with the independent assessment which he mentioned in his reply to Deputy Dukes.

Mr. Andrews

The Loran C stands for long range communications. It is an improvement on the Decca system. BIM intends to continue with the Decca Racal system for a number of years to allow the Loran C to be installed. It is important to remember that the Dáil agreed to introduce Loran C on an all party basis in October 1992. My offer to the local people stands, namely, that if they are still dissatisfied with the McManus report I will give them the opportunity to have a further independent assessment. That is as far as we can go. I have also indicated that I am willing to consider the possibility — although the Commissioners of Irish Lights who are our agents are not obliged to do seek planning permission — of seeking planning permission. It has been indicated that if we seek planning permission we will be turned down. We are in a catch 22 situation on the Loran C question.

The helicopter service is adequate. The Sikorski contract is for five years. It is operated from a base at Shannon. Its radius is right around the island of Ireland internally and it can travel some 240 miles out to sea. Its range is considerable and extensive. As far as the RAF is concerned, we availed of its services in the past but the tables have been turned and 12 times since the operation of the Sikorski service we have assisted them. I do not want in any way to diminish or be less than grateful for the service and help given to us by the Royal Air Force. We appreciate that but we reciprocate.

Deputy Coughlan also mentioned subhead B.1, the Coast Lifesaving Service. I dealt with that. It is a voluntary shore based rescue service under the aegis of the Department of the Marine. There is a chief of operations and two regional officers in charge of the service, an area officer, deputy area officer and 11 to 12 volunteers attached to each of the stations I mentioned. There are 50 stations positioned around the coast and they do marvellous work. I would categorise them in the same way as the work done by the FCA and An Slua Muirí.

Deputy Creed mentioned subhead B.7, and the removal of wrecks. As the Deputy will be aware, the removal of wrecks is a matter in the first instance for the owner, section 530 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, enables a harbour authority to remove a wreck from its harbour if it is — or likely to become — a danger to navigation or shipping. Section 531 of the Act enables a lighthouse authority to do likewise in the absence of a harbour authority. The Minister for the Marine, in the circumstances, has no specific remit to remove wrecks, though the State is entitled to all unclaimed wrecks in certain circumstances. It is a difficult question. If the Deputy has a specific wreck in mind I would be delighted to consider it.

Mr. Sheehan

Would the Minister like to see the Bardini Reefer?

Mr. Andrews

I would be delighted to have a look at it and any other wrecks.

Mr. R. Burke

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and on the job he and his Minister of State are doing. It had been my hope to speak to the Minister about Skerries fishing harbour, Balbriggan Harbour, Rush, which is a non-fishing harbour and Dublin port. I also wish to raise the question of dumping and coastal erosion. Obviously time will not permit all of that.

In relation to the marine emergency service, I join with the Minister and other colleagues who have spoken about the work being done by Irish Helicopters. I would suggest to the Minister that he should not rush off and automatically hand the service over to the Air Corps. Irish Helicopters are doing a superb job; they are continuing their training and are increasing their level of competence all the time. They have been complimented by all and sundry on their work. It is interesting to note that in 1992 Irish Helicopters were involved in 146 missions. That is a superb record. Many of the missions involved going out almost to the limit of their capacity, to the 240-mile limit. They have done an excellent job.

The Minister rightly mentioned the services we have received from the RAF over the years. If you are in a boat that is going down it does not matter whether it is the Air Corps, Irish Helicopters or the RAF which saves you, as long as somebody does. I would suggest to the Minister that, before he makes any move to take the contract away from Irish Helicopters, he examine it very carefully.

Mr. Clohessy

In Limerick a group of about 24 people provide a voluntary rescue service to the city. They have often been called out four or five times a week; half of them are on call 24 hours a day. They are called by the Garda Síochána to look for people who have fallen into the Shannon due to accidents or suicide attempts. They have no income whatsoever. They have to pay for their clothing, diving equipment and craft. They have been given a craft by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. The rest of the money required to run this service is raised by holding dances and raffles etc., despite the fact that they give an excellent service to the area. I ask the Minister to consider giving them a small allocation to help them carry on. At present they are in financial difficulties. A small sum of money would be deeply appreciated.

Mr. Flood

Under subhead B.5 — Grants to the Commissioners of Irish Lights — the Minister seemed to suggest the relationship with Irish Lights and his Department was undergoing some change. He referred to an agreement in 1985 between Ireland and the UK regarding funding. Are the Commissioners of Irish Lights responsible to the Minister's Department and is his Department is in a position to decide whether it is getting value for money from the Commissioners for Irish Lights? Could the Minister explain if he, his Department or the Government have any say in the appointment of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. Where are they controlled from? Is the Minister in a position to decide, on the basis of the allocation he is making, whether he is getting value for money and if the service must continue to be provided by the Commissioners of Irish Lights and not any other section in his Department?

Mr. Andrews

The Commissioners of Irish Lights is an all Ireland organisation. The Commissioners of Northern Lights deals with Scotland and the Isle of Man and then we have Trinity House which deal with England, Wales and the Channel islands. I believe very strongly that we are getting value for money from the Commissioners of Irish Lights. It is a statutory body where the Government has no say in the appointments. It is entirely a matter for them.

The 1985 agreement provides for a division of costs on a 70 per cent, 30 per cent basis; between the State and Northern Ireland. We get very good value for money. The Commissioners of Irish Lights are asking us to review our subvention at this time but they have not returned to us in that context. We are still looking at the request.

Deputy Burke is right in saying that Irish Helicopters have provided an exceptional service and given many very worth while hours to rescuing a large number of people. In 1992, he says correctly, 146 missions were successfully accomplished. I assure Deputy Burke that three is no move at this stage to take the contract away from Irish Helicopters. The Deputy correctly points out that if somebody is going down for the third time they do not care where the helping hand comes from, whether it is out of the door of an RAF helicopter or an Irish helicopter.

The Deputy mentioned Skerries and Balbriggan. As I understand it, the Dublin port authority controls those outports or estuarine ports. The question might properly be addressed to the representatives of that organisation, to see what funding can be made available for those harbours. I believe no such funding is contemplated at present.

I will be glad to have a look at the Limerick organisation mentioned by Deputy Clohessy which provides a rescue service. If the Deputy will be kind enough to give me the details of it, I will consider the possibility of funding. I am not making any promises. Based on the Deputy's reference and suggestions as to their value, I will have a very serious look at the organisation.

Chairman

The Minister has to leave to go to a Cabinet meeting. The Minister of State, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, will take all remaining sections of the Estimate.

Mr. Hughes

I would ask the Minister of State if his Department has ever considered, or will in the future consider, making a grant-in-aid towards local authorities for the provision of off-shore helicopter landing pads, considering that local authorities, in the main, are short of money and their funding comes mainly from central funds. These off shore landing pads would be an added facility to our island communities. The Minister's remarks on the maintenance and development of coastal communities would be particularly relevant to island communities. Offshore landing pads are necessary and the cost of building them would not be tremendously high. All these islands have diesel generators which would provide a source of electricity. Would they consider making a contribution considering how difficult it is for local authorities like Mayo to provide three such helicopter landing pads? I would like to point out to the Minister that our first citizen, President Robinson, landed on those three islands last Friday. It was the first time in the history of this State that a President landed on Inisturk. It was a precarious landing on a rocky outcrop but she made it. I appreciate that and so did the 91 inhabitants of the island. I would like a response to that.

I do not think the Minister responded properly to Deputy Killeen's question. What is the policy in relation to recoupment to local authorities of costs incurred in the clean up of pollution?

Mr. Haughey

I wish to raise the question of Sellafield nuclear processing plant which I suggest comes under subheads B.3 or B.6. The Minister of State will be aware that Sellafield has plans to extend its operation there by the construction of the THORPE and the statutory regulations commissioning the THORPE plant are now underway. It has been said that the Irish Sea is one of the most radioactive seas in the world. These are expressions one hears from time to time. This would have consequences for this Department's Estimate and one of our major industries, namely the fishing industry. There are plans now to transport plutonium through the Irish Sea from Japan to the new Sellafield plant. I know the radiological protection institute would be involved in this and that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications has been involved in opposing the new THORPE plant. I suggest that the Department of the Marine should be involved given the consequences for fishing. What monitoring takes place? Is the Department of the Marine involved in this process? Is it opposed to the expansion of the Sellafield plant? If there were an accident, what procedures will be followed?

The second question which I do not think the Minister dealt with was raised by Deputy Sheehan in relation to the automation of lighthouses. Deputy Sheehan might not have realised it but by mentioning the ex-Taoiseach he was probably making a case for demanning lighthouses. It was a mistake to deman the lighthouses. They were our eyes and ears around the coast. Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out of this decision? From my observations, helicopters are still going out to these lighthouses regularly because of breakdowns, servicing lights and so on even though there are no men on the lighthouses. Have the cost been substantially reduced to Irish Lights and to the Government arising out of the automation of the lighthouses?

Mr. Barrett

I concur with the views expressed by Deputy Haughey in relation to Sellafield. Has the Minister any proposals to initiate discussions at European level to introduce stricter controls in relation to possible damage to our environment, whether it is the sea or the air? It was said earlier that because fisheries was part of the Department of Agriculture for so long it played second fiddle and we ignored the potential of our seas in terms of wealth and employment creation, not to mention the importance of the environment. We should initiate discussions at European level to show that we are serious about protecting this very valuable resource. This asset is too valuable to allow anybody to interfere with it.

The brings me to subhead B.3 — Marine Emergency Contingency — and also the subhead mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, in regard to the removal of wrecks. These form part and parcel of the whole approach to dealing with problems affecting the environment in regard to seas. Leaving wrecks in seas for a long time does nothing from a visual or environmental point of view. Surely there is an onus on the owners of vessels to remove these? Are they insured? How can we check this out? Can we demand that before anybody enters our waters they must have adequate protection if something goes wrong? Do we demand charges for clearing up pollution or other wastes deposited in our seas by vessels? I do not see why the taxpayer should have to foot such bills. We should demand to be paid for clearing up the mess left after some people who ignore the value of this amenity to us.

On subhead B.4 — Grant to Royal National Lifeboat Institution — the estimate is for a figure of £195,000. It seems to be ongoing. Could we have some indication as to what percentage that represents of the total expenditure by the RNLI here? Are those figures available to us?

I concur with the view that it was unwise to deman our lighthouses. However, if we are to pay a sum of £2,706,000, and recognising that the Irish Lights is doing a valuable service, surely it is only reasonable that we should have some say into the policy-making decisions of these bodies? It is a great deal of money. I omitted to wish Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, every success in his job at the Department of the Marine.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. G. O'Sullivan)

Deputy Hughes mentioned helicopter pads and asked if the Department would contribute towards the provision of extra pads in various counties. We would like to have such facilities in areas where there is an airport. Safety is an important factor in the provision of any type of helicopter landing pads. We will look at the proposals made that in the case of offshore islands helicopter pads should be provided and see if we can contribute towards the cost of that. Safety is the main priority.

On the issue of pollution, the aim of the Department, and the Minister, is that the polluter should pay. It is as simple as that. In all cases where pollution has occurred, it is up to the company which owns the vessel or the insurance company to recompense the authority or the Department as the case may be. That is the rule of thumb on this issue. There are times of course, when, it may be difficult, as when the ship ran aground at the Stags Rocks. It is the polluter who should pay the cost of cleaning up. That is the aim of the Minister and the Department.

Deputy Haughey raised the issue of Sellafield. It is the Department of Energy which is directly responsible for Sellafield although we would have an input, obviously, from the marine and fishing point of view. We have a research vessel, the Lough Beltra, which carries out tests in the Irish Sea on an ongoing basis. Also the Radiological Protection Agency is involved in monitoring radiation levels in the sea. The Department of the Marine would have an input into providing a certain amount of protection for marine life, but the Minister for Energy is responsible.

Regarding the demanning of lighthouses, this has been an ongoing policy for a number of vears. Many of us did not agree with the policy of demanning lighthouses because we felt, maybe rightly so in some cases, that when one takes personnel out of the lighthouse one loses a lighthouse-keeper who would have advised and monitored people going to sea, particularly at weekends when people use the estuaries and seas around our coast. These lighthouse-keepers have often warned people in time and saved many lives. We acknowledge that, but the cost analysis has been done and it was found to be much cheaper to deman and instal high tech apparatus in the lighthouses to monitor and keep the coasts safe. It is sad to lose lighthouse-keepers but it would appear that technological advances indicate that is the way to go. Around the coast of Britain the same situation applies.

Deputy Barrett raised the grant to the RNLI. I think it is about five per cent of the operating cost. We have endeavoured over the years to increase that. This is the one organisation to which people readily contribute when it makes its annual collection. We are also obliged, in certain instances, to contribute. The Department of the Marine contributed £150,000 last year. The dredging of Court- macsherry where a new lifeboat came into operation, is one area where we were able to help out the RNLI. It is a service we readily support.

Mr. Barrett

In relation to the Commissioners of Irish Lights, do we have any say in policy decisions?

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

We do not have a direct say in policy decisions. They are the people who make the decisions on the lights; they man them around the coast. They are the controlling body. We liaise with them but they make the decisions.

Chairman

There are 23 more subheads to be dealt with. There are six programmes in all. I would ask for Members' co-operation. We have less than an hour left. It is my intention to go beyond 7.30 p.m. in view of time lost at the beginning of the meeting and during the vote. We will now take subheads D.1, D.2, D.3 and E.

Miss Coughlan

I welcome the Minister of State and wish him well in his portfolio. In relation to D.1, I have a great fear about harbour development. The programme being developed in the Department is excellent and I would hope that all fishery harbours will be included in the national plan. My fear is that the local authorities will not have sufficient funding. I ask the Minister to try his utmost to ensure that the local authority input is reduced because in relation to certain ports, for example, Burtonport, which requires dredging and a new pier, there is absolutely no way Donegal can provide adequate funding. There are several other such cases in my constituency. If you multiply that by every coastal constituency you will see there is no way the local authorities can draw down the money. The Department will have to do something about it, perhaps by amending the Act. If you take out the £200,000 that has gone to Cork Harbour — which I will not begrudge them — the Estimate has not increased at all for any part of the country.

I would also like to advert to subhead E — Coast Protection. Instead of £200,000 there should be an allocation of £200 million. The funding for coast protection is completely inadequate. It is non-sensical. Many coastal areas and small villages on the coast are being eaten away and eroded every year. Certain villages will eventually have to be abandoned. I come from a small place called Inver which is right out on the shoreline. We have had several storms and it has come to the stage where the water can now flow right up to the county road. The next thing to happen will be that it will be on top of somebody's house. All the beaches, beautiful small enclaves, are unfortunately being lost as a natural asset. Landowners are losing out as well. If you took an ordnance survey map of, say, 40 years ago and looked at it now, you would be surprised how much land has been lost. Perhaps the Minister would advise, even given his financial constraints, if, through a new environmental, community or other programme, something could be done to invest in coast protection. Otherwise the coast will soon be in Athlone.

Mr. Creed

I want to take up Deputy Coughlan's point about local authorities and their capacity to fund harbour developments. I am not quite sure if Union Hall comes in under this provision.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

No.

Mr. Creed

The question is relevant nonetheless. The programme for peripherality suggested that 75 per cent funding was available. If 75 per cent is available, surely the Exchequer and not the local authority should be obliged to provide the matching funds. The case of Union Hall is referred to later, but if local authorities, which are not funded as development agencies, are obliged to make resources available, they are caught in a no win situation. If they are obliged to make resources available for particular harbour or pier developments those resources have to come from some other area of statutory responsibility of the local authority. In the case of Union Hall, if we have to provide X amount of pounds for that development, then that sum comes out of our roads maintenance budget. That is not a satisfactory situation.

I am not satisfied that the Department has fully exploited the potential funding available. Under the programme for peripherality we were led to believe that 75 per cent funding was available for such developments. I want further information on this. While we have signed on the dotted line with regard to Union Hall, this could be just the tip of the iceberg, with the Department abdicating its responsibility, to local authorities. It is unacceptable. Similar expense was incurred in Millstreet with regard to the Eurovision for which we were never reimbursed. Government Departments are abdicating their responsibility for funding to local authorities who do not have independent means of raising finance.

Dr. McDaid

Mr. Hughes

I know the legislation has not been passed. I understand that the Department is giving serious consideration to preparing such legislation.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

Yes, it is.

Mr. Hughes

That being the situation, authorities of ports which were previously deemed commercial but which are no longer operating in a commercial sense, such as Westport Harbour Commissioners, will be disbanded and the ports will be transferred to the appropriate local authority which will become responsible for their upkeep. That seems contradictory in relation to drawdown of funding from Europe, having regard to what the Minister said to Deputies Creed and Sheehan. If one can get 75 per cent drawdown from Europe for a commercial port, why then declassify such ports and put them into the category of local authority responsibility?

Various applications are sent to the Department of the Marine for foreshore licences, and the Minister is asked to give his consent to the sale of property. It is imperative that the Minister have a system for considering such applications as quickly as possible. At the moment there is an application with the Department of the Marine in the name of a company called Boroughaven Limited. The Harbour Commissioners in Westport sold their fee simple interest, worth £50 a year, to this company whose major plans for development will create many jobs and cost several millions of pounds. This application has been with the Department for several months. I appreciate there is a system of referring these applications to the Valuation Office which is necessary, but the fee simple interest in this case was the equivalent of ten years purchase while the normal amount would be eight years purchase, so it should be a rubber stamp decision. These applications are held up for months and delay development. Surely there should be a quicker way of dealing with cases where something is evidently perfect and above board and the Minister should see documents without further delay?

Mr. Sheehan

I would like some information on subhead D.2. I note a figure of £2,073,000. Does the money under this subhead go towards the management and upkeep of Dún Laoghaire Harbour? There are 68 staff employed in that harbour, that is equal to one quarter of the entire staff of the Department of the Marine. Is this an annual vote Dún Laoghaire Harbour gets every year? We cannot get even £400,000 to improve Adam's Quay in Kinsale.

Mr. S. Ryan

Deputy Barrett is responsible for some of that.

Mr. Sheehan

On subhead E — coast protection — coastal erosion is a major problem and more funding from the EC Structural and Cohesion Funds is urgently needed if we are to tackle the problem. I need not remind the Minister of State of what is happening. Like Deputy Coughlan, I also see little coastal areas in my constituency being washed away. In fact, in the Minister of State's maternal home of Glandore, I saw a tree in a front garden looking like the leaning tower of Pisa, leaning into the sea, with the sea eating away the garden at the front of the house. This is a very serious problem along the coast. Finance from the EC Structural and Cohesion Funds should be diverted to deal with the very serious problem of coastal erosion along the whole eastern coastline from Malin Head to Mizen Head and from that to Ardmore in Waterford.

Mr. S. Ryan

I make no apologies for raising again this issue of the coast protection. Through adjournment debates, I am aware of the Minister's personal concern in regard to this matter. I want to know if the Government and the EC are aware of the implications of our not getting funds for coast protection. Are they aware that our coastlines are systematically being washed away? We have heard other Members from Donegal to Cork and Waterford talking about this. From Waterford up to the greater Dublin area whole areas are falling into the sea, disappearing, including the coastline of my constituency. I wish to know, from the Minister, who ultimately makes the decision in regard to this? This is very serious. If we do not get the money from the EC on this occasion we can forget about coast protection because it is too costly. Are the officials of the Department of Finance aware of the problem and serious about tackling it? At the end of the day, will Brussels have a veto as to what funds come in our direction?

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

To take Deputy Hughes's points first, the process of legislation, which is ongoing, will be an extensive one of consultation with the local authorities involved. It is legislation we will be very careful about because some of the local authorities want to get rid of the ports, while others want to keep their ports. There will be a long process of consultation with all the local authorities before we finally come up with a draft that will, hopefully, be acceptable to everyone.

We noted what the Deputy said about delay in issuing licences. I will certainly examine whether we can expedite the process he outlined because, as was rightly pointed out, it would seem ridiculous that such a length of time should be taken to process an ordinary licence application. I will take those matter up and I will try to have them expedited.

Mr. Hughes

A rubber stamp is needed.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

I wish to raise an issue in connection with Lough Currane and the serious problems in relation to salmon and trout stocks. It is alleged, backed by a good deal of scientific argument, that fish farming off the coast at Waterville is causing a major problem. That part of the country depends very much on tourism. Stocks have been decimated. Does the Minister propose to carry out an investigation, particularly in view of the fact that it is the ESB who own the fish farm? Have any formal complaints been made as yet in relation to this? Will he make money available to investigate this problem? I appreciate that many people are employed directly and indirectly in fish farming but that has to be weighed against the effect it is having on a highly sensitive tourist area. Will the Minister advise if there have been formal complaints and will he carry out an immediate investigation into the matter?

Mr. Hughes

I believe there is a new type of ice plant which would be suitable for islands. The largest inhabited island, Achill Island, which fortunately is linked to the mainland by a bridge, has suffered a drop in population of 30 per cent since 1985. Those are official statistics. I fear for the future of such places where the only source of income is either from fishing or tourism. It is important to try to develop fishing, particularly on Achill island.

I agree generally with the remarks that EC policy is preventing the development of in-shore fishing policy. I acknowledge that the Department has developed Killybegs and Rossaveal but there are small harbours in between where, if not looked after, the community will be wiped out in ten years. BIM must be given resources to allow them give grants to modernise boats in excess of 25 years of age.

It is fine to have a major fishing fleet operating out of Killybegs, most of which is owned by a Mayo man, or out of Rossaveal, but we must look after the small man whose only source of income is either from the land or part-time fishing. BIM will have to be given funding to allow them purchase equipment for the small operator.

I would also ask the Minister urgently to consider the representations which he has received from some of the fishery boards, particularly the North Western Regional Fishery Board, to have the 1980 regulations on drift net licences amended. Take the North Western Regional Fishery Board area. There are three districts within that area. There is a certain number of drift net licences within each district but they cannot be transferred within the districts. In 1980 the legislation provides for 125 such licences in Ballina and 25 in Achill. The 125 licences have not been taken up in Ballina but there is great demand in Achill for drift net licences and people who have not got them cannot fish. It should be possible to amend the legislation to allow for the inter-transfer of drift net licences within a board area. I do not see why we should have to wait for an overall review of policy vis-ï¿½-vis the day-to-day workings of these regional fishery boards. Why can we not put through an amending regulation which would permit the licences to be transferred at the discretion of the chief executive and his board within each board area? I assure the Minister that, overnight, he could be responsible for the creation of at least five jobs in Mayo.

Will the Minister give particulars of the £699,000 expended on the Lough Beltra?Will he say why there is a 50 per cent reduction in funding to the salmon research agency?

Mr. Barrett

This group of subheads is probably the most important in the Estimate in so far as we are dealing with research, fishery harbours, fish processing and marketing. If one adds up all the money and takes out the administration costs, one will see that there is a very little for development works. That is what it is all about.

I take the point made by the Minister and I accept his goodwill. He is as anxious as anybody to see to it that we develop this resource. If this Committee is to mean anything, given it is located in the group on enterprise and economic strategy, I hope the Government will recognise the necessity to give this money to allow this development to take place.

In relation to research, we have the Salmon Research Agency, the Marine Research Institute and a subhead for marine research and development. Are there any proposals to put these under one heading? Surely we need marine and fishery research to be conducted by one body of people all working for the same purpose and not different groups. I would ask the Minister if he has considered doing that.

Subhead G.1 refers to development of harbours for fisheries. It is time we got rid of the contribution by local authorities. If we do not, many resources will remain undeveloped. Local authorities do not have the money to replace traffic lights or public lighting, never mind develop fishery harbours. We are fooling ourselves if we keep believing the myth that local authorities can fund this developoment. Whether 25 per cent or 50 per cent is required is irrelevant because we are not going to get anything. What we are talking about is the development of the fishing industry.

Why do we not have annual reports for Bord Iascaigh Mhara for 1991 and 1992? The last report published in 1990 has an inset giving statistics on various fish, the tonnage, catches, exports and so on. The statistics date back to 1989. This is the approach we see to the marine area. This is 1993 and we are talking about demanning lighthouses because of technology. Surely it is possible to produce an annual report for 1991 and 1992 at this stage. I would like to know why that has not been done.

Subhead H.1 covers the administration and current development expenditure of Bord Iascaigh Mhara. What current development expenditure is referred to? The next subhead mentions capital development and under another subhead another type of development is named.

A food agency is going to be set up and will take over the marketing end of fishing. This is a retrograde step because there will be a dispute as to whether one promotes beef or fish. If we want to develop the fishing industry to the level it should be at, we should have our own aggressive marketing agency to do it. Bord Iascaigh Mhara will be taking a back seat in future in terms of marketing if this food agency takes over the overall promotion of food. Some people forget that fish is a food.

A 5 per cent contribution amounting to £75,000 to the fish processing area would suggest that the total outlay is £1.5 million for updating existing plants. That is a paltry sum for the fish processing area. In what other subheads are there possibilities for grants towards the setting up of new processing plants of a size that would allow us begin to compete in the world of processed fish?

Mr. Sheehan

We are not facing up to our responsibilities as far as the development of harbours for fishery purposes are concerned. Through the good offices of the Minister and the Minister of State we succeeded in getting a grant for Union Hall pier this year. We have several other similar piers around the country in need of urgent attention. If we are logical about improving our fishing industry we must get our infrastructure right. The number one element in infrastructure is the pier and landing slip. In Kinsale the local development association is very keen to reconstruct Adam's Quay at a very moderate cost of £400,000. The Harbour Board in Kinsale is prepared to give a very sizeable contribution towards the cost. I do not see why the Department cannot take up this offer from the Kinsale Harbour Commissioners and try to get Adam's Quay developed to facilitate the 26 trawlers operating from the port of Kinsale.

Under subhead I.3 — Fish Processing — the Minister's states that 16,500 people are employed in the marine industry. That is only skimming the surface as far as the employment potential of the industry is concerned. More emphasis should be placed on the processing of the raw material, i.e. fresh fish. The processing end of the business is completely neglected. If you walk into any supermarket today you will find herrings from Germany, herrings in brine, herrings in mustard, herrings in beer and herrings in wine. There are many different varieties, while we are here——

Chairman

The Deputy is supposed to be asking questions.

Mr. Sheehan

I am outlining to the Minister the necessity for the——

Chairman

The Deputy is answering the questions himself.

Mr. Sheehan

No. We are falling down on manufacturing products from our raw materials when we could be creating thousands of jobs.

I would also like to raise the question of conservation and management of fisheries. The time is overdue for the Minister to realise that monofilament nets must be allowed and proper agreements must be hammered out by the Minister with the salmon fishermen. They are not criminals. They are hard-working fishermen who are trying to eke out a living for their wives and families. If the Minister met a delegation from those fishermen and had proper dialogue with them I have no doubt but that an agreement could be made whereby the fishermen would be prepared to restrict the fishing season from 1 June to 15 August instead of the present season of 17 March until 30 June. We are falling down there. I would urge the Minister to let common sense prevail and spare his Department of the Marine and the Department of Defence the huge amount of money it costs to police this industry.

We are only fooling ourselves if we think that monofilament net is not being used. That is the only net to have been imported for the past decade. The Department of Finance is collecting a very hefty sum of money from VAT on the import of that type of net. With proper dialogue the Minister could iron out the problem. He would save hundreds of thousands of pounds in the cost of patrolling our sea fisheries and the fishermen would be prepared to fish a five-day week from Monday to Friday or Monday to Thursday if they want and leave the other three days of the week free for the fish to move up the rivers.

Mr. S. Ryan

One theme running through the discussion is that we have not realised the full potential of our fishing industry, particularly, in relation to fish processing. Shellfish, such as prawns, etc., are brought to the North to be processed. There is potential for jobs. The Department of the Marine and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should look at this problem and see what needs to be done. If a processing plant were located at Skerries harbour many jobs would be provided. I suggest that the Minister takes the initiative and brings the relevant parties together. There is potential for job creation in this area and if we are talking about employment generally in the economy we should examine every area.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

A number of points were raised by various speakers. Deputy Coughlan raised the matter of BIM and the promotion of fish abroad, which is very important. I fully endorse her remarks. We spent in the region of £289,000 on the promotion of fish abroad. Loans to upgrade fishing boats came to £800,000. BIM made its own priorities — it dictates where the money goes. That is the way it should be as it has the necessary knowledge and marketing skills.

Deputy Fitzgerald raised the question of sea lice which is causing major concern in areas in the south west. Since the first indications of infestation, the Department of the Marine acted very quickly and its people researched and monitored the situation. We are very concerned about the increase in sea lice as we see it as a danger to fishing.

Everyone in the Department is convinced that both sides can live together and survive happily. We firmly believe that there is a role to be played by fish farming which has huge job potential. As Deputy Ryan said, it has increased output. We have learned from mistakes in other countries. We also acknowledge that angling is a huge industry and has a spin-off effect on hotels and so on. We are confident that the two can marry and operate together. We have imposed certain restrictions and regulations and will ensure that they are adhered to by the people operating fish farms. The Department is monitoring the situation on a weekly basis. On the last check we made, there has been a dramatic reduction in the amount of sea lice in certain areas. I am happy that the situation is under control and that the proper safeguards are in place.

Deputy Hughes mentioned the islands off our coast and the fact that the population there depend on fishing. I agree wholeheartedly with him. I am convinced that there is a need for investment in those areas to safeguard the population. Not alone is there an economic dimension, there is also an important social dimension. We have put forward a programme that will get funding into those areas so that they can survive, operate successfully and provide gainful employment to people living there.

The Deputy also mentioned drift net licences, a matter currently being examined. We are trying to come to grips with this serious problem. Someone has to grasp this nettle and we will not shrink from it. There are emotive aspects to drift netting. We will look carefully at it over the coming weeks.

Deputy Barrett raised the BIM accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General has responsibility in that area, not the Department of the Marine. We will look into what the Deputy said and see where the delay is.

The intention is to marry the marine research and the marine institute and have one department functioning properly. I take the points in relation to fish processing. Jobs could be created in this area instead of exporting fish for processing to Spain or France. The figure of £1.5 million was mentioned by the Deputy. It is for hygiene only. It would be operated not by the Department but by the IDA and Údarás.

Deputy Sheehan again raised the question of Adam's Quay. I gave him a very good account of this quay about three weeks ago. I am sure it is now circulating around west Cork and that he is happy with my response.

Monofilament netting must be declared illegal or the law in relation to it liberalised. The Department must decide this in the near future. It is an emotive, ongoing issue. We will do our best and will not be found lacking when it comes to making a decision on that matter.

Deputy Ryan raised the important point about the full potential of the fishing industry. It is about time people realised that there is potential for job creation in that area. The Minister showed graphically where his and my intentions lie in this Department. We feel that over the years this Department has been shortchanged. The Minister and I are determined to ensure that this Department works well in the future. If we are serious about creating jobs, this is one area where we can do so. We put forward a programme to the Department of Finance which I hope will be sent to Brussels. We intend to create sustainable jobs in this industry, an industry with a natural resource which can be renewed over and over again. We are convinced, and I am sure members are convinced, that this important point should emerge from this debate on the Estimate.

Chairman

It is my intention to adjourn at 8 p.m. A number of subheads must be discussed. The original proposal was to allow the Minister ten minutes to conclude. I will ask members, if they have questions to put on the remaining subheads, to do so. I will then ask the Minister to incorporate into his response his concluding statement because we do not have much time at our disposal. If anybody has a question to ask on the remaining subheads, please do so without any further comment.

Miss Coughlan

The Minister said the fish processing grant aid under subhead I.3 is for hygiene. Am I to take it that there will be additional moneys, though IDA and Údarás, for machines?

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

Yes.

Chairman

I invite the Minister to conclude.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

The Minister said at the outset that he intended to enter into this process in a spirit of openness and I hope the Committee members feel that commitment has been borne out. I assure the Committee of the Minister's and of my own continued commitment to its work in the future. I am glad of the opportunity to work with the Committee this evening.

The marine sector is an indigenous resource which we must develop to benefit all our people, particularly those in our peripheral regions. That development must be undertaken in a careful, sensitive manner so that the very environment which will sustain those communities in the future will be maintained. The fishery sector which encompasses sea fisheries, aquaculture and inland fisheries is a unique indigenous resource. It is on our doorstep and by application of our talents we can gain the benefits which are there for our people. The benefits of our Atlantic location and the quality of our natural environment, especially in the marine context, are assets envied elsewhere in the European Community.

The National Plan, which is being finalised, offers us the chance to invest in the marine sector and to bring about profound change. In order to do that we must use those funds wisely. I see the marine sector as the almost perfect conduit for channelling EC funds to our coastal regions. In addition, we must deploy those funds to equip ourselves with a ports infrastructure to enable our trade to be conducted efficiently and competitively.

I must not leave to one side one of my most crucial responsibilities as Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, the responsibility to strive for ever higher standards of marine safety and marine emergency response.

The marine programmes which we have discussed this evening are amongst the primary measures to achieve our goals. It is unfortunate that we had a vote to interrupt our debate, that the Minister had to leave and that we rushed through the end. I am convinced there is goodwill from all sides of the committee to increase the effect that the marine can have on the economic development of this country. Thank you, Chairman.

Chairman

That concludes our consideration of the Estimates for the Department of the Marine. I thank the Minister, Deputy David Andrews, the Minister of State, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan and their officials for the manner in which they presented the Estimates and for supplying to us in advance the very detailed briefing document which was of tremendous value to members. One could say we gave them too much information; it did not make my task easier. Nonetheless, it is a welcome development that members have greater information available to them. That has added considerably to the debate. I thank the Minister for that, on behalf of members.

I would like to thank members of the staff who have contributed to making this meeting a success.

It is proposed that this Committee meet again on Tuesday next, 1 June, when we will consider Estimates for Transport, Energy and Communications. The staff will ensure that we will have proper briefing material in advance of the meeting to enable members to come to grips with the Estimates.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I would like to pay tribute to the Secretary of the Department and his staff for the way the Estimates were given to me and the manner in which the briefing material was easily readable for everyone.

The Select Committee adjourned at 8 p.m. until Tuesday, 1 June 1993.

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate - Tuesday, 25 May 1993

Vote 30 — Marine.

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Tuesday, 25 May 1993