I welcome the Minister and his officials. It will not be possible for spokespersons to share their time for opening statements. A spokesperson was allowed to share time for the opening statement with a colleague last week; I would not want that to be considered a precedent.
Vote 30 — Marine (Revised Estimate).
The Estimates before the committee call for the expenditure of almost £51 million gross on the activities of the Department of the Marine in 1994. That represents an increase of 28 per cent on the previous year. It is a considerable increase by any standards and it underlines the Government's continuing commitment to this sector.
Among the most notable developments of the past year was the allocation of £3.5 million in compensation to former Irish Shipping employees; the ear-marking of up to £5 million for fishermen adversely affected by extreme bad weather; the introduction of important legislation updating the law on salvage and wreck and safety at sea; a substantial Fisheries (Amendment) Bill — incorporating greatly increased punishments for fisheries offences — is before the House; a major reforming Harbours Bill is moving towards the final stages of drafting; the publication of the Whitaker report on saving the sea trout and the action that has followed from that, and the appointment of 35 additional staff to the regional fisheries boards together with an assistant manager for each board. The record of the past year, therefore, has been one of increased funding — where that is needed — matched by steady and substantial legislative progress.
Before going into detail on the Vote, I wish to say how much I regret the absence of my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan. He is, I am glad to say, well on the road to recovery and I am sure the committee, looks forward, as I do, to his early return to full duties, bringing his enormous enthusiasm to bear on all the issues. We are grateful that modern medicine has aided his recovery.
The administrative budget — subheads A.1. to A.7. — covers the salaries of 337 staff in the Department ranging from scientific researchers at the fisheries research centres, engineers engaged on harbour construction, marine surveyors engaged in the enforcement of shipping safety requirements, in addition to head-quarters staff engaged in the formulation and implementation of programmes. Rigorous controls have been exercised on administrative budget expenditures in recent years and this has translated into increased productivity across all areas of activity. Administrative budget expenditure supports and underpins all the other programmes of the Department of the Marine.
Marine safety and shipping services are dealt with in subheads B.1. to C. The standards which we have achieved in the provision of marine search and rescue services are high and we can take justifiable pride in the quality of the services.
The main component of expenditure under this programme is the £5 million allocated to the Irish Marine Emergency Service. This in turn funds the long range rescue helicopter service based at Shannon Airport, the efficacy of which has been proved time and again; the Sikorsky helicopter is on a five year contract — 1991-96. I am sure Deputies will join me in complimenting all those involved in the vital task of protecting and saving life at sea; they include the crews of the Department's contract helicopter and the Defences Forces. I want to pay particular tribute to the Air Corps which provides significant additional back up to the Sikorsky helicopters under the IMES. As was shown in a number of incidents recently the bravery of the operators of these helicopters is limitless and we acknowledge their courage with considerable pride. I will not pass over the excellent voluntary contribution made by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution — recognised in this programme — and the Coast Life Saving Service teams organised under the auspices of the Department's marine emergency service.
The protection of life at sea must involve preventative action. In this connection, the Department of the Marine has organised a campaign to promote water safety awareness and the requisite resources are being committed to this. In addition, the law on vessel safety is being rigorously enforced through a co-ordinated surveillance effort by the Department with gardaí and harbour masters throughout the State.
Subhead C covers the cost of the Loran C navigation system at Loop Head in County Clare. I have provided Deputies with a detailed note on this in the brief circulated. Although the project was an exempted development under the planning Acts, I decided that the Commissioners of Irish Lights should apply for planning permission in light of concerns expressed locally which I wanted fully aired. We await the outcome of the planning process.
On subheads D.1. to E — Harbours, the bulk of investment funds in ports is channelled through the public capital programme in all £28 million in 1994. Harbours are a vital aspect of our economic infrastructure and getting this right underpins and facilitates development in all sectors of the economy. The development strategy which underpins the current port development programme is focused on improving competitiveness and expanding the capacity of the internationally traded sectors of the economy.
The Government recently approved a comprehensive strategy for the development of ferry services on the central corridor. This strategy involves the parallel and complementary development of ferry terminals at Dublin port and Dún Laoghaire and also the development of Holyhead to facilitate the earliest possible introduction of both B & I's and Stena Sealink's new vessels. I will develop that point further if Deputies wish; indeed, Deputy Haughey raised it by way of parliamentary question.
The ports development programme also takes account of the national objective of achieving a balanced development between regions. In many cases, regional ports are the life blood of the local community and are of key economic importance in sub-regional development.
Seaports are in receipt of substantial assistance from the Cohesion Fund. Some £13.8 million in aid involving six projects has been approved for Cohesion Fund aid to date in the ports of Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Rosslare. A number of other projects have been submitted to the Commission and are under consideration for funding. The investment is part of an overall development programme for commercial ports which will involve restructuring of the management framework for port authorities through the early introduction of commercial semi-State enterprises to manage the 12 larger ports. I hope to introduce a Bill at the end of this year or early next year, to replace the Harbours Act, 1946. It will provide for major changes in the management structures of the main ports to improve efficiency and enhance our ability to respond to market requirements.
On coastal protection I note the application of EU funding to the development of environmentally sensitive methods of coast protection, which was commented upon in the brief for Deputies. The ECOPRO project could provide valuable lessons for future management of threatened coastlines.
On subheads F.1. to F.3. — Marine Research, the National Development Plan provides for an integrated development and investment programme for the marine sector, including marine research and technological development. A significant research programme supported by an investment of £9 million will be undertaken under the auspices of the Marine Institute to provide the necessary research backup and to support the development of the marine sector. The programme will be geared to developing marine technology products for the food, pharmaceutical and biochemical sectors. The acquisition of marine data and selective upgrading of marine research and development infrastructure, including the national research vessel's capability and laboratory facilities, will also be given priority. The planned programme of investment under the national plan builds on recent achievements under the EU STRIDE programme.
The Marine Institute is the new national agency with responsibility for promoting, directing and co-ordinating marine research and development. Its brief covers the marine spectrum and includes, for example, fisheries and aquaculture, marine technology, amenity and marine environmental protection, coastal zone research, hydrography and oceanography. The board has been actively working to put the institute on a sound footing during the last year. The acquisition of an administrative headquarters and the appointment of a chief executive have provided a firm basis for the institute in delivering on its statutory remit.
On Sea Fisheries and Aquaculture Development — Subheads G.1. to I.3., the National Development Plan provides for a comprehensive development programme for the fisheries sector for the period 1994-99, designed to maintain and strengthen the fisheries industry's contribution to the national economy. The programme covers all areas of fisheries: fleet, aquaculture, processing and marketing, harbours, training and research.
A large proportion of State funding for the fisheries sector is, of course, channelled through Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The committee will be aware that I initiated earlier this year a major review of BIM which will cover all aspects of BIM's operations. I look forward to receiving the findings either at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. I see this review as a positive exercise, designed to improve and enhance the valuable role which BIM has played in developing our fishing industry.
At the Council of Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on 12 April, a regulation was agreed to provide the framework within the new measures to replace those currently in the Iberian Act of Accession. This regulation contains a range of criteria which will be to Ireland's benefit in the ongoing negotiations. The negotiation of these principles and provisions represents a considerable achievement and advance on what was on offer late last year.
Nevertheless, the regulation did not go far enough. To give the strongest possible signal of the importance with which Ireland views this matter, I voted against the regulation with the unanimous backing of our fishing industry. It is inevitable that on most fishery matters, Ireland, because of its unique and major disadvantage under the Common Fisheries Policy, will find itself isolated. We have, however, a strong principled case and we intend to pursue it vigorously on a sustained basis. This may mean isolation in votes at the Council. The alternative would be to row in with a cosy consensus which would not be in the best long term interests of our fishing industry. It has been constantly thrown at me that Ireland voted for the acceptance of the Common Fisheries Policy and the terms of the original Spanish Treaty of Accession. These votes have seriously weakened our negotiating hand and I have no intention of weakening it further.
The committee is also examining a Supplementary Estimate today. As Deputies will be aware, last winter saw a period of particularly bad weather which had a severe effect on our fishing industry. It was against this background that I announced at the end of March that I had reached agreement with the Minister for Finance on the details of an aid scheme to alleviate the hardship caused in the fishing industry. While the total amount of aid will ultimately depend on the take-up by the industry, up to £5 million has been provisionally earmarked for the scheme which is being administered by Bord Iascaigh Mhara and is focused on relieving the hardship suffered by owners and crews of boats that were restricted from undertaking normal winter fishing activity because of the extreme weather.
The fishery sector may only thrive with the benefit of modern infrastructure. The allocation of £3.4 million to fishery harbour development will be used to finance the completion of ongoing works at Rossaveal, upgrading of facilities at the fishery harbour centres owned by the Department at Killybegs, Dunmore East and Castletownbere, the final payments on the Auction Hall and minor renewal works undertaken at Howth, and completion of works commenced at Burtonport, Keelbeg and Portmagee along with the commencement of major new developments at Darby's Point and Kilmore Quay.
Over the last number of months I visited a number of harbours, met with various delegations and discussed issues of concern. I am satisfied that the Department's programme of works to be undertaken at fishery harbours during 1994 will assist the development of the industry.
On subheads J.1. and J.2. — inland fisheries development, the Exchequer investment in inland fisheries through the Department in 1994 amounts to £9.55 million. The Department's responsibility in this area is to ensure that the stock and habitat on which this resource depends are protected, conserved and developed to maximise employment and income generation and to ensure that this national resouce is preserved unspoiled for future generations. The responsibilities are carried mainly by the fisheries boards.
On tourism angling, our inland fisheries are exploited mainly through recreational fishing for game and coarse fish. This year will see the first element of a six year major development programme to enhance Ireland's angling tourism product and to ensure that our coarse and game angling is upgraded to the best international standards. Under the Tourism Operation Programme, in excess of £17 million has been earmarked for this development for which the Department will have responsibility.
In addition, funding has been obtained under the EU Surveillance package for both the fisheries boards and the Foyle Fisheries Commission for the acquisition of control equipment and boats. This year the fisheries boards will receive a total of £526,000 and the Foyle Fisheries Commission £361,000 under the heading of which 50 per cent will come from the Exchequer.
A review of the operation and activities of the Foyle Fisheries Commission has also been carried out to consider the expansion of its role and to identify where its effectiveness can be improved. The consultants presented their report recently and this is being considered in the Department. The Foyle Fisheries Commission is an exemplar of North South co-operation to reach worthwhile common goals and I intend to build on a solid record of achievement. I propose to bring new legislative proposals on the Foyle Fisheries to Government soon.
Under subheads K to N, the most significant element is the provision of £3.5 million in respect of former Irish Shipping employees. Following Government agreement in December 1993 to make ex-gratia payments to former employees of Irish Shipping Limited, at a gross cost to the State of approximately £3.5 million, I undertook to introduce the necessary underpinning legislation at the earliest possible date. I am pleased to report that, following the signing of the Irish Shipping Limited (Payments to Former Employees) Bill, 1994 by the President on 3 May 1994, we are now in a position to begin processing payments. I expect the first payments to be made in June and to continue speedily thereafter.
With the settlement of this longstanding issue we mark the formal end of one, rather tragic, era in our maritime and economic history and the beginning of a new, and I hope less tragic one in the future.
On shipping policy, in line with the Programme for a Partnership Government I am reviewing ways in which the operating climate for the shipping sector can be enhanced to support improved services, standards, modernisation and the ability of the Irish fleet to compete. The review is being conducted with the full participation of the industry and the social partners. An economic evaluation of the sector is to be undertaken which will ensure that the review process is fully informed.
I thank Deputies for their attention and look forward to their contributions and the discussion which will follow in due course.
I thank you for your kind wishes in respect of our colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan. I am sure other Deputies join in extending our good wishes to him for a speedy recovery.
I also compliment you Minister on the manner in which you presented your opening statement. That the Minister has itemised the subheads will be of great assistance when considering the Estimate and will enable Deputies to be more specific and will lead to a more fruitful debate.
As the discussion progresses, I will ask the Deputies to identify each subhead. In this respect the Minister's statement, and the manner in which it was framed will be of great assistance.
I call on Deputy Bradford to make a statement on behalf of the Fine Gael Party.
I compliment the Minister for the clear and concise manner in which he presented the Estimate. I am not surprised by his performance and wish that my script was more coherent.
I concur with the Chairman's sentiments on our absent colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan. We look forward to his return at the earliest opportunity.
This Estimate deals with what my colleague Deputy Sheehan, often refers to as a Cinderella industry. If the Minister can obtain the required funding at Cabinet this industry, if allowed to develop, can play pivotal role in job creation. The sea is one of our great natural resources but, unfortunately, it was not treated as such for many years. Jobs have been lost and job opportunities have disappeared.
However, the Minister is committed; his heart is in the right place and I hope he will be successful in implementing the policies which he has spoken of, especially those outlined in the National Development Plan. Will he advise how the reduction in funding may impact on his proposals?
Some months ago the Minister produced a detailed assessment of how he intended to spend the £270 million allocated to the marine sector. As this £270 million is obviously not available in full, will he indicate the nature of the cutbacks, or will it be a case of spending money in the same areas but at a slower rate?
The most welcome aspect of the Minister's activities over the past 12 months is his package to bring to a conclusion the difficult saga at Irish Shipping Limited. The legislation enacted by the Dáil was welcome and supported by all. It redressed a wrong, and not before time. We all wish to be associated with the remarks made on the Minister's performance on this legislation; once again, we thank him.
The fishing industry has had a traumatic and difficult 12 months because of the weather. Because it was impossible for boats to be put to sea, people were unable to earn an income.
I welcome the £5 million package to deal with the difficulties caused by the weather. From the information available to me and from direct contacts it appears that the package does not deal with all the problems. There appears to be an administrative difficulty as to who may apply. Many people, such as deck hands and skippers who are not boat owners, have difficulty obtaining appropriate compensation. It was stated on many occasions that £5 million would not be enough and that the minimum required would be £10 million, £11 million or £12 million. I cannot give an accurate assessment of the rights and wrongs of that argument. If the £5 million is not being made available to all affected by the weather, this plan needs to be reviewed. Many people, as well as from boat owners were affected by the weather.
We must ensure that the package will be available to as many people as possible involved in this industry. I realise it is not the function of the Department to administer this aid package but responsibility for distribution rests with the Minister. Will he examine this system, which is not meeting the needs of all? It appears that some people will be unable to get back into the industry because of the lack of financial compensation.
The Minister spoke about EU negotiations at which, despite his efforts, the Irish cause was heavily defeated. I accept that he fought the good fight but we suffered an unprecedented defeat and the future of the industry will be under threat as a result of the decisions taken at Luxembourg. I have no doubt the Minister will pursue a strong diplomatic initiative to regain some of the lost ground. We would have to go back to the year dot to find out when we first lost ground. I hope that as a result of the Minister's strong pleadings and his highlighting our dependence on the industry for job creation and the fact that many Irish coastal towns and villages cannot survive unless we are given more rather than fewer fishing rights from Brussels, our EU partners will realise our difficulty. The diplomatic initiative required to redress the difficulties caused by the Minister's defeat at Luxembourg needs to be similar to the initiative taken in the early 1980s by another Minister on milk quotas. Milk quotas are a key part of the rights, entitlements and incomes of farmers. The deal which was agreed on these quotas would not have been possible were it not for the direct intervention of the then Taoiseach in conjunction with his Minister for Agriculture. I am not running down the Minister's ability, which we all recognise, but the Taoiseach also has a role in restating and strengthening the Irish case on our fishing entitlements.
We are on the verge of the arrival of the new Spanish armada. Spanish and Portuguese boats, which have not been afraid to fish illegally, will do untold damage to our stocks and the future of our industry when they can fish legally. It is important that a diplomatic initiative at the highest level is undertaken by the Taoiseach and the Minister, to impress on our EU colleagues that, regardless of the decisions taken in 1972-73 and in more recent years, there is a new ball game and new entitlements for the Irish fishing industry must be considered.
Not only are we good at winning the Eurovision Song Contest but we would win any contest for obeying EU rules and regulations. People in the fishing industry can give evidence of EU fishing law being flouted almost daily by boats from other fleets. Our respect for EU rules and regulations enables us to go to Brussels with a strong case for extra quotas and exemptions. Unless the Minister is successful, the industry faces a bleak future. I am sure the Minister will fully commit himself to that cause. I hope the battle will not be left entirely in his hands and that the Taoiseach will intervene with the relevant Heads of State.
The industry also needs a great deal of financial assistance from Europe. The age profile of our fleet causes concern. The average age of boats is about 30 years. Many boats fishing under Irish flags fished for other countries many years ago. Our industry does not have the resources to re-equip by purchasing new boats. Funding will be needed from Brussels for this and I hope the Minister will take up this issue and see what progress can be made.
I welcome the Minister's concentration on research and development at the Marine Institute. Research and development has been neglected over the years and may be part of the reason the industry is so weak. We cannot expect miracles from the institute but we must put at the top of our agenda work on new methods to improve the industry and ensure extra stocks will be available.
During Question Time I raised with the Minister the opportunities successfully and legally taken in recent years by French fishermen, who regularly fish in our waters for non-quota species. There are reports that each trip was worth up to £70,000 to the French industry. It is a pity the same opportunity is not available to our fishermen because they do not have access to the technology which provides information to find and catch these species. The Marine Institute can play a big role here and I hope the Minister will encourage it to do so. Unless we find new openings in addition to obtaining new rights at European level, the industry will have a bleak future. The Minister spoke about tourism angling. Will he clarify the position on load line licences? I tabled some parliamentary questions on this matter some weeks ago and did not get very satisfactory replies. It has been brought to our attention that angling competitions have had to be cancelled as a result of some confusion. Perhaps the Minister has resolved that matter but up to a week or so ago people were not sure of the position.
I cannot address shipping policy in the minute I have left. We do not have a shipping policy and I would like to know that the Government is serious about putting one together. Our lack of policy and assistance to the industry compared with other European countries paints a very bleak picture. In many other European countries every aid, and grant is available to shipping industries. While we do not have the money to provide the same level of grant-aid, we will have to seek those moneys at European level if our shipping industry is not to simply survive but to expand. I look forward to further deliberations on that as we go through the Estimate.
On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I welcome and support this Estimate. This is a very challenging and critical time for the fishing industry and marine policy in general. In that respect, I compliment the Minister on the enhanced profile his Department has acquired since his appointment. That is as it ought to be. Since the opening of the Channel Tunnel Ireland is the only island nation in the EU and it is fundamental that our Department of the Marine be in a position to grow and meet the emerging challenges and potential in marine matters. I compliment the Minister and wish him well in his brief.
I also join with him in the good wishes he has sent to Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, my constitency colleague in Cork North Central. It is a matter of extreme satisfaction that Deputy O'Sullivan has made such progress in the past number of months and it is good to learn that he will be back at his desk in the Department in a matter of weeks. Without doubt for someone who was born and raised in a city estate and whose early marine experiences would have been formed by nothing bigger than a goldfish bowl, he has to date made a very significant contribution to marine matters.
It is a very interesting and critical time for the development of marine policy and the fishing industry. However, there are one or two specific matters on which I want to comment, matters which give me a great deal of satisfaction. I am glad that the long running sore in Irish Shipping has finally been brought to a successful conclusion. Since I was elected to this House, a little over seven years ago, there was constantly one protester at the gate to stir our consciences every morning as we entered Leinster House, making the case on his own behalf and that of his colleagues in Irish Shipping. That case was made over a sustained period and I am very pleased that the matter has been finally resolved. It was a matter on which we all had a bad conscience and it was difficult to explain to the people involved the amount of time it took to reach a resolution. I give my full approval and that of my party to this item in the Estimate.
I also welcome the £5 million special aid made available to fishermen due to their special needs as a result of the extraordinarily bad winter and fishing season. I am not aware of difficulties in administering the money and ensuring that it will be spent in the right way. However the matter has been raised by Deputy Bradford and I am sure the Minister will deal with it. It would be a strange irony, now that the money has been voted, if it was not to go to the people most in need and those who would most benefit from it. I exhort the Minister to take the matter in hand and to attend to any details without delay.
The sea around our coast is one of our greatest assets and, perhaps, the one which has been least explored. There is a rich harvest of good food, not alone for ourselves but also for the EU and other countries. Unfortunately, the sea can be cruel and in recent times balancing this rich harvest of good food there has also been a lethal harvest of drugs by drug traffickers and smugglers. This lethal harvest can kill as opposed to the rich harvest that can encourage and sustain life. I suggest increased surveillance along our coast.
We, in Cork, have perhaps suffered more than any other county or city as a result of the nature of our coastline. We have a longer strip of coastline than any other county with the largest number of bays and harbours. That has proved to be prime territory for people involved in drug smuggling. Many of the drugs which come illegally via our coastline have found their way onto the streets of Cork. Young, and not so young, people in the city have been the victims of that illegal practice. The Minister should make the control of that activity a key element in spending resources. It is crucially important that we not allow our young people to be the first victims of that lethal trade which is spreading through Ireland, the Continent and beyond.
The Progressive Democrats Party strongly advocate Ireland's participation in a new European maritime security agency with the same role as the United States coast guard. This agency could involve participation in a naval and air force whose functions would include fisheries protection, air sea rescue, interception of drugs, emigration controls and maritime environmental surveillance and control. The location of such facilities in Ireland with strong Irish participation could offer Ireland a key role in European security. Public representatives in Cork, including the Chairman, strongly urge the establishment of such a security agency to be located on the west coast, somewhere between Cork, Kerry and Clare. Its establishment would have enormous benefits not only in providing better protection for every aspect of maritime activity but also in providing a number of key jobs. It would establish us as a country taking a lead role in the provision of the type of marine surveillance which is essential in an era of open fishing. This is one of the main points being made by the Progressive Democrats.
On coast protection, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the RNLI and the voluntary bodies involved in life saving and the promotion of safety at sea for over a century. I salute the members of the RNLI and pay tribute to them for the extent of their activities and their fund raising which supplements the contribution the State makes to the promotion of safety in Irish waters. They deserve our highest praise.
I draw the Minister's attention to the most recent and horrible accident in Castletownbere where a family died tragically within yards of the quay wall. We can never be complacent about these matters. Will the Minister increase the resources available to ensure the enforcement of specific criteria on the sea worthiness of all sea-going vessels?
It is important that each vessel meet minium standards of safety before it leaves the harbour. There should be a policing mechanism to ensure compliance with these standards and that all vessels are insured properly. We rightly have strict regulations about road worthiness and the insurance of motor vehicles. We should apply the same criteria and standards to vessels that use our waters.
I see a great feature for the development of the fishing industry. I would like to see a greater emphasis on fish. There should be more education in marine technology, a developing area, in our third level colleges. The developments to date are to be welcomed but there is scope for more research into the further development of our fishing industry. Unless there is research in our third level colleges and we interest young people in fishing and marketing of fish products in a more scientific way, we will not achieve our development potential. Will the Minister seriously examine this issue?
When one travels abroad to places like Denmark and see how they market fish and the range they have on display, one has to concede that we are very far behind. While we have successfully marketed Irish oak smoked salmon, a range of other fish have not been marketed as well. The Danes have done very well in marketing the simple herring. They produce a variety of herring products, including jars of soused or pickled herring, which can be bought in any food shop in Copenhagen. There is great scope for a similar initiative here and we have not explored it to its full potential.
Will the Minister who has a flair for doing things of this nature, ensure the Irish fishing industry develops in that direction? We market eel and lobster very well, but to a tiny niche market which we could expand. Fishing could be developed along the same lines as crafts have developed. We successfully developed the native craft industry recently and the same could be done for fishing.
The critical issue for the fishing industry in the years ahead is the establishment of our rights vis-�-vis the encroachment of the Spaniards and other fishing countries in an increasingly open market. If we are to have Spaniards fishing up as far as the bridge in Athlone and invading Irish waters, the outlook is bleak. I urge the Minister to intensify his efforts to ensure that Irish fishermen get their fair share of fishing. Unless that is done the great potential for job creation and for boosting our economy through the Department of the Marine will not be realised.
We will now discuss the various subheads. The first group A.1. to A.7. is Administration. Deputy Broughan indicated that he wishes to raise some matters. It would be of assistance to the Minister, and his officials, if Deputies identified the subhead on which they are asking a question.
I congratulate the Department and the Minister on the administrative budget in the Estimates. We are effectively discussing this year's money some of which has been spent.
Deputy Quill's speech illustrates the extraordinary confusion in regard to fishing. On one hand she is calling for some type of super European maritime security agency and on the other she is asking us to obtain rights vis-�-vis Spanish fisherman.
I was talking about coastal protection. They are two separate activities.
The Deputy seemed to suggest that she was very happy with what had been done in relation to Spain. This Minister stood up for this country.
I did not say that either.
That is exactly where the Deputy's party stands. It is a European integrationist party. One of the effects of European integration is that our fishermen have been sold down the river again and again. At long last, a Minister of this Government stood up for us.
The Deputy is rattled.
No, I am not. The Deputy's party is one of the invidious forces in Irish society.
That does not come under this subhead.
Will the Deputy direct his comments through the Chair?
(Interruptions.)
In light of what the Minister said on his return from the famous meeting in April, does he accept, as many of our fishermen suggest, that we need to double the size of the Irish Navy and expand other areas including An Slua Muirí in order to create a serious Irish security force to police our fishing box?
The fishermen in my constituency tell me that the publicity given to Spanish boats will secret holds and so on is a joke. The Spaniards come in, flaunt our rules with impunity, rape our seas and take what they want. They have a total disregard for conservation, for the will of the Irish people and Government. Is it a fundamental ambition of the administration of the Department to finally come to grips with this difficult problem?
Are we are discussing subheads A.1. to A.7?
Yes.
I congratulate the Minister for his tenacity and courage in dealing with our fishery problems.
I appreciate those remarks. There appears to be an uninformed view which is the exact obverse of the Deputy's remarks. The Deputy speaks with the voice of experience and I appreciate his remarks all the more for that.
I join with other speakers in extending good wishes to the Minister of State, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan. I hope he will return shortly to take his place here. The Minister of State comes from well known west Cork stock and has good ideas about the fishing industry, although he was born in Cork city.
A fate worse than death.
The Minister gave me a commitment approximately 12 months ago that he would investigate the possibility of relocating departmental offices in west Cork and Bantry or Castletownbere were mentioned. Under the administration subhead, I am disappointed that there is no allocation for the transfer of a section of the Department to the well known fishing areas of Castletownbere or Bantry in southwest Cork. If we cannot take the mountain to Mohammed, we must bring Mohammed to the mountain.
There is dismay within the fishing organisations and among fishermen at the distance to be travelled to contact the Department of the Marine. The Department is 250 miles from Castletownbere, which is a rapidly improving fishing port. It needs on-the-spot service from the Department. I urge the Minister to investigate the possibility of immediately relocating a section of his valuable Department in the southwest of Ireland, particularly in the Castletownbere area.
The administration subhead is in line with the 1993 figure. It provides for the salaries of the 337 civil servants in the Department. The greater number of those civil servants are based in Dublin and are far removed from the rigours of the fishing industry——
We have a fishing industry too, Deputy.
——which is of such value to our economy. I urge the Minister to try to meet my demand. Regarding office premises expenses——
I would remind the Deputy that this is a question and answer session. I ask him not to make a Second Stage speech.
My point comes under the administration subhead.
The Deputies are making speeches.
The Chairman did not bring my colleague, Deputy Broughan, to order when he strayed quite far regarding policing the fishing box.
I did and the record will show it.
The administration estimate can meet the demands of the Department's wages and expenses bill. I congratulate the Minister for issuing a prudent administration estimate.
On Deputy Sheehan's point about the location of the Department, the Department of the Marine is one of the most decentralised Departments, with 34 per cent of staff decentralised. However, low numbers of staff leads to the overworking of its high class civil servants some of whom are in Castletownbere, which is a fishery harbour centre. If we were to decentralise any more of the staff from the Department's offices in Leeson Lane, we would have nobody there except the Minister and the Minister of State. How could people operate under those circumstances?
There is a token staff in Castletownbere. One could count the number on one's hand.
I would remind the Minister, and Deputy Sheehan, that other members are anxious to make contributions and I will have to afford them an opportunity.
The Minister gave a commitment that he would consider relocating part of the the Department in Castletownbere.
The Deputy will have to wait his turn. I am calling Deputy Haughey. I ask the Minister not to respond.
My difficulty is that I am not sure I will remember all the questions.
The Minister made the point I intended to make. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister, and to other Ministers, about the decentralisation of Government Departments. The response, as the Minister outlined, was that because of the nature of the work, the Department of the Marine was very decentralised and many officers are working for the Department throughout the country. Up to 3,000 jobs have been or are about to be decentralised from all Government Departments in the Dublin area.
I represent a Dublin constituency and I am concerned about that. Some decentralisation is necessary in the interest of social cohesion and bringing Civil Service job opportunities to other parts of the country. When the current round of the decentralisation programme is complete, any new review should seriously question the decentralisation of further jobs from the city as Dublin is an unemployment black spot. I do not intend to pursue this matter under the Department of the Marine Estimate. I concur with what the Minister said. County Cork is worthy of extra Civil Service jobs as is Castletownbere a port I know very well. However, the Department of the Marine has been decentralised and we should call a halt to more jobs leaving Dublin in any new review.
As Deputy Haughey said, I responded to a parliamentary question from him on 12 April last on this issue. However, we must put the Department of the Marine into perspective. We are talking about a miserly figure of £44 million for a Government Department. The Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry gets billions of pounds in its budget. As Deputies Bradford and Sheehan correctly implied, we are dealing with a Cinderella Department. The tragedy since the foundation of the State has been that proper recognition has not been given to the marine. As I said in a different context on another occasion, we have turned our backs on the sea rather than our faces to it. This it the reality and people who talk about the maritime tradition make me quite ill. We do not have a maritime tradition because we never bowed in that direction. We have yachtsmen and fishermen who, given the type of equipment they use are trying to eke out a decent living. However, I am not proud to stand over the Irish fishing fleet and I am concerned about some of the boats these fishermen have to operate from. They are men of great courage. I feel deeply about the lack of support for the marine and the fishing industry over the years from successive Governments. I have been a Member of the Dáil for 30 years and accept my part of the responsibility for the neglect. We are trying in the Department of the Marine to obtain recognition for the problem and to solve it.
On the question of decentralisation no offices under the control of the Department of the Marine have been decentralised since 1987 and I have no proposals in this regard. The Department is well decentralised with a range of locations and personnel around the coast. The locations include the fishery harbour centres at Killybegs, Rossaveal, Castletownbere, Dunmore East, Howth and, of course, Dingle which will be a fishery harbour centre when the harbour Bill is passed.
Personnel who were decentralised include engineers, marine surveyors and sea fishery inspectorate staff. The accounts branch of the Department is, moreover, located in Castlebar, County Mayo. This was done in advance of the by-election. One-third of the Department's staff have been dispersed. Of the remainder many fall into specialised technical and scientific categories. They are located throughout the length and breadth of our island. My problem is that I do not have more staff to decentralise because of the constraints on our budget of £44 million. If we are talking about the future of the industry we should take a look at that figure and at the same time look into our hearts concerning the future of the industry.
I am now moving to Marine and Shipping Services under subheads B.1. to B.7. and subhead C. Deputies should confine their remarks to the subheads we are discussing. There will be ample opportunity to raise every aspect of marine matters during this debate.
On subhead B.1. — coast life-saving services, equipment, stores and maintenance — this coast life-saving service has proved to be very valuable. It is operated voluntarily by highly trained technical people. They have assisted in many rescue operations along the south-west coast lately. Applications from those life-saving organisations seek departmental grant-aid towards the provision of rescue boats and other equipment. The Minister should consider such requests favourably as the voluntary organisations have proved to be of immense value in saving lives. Is it the Minister's intention to grant-aid those requests that come before him from those voluntary associations?
The marine emergency contingent, under subhead B.3., is a valuable service that needs to be developed. I urge the Minister to do everything possible in that regard. The money available for it has been increased from £70,000 to £200,000 which is a small increase for an essential emergency service dealing with cases of distress.
The grant under subhead B.4. to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is important as the lifeboats play an important role in coastal safety. A lifeboat should be provided, if possible, in Castletownbere where there have been quite a number of serious mishaps. As recently as yesterday five people would have lost their lives were it not for a trawler being in the vicinity when another trawler struck a rock in the Dursey Sound at 6.30 a.m. There is an urgent need for a lifeboat to be based in Castletownbere particularly with the transformation of Berehaven Sound into a processing area for eastern processing ships which often require assistance.
I urge the Minister, in conjunction with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, to provide a lifeboat to cater for the area which includes the Kenmare Bay estuary and Bantry Bay. At one time Bantry Bay held the entire British fleet. Thank God things have changed and the fleet has departed. We do not have a major fleet of our own but we have fish processing factory ships which necessitate the provision of a lifeboat.
On the grant to the Commissioners of Irish Lights under subhead B.5., I am a firm believer that automation should never have been introduced to the lighthouses around our coasts. It was a bad, nonsensical idea, something that will be regretted. In fact, it is regretted already because manned coastal stations were a deterrent to the importation of illegal drugs in yachts, etc. Lighthouse personnel were able to pass on information to the authorities about unidentified yachts or fishing vessels in the area so that they could be apprehended. All we have is an automatic lighthouse service. That is a catastrophe.
A former Taoiseach was lucky to escape when, cruising off the south coast in recent years, he ran into difficulties and hit the rock at the Mizen Head. He would have been in dire trouble were it not for the lighthouse on the Mizen Head being manned. I have no doubt that similar accidents will happen in future and I am highly critical of this era of automation which has been introduced into the lighthouses.
On subhead B.7.—wreck, salvage and relief of distressed seamen — I am sick and tired of asking the Government to remove the Bardini Reefer from the entrance to Castletownbere harbour. My appeals down through the years have fallen on deaf ears. I do not understand why the Department cannot remove that dangerous wreck lying in the middle of a shipping lane. Eventually a serious accident will occur there and somebody will be held responsible. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to remove this wreck immediately and provide clear passage to the waters of the harbour.
A number of questions will be asked on the same sub-heads by Deputies Haughey and Broughan. Deputy Haughey can thank Deputy Sheehan that he is not an orphan.
He can be grateful for the alertness of the lighthouse keeper on Mizen Head that night.
There is a strange sense of deja vu about this debate. Many of the issues raised today were discussed last year. The former Taoiseach was shipwrecked politically many times. However, I have no doubt that he is grateful to the lighthouse keeper on Mizen Head.
My query relates to subhead B.7. and the threat of pollution to our shores from cargo ships and oil tankers. Does the Minister agree that many ships which get into difficulty are skippered and crewed at low cost by certain nationalities? What concerns does that raise for this country? If the Minister agrees that certain nationalities are employed at low cost by owners of ships, should we not do something about that through the different institutions of which we are members, particularly the European Union? Will the Minister comment on the threat of pollution to our shores and natural wildlife and if sanctions or other measures are necessary to avoid the possibility of such pollution occurring as a result of shipwrecks and other tragedies.
I join the Minister in wishing the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, a speedy return to work. The Minister of State made a vigorous start in his Department when he enjoyed good health, and the Labour Party is anxious to see him back at work there.
I also have strong connections with Castletownbere and I was devastated by the horrendous tragedy that occurred there some months ago. I regularly made the trip to Bere Island on that ferry. Will the Minister ensure that under the forthcoming safety legislation nobody will be permitted to go to sea without a life-jacket, particularly in deep waters such as those in Bantry Bay?
On subhead B.6., the Committee of Public Accounts had a lengthy discussion recently about the SAR system. Allegations were made about the operation of the system although the Minister's report states that it is working effectively. Irish Helicopters provide the basic service. As the system accounts for a large element of the Department's expenditure under this heading, is the Minister happy with the way the system is operating? Does he believe the Department made the correct decision, taking the relevant facts into consideration, when the tender was offered a couple of years ago?
I undertook to examine the problem of the Bardini Reefer— of which Deputy Haughey has heard much before — when it was discussed previously. I flew over the Bardini Reeferand I agree with Deputy Sheehan that it is an eyesore and should be removed. However, my advice is that the vessel is not a serious danger to navigation. It is a well marked and well known obstruction. It has been marked with buoys and is featured in navigational charts.
There are a number of serious problems with the vessel. I examined the difficulties in the time since the Deputy last raised the matter. The insurers have repudiated liability and the owners are understood to have gone into liquidation in Panama. The cost of removal could be anywhere between £500,000 and £1.5 million. The Department has not got such funds, as Members of the committee will realise having heard my excited outburst at the start of the meeting regarding the amount of moneys available to the Department and the consequent commitment of public servants in the Department despite those constraints. The Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Wreck) Act, 1993 empowers the Department to pursue the owner. However, the owner in this case is well ahead of the posse. He is so far ahead that we do not know where he is. They are some of the problems involved in this matter.
Deputy Haughey properly raised the issue of the skippers and crews of ships. He has been interested in this matter for a considerable time. In my short time in the Department of the Marine I have discovered that many ships on the seas could be termed rust buckets and they have crews of which they should be ashamed. I do not say that in a racist fashion. People from any country are entitled to employment. However, they should be trained for the employment for which they are hired. Many ships are skippered by people who do not have fluency in languages. That is a problem because they must try to communicate by semaphore and that cannot be done. The other problem is that the crews have the most appalling working conditions, they are paid low wages and they are treated like galley slaves. That is a problem evolving a serious human factor.
Deputy Haughey mentioned accidents at sea. About 80 per cent of accidents at sea are caused by human factor. Flags of convenience and cheap crews from third world countries pose a danger. Port State control mechanisms assist us in exercising control on sub-standard ships. Flag states must also exercise control and impose standards. Ireland is actively involved with the EU initiative and with the International Mairitime Organisation to improve safety. When the Minister of State was in full health, he made an interesting intervention to the IMO and put a strong case for Ireland. One of the main thrusts of his argument was that ours is an exposed island off mainland Europe and the dangers here are too horrendous to contemplate.
The coast and cliff rescue service was raised by Deputy Sheehan. We subvent that service to some degree, although I would not proudly extol the money we give. It is a voluntary shore based rescue service founded in 1923 and is under the aegis of the Irish Marine Emergency Service. Given the de-manning of the lighthouses, the coast and cliff rescue service has become the eyes and ears of those lighthouses.
This organisation does an extremely good job. It has 50 stations around the coast. The cliff rescue service and boat crews exercise every two weeks and volunteers exercise every two months. All boat crews attend training courses run by the National Safety Council. Cliff rescue units are trained by the regional officer and are assessed by external examination every two years. It is a tightly controlled and well run organisation.
Area officers receive quarterly payment of £67.50, plus £9 for each call-out and a refund for telephone rental and official calls. Deputy area officers receive a quarterly payment of £29.50 plus £8 per call-out; volunteers receive £8 per call-out. I cannot proclaim a great sense of triumph about such payments.
Would the Minister describe such payments as peanuts?
No, I would call it an under-valuation of the serivces provided.
That is a posh way of putting it.
On the development of coastal radio stations, we have Malin Head, Valentia and Dublin, as well as 12 remote controlled VHF stations around the coast.
On the grant to the Royal National Lifeboats Institution, this is another exceptional organisation which has done untold good. The fleet of volunteer-manned lifeboats were launched on 430 occasions and saved 72 lives in 1993; the busiest boat was in Galway Bay. The RNLI is to open three new lifeboat stations on the west coast in 1994 — in Bundoran, Kilrush and Fenit. The lifeboat in Dún Laoghaire is to be replaced by a new Trent-class lifeboat costing over £1 million. In common with Members, I pay tribute to the RNLI.
An important feature of the RNLI is that it is an all-Ireland organisation, as is the Commissioners of Irish Lights mentioned by Deputy Sheehan. The headquarters of the equivalent body in the UK is in Trinity House, London and deals with England and Wales; the commissioners in Edinburgh took after the Scottish coast. The headquarters of the Commissioners of Irish Lights is in Dublin. This is an excellent organisation and I pay tribute to it on its work.
Given the constraints properly placed on us by the Chairman, if Deputies want a more detailed reply to the points raised or more general information, I will be glad to give whatever additional information I can.
A proposal for a Castletownbere lifeboat was mentioned. There are lifeboats in Valentia and Baltimore but I understand the RNLI has no proposals to station a boat at Castletownbere. Lifeboats are only one resource among the variety of declared emergency services and there is a new coast and cliff rescue station at Castletownbere.
I will not avoid any questions about the Castletownbere tragedy — I have an up to date summary of the position. Again I express our deep sorrow about what happened; it was a terrible accident in what appeared to be most unusual circumstances. Some days ago I spoke to the lady who lost her husband and daughter in this tragedy. I am trying to keep in direct contact with her to see she is taken care of.
The report into the ferry accident in Castletownbere in February is being completed in the normal way in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. The Department of the Marine produces a report and, before it is brought into the public domain, the legal contents must be assessed and vetted. It will be published as soon as possible.
In the meantime, an intensive campaign to promote saftey awareness and to ensure safety standards is continuing. Existing requirements for all small vessels are being reviewed to ensure clarity and standardisation where necessary. The broader policy issue of adequate transport and ferry needs of offshore communities is also being addressed, primarily through the forum of the islands committee which will report shortly. I assure the committee that the report on the Castletownbere tragedy will be in the hands of the families in advance of its publication. They are entitled to that.
Many questions were asked about the sea angling festivals, and I do not want to leave them unanswered. It was suggested that if those festivals had been abandoned, the country would have lost £10 million to £20 million income from tourists and our indigenous population. The Irish Federation of Sea Anglers announced this year's annual sea angling festivals are to go ahead, as a direct result of my requesting excellent departmental officials to contact the leaders of the federation. After considerable negotiation, a compromise was reached and a solution found.
In common with all fishing boats, sea angling boats require load line certificates under the Load Line Act, 1968. This relates to stability, structure and safety equipment standards and is a long standing legal requirement. Where exemptions are given the boats must comply with safety equipment requirements, covering life jackets, life rafts, etc.
When fishing in the sea, or in my case on lakes such as Lough Mask, Lough Corrib or Lough Ballynahowan one sees people without jackets or other buoyancy aids trying to get to shore or to one of the islands. We are trying to inculcate into people the knowledge that even if they do not want to save themselves, the State has a strong interest in ensuring that they are safe. That is the reason for this campaign of sea safety and water awareness.
The Minister stated that the removal of the Bardini Reefer would cost between £0.5 million and £1.5 million. If the Department advertised for tenders to remove the wreck I have it through the grapevine that it would not cost anything like as much as the Minister quoted. I urge him to advertise for tenders to remove this eyesore.
That is sensible.
I do not disagree. It is a blemish, but it would cost approximately £1.5 million to remove it. We do not have such money in the Department, but I will consider the Deputy's suggestion. Perhaps he would table a parliamentary question, which is another fail safe mechanism.
I know the Chairman will not allow me to answer all Deputy Quill's questions, but she made an interesting point which should be examined furhter when she mentioned a new European maritime protection agency. This is an interesting proposition which may have been raised at the European Parliament.
It was.
We should take the initiative on this proposition; the agency might be located in Castletownbere, for example.
We will take subheads D.1. to D.4., E and F.1. to F.3., which deals with harbour development, coast protection and marine research. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On the development of harbours and State harbours, the B & I workers recently made a number of points about commitments on staffing levels and the maintenance of shipping routes, at the time of the purchase of B & I by the Inter-Continental group; I acknowledge that does not come under this subhead or under the Minister' brief. However, they also mentioned the lack of a maritime policy and a State shipping policy — this does not come under this subhead either. I acknowledge that the Minister is taking action in this regard and has ordered a strategic review and commissioned an economic evaluation of the shipping industry.
One of the main points the B & I workers made was on the development of Dublin Port versus the development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour. They suggested that there was a duplication of facilities. I read the answers to the parliamentary questions and I know what investment has been made in Dublin Port over the last few years and what is proposed under the National Development Plan. I understand that £15 million is being invested in Dún Laoghaire Harbour for its development as a ferry port. Can the Minister assure me that investment in Dún Laoghaire Harbour will not duplicate the services provided in Dublin Port nor lead to the loss of jobs in Dublin Port?
On subhead D.3. — Secondary State Harbours — I agree with the Minister that there is inadequate funding for harbour development. Under the Cohesion Funds, the Minister has been successful in obtaining money for some of the major harbours, but not for the secondary harbours. The Department needs to re-evaluate its commitment to the upkeep of these harbours. Many harbours come within the remit of the local authorities who have similar problems in making funds available for harbour development. There is a need to re-evaluate the needs of the fishing industry under that subhead. The Estimate shows that the Minister has only £20,000 available to him under this heading. I could spend that in approximately five minutes. Next year more money must be made available under subhead D.3.
The Minister mentioned his application for EU funding for coast protection under the environmentally friendly coastal protection project. I look forward to receiving that money. There is almost blatant disregard for our coasts in many areas, especially among the farming community. Intensive farming is done on beaches and on land annexed to beaches. We must address the problem of intensive farming denuding marram grass areas because this erodes the coastline. For example, over the last number of years Donegal County Council had to invest a considerable amount of money to protect the land and the beach in a little village beside me, otherwise the village would now be an island. This is happening nationwide. Last year the Minister said he was aware of the need to protect our coastline. We must address this issue over the next number of years.
Astronomical sums of money are needed to protect our coastline and this can be seen in Rosslare. Local authorities, the Department of the Marine and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry must work together to protect our coasts. There is a big difference between the coastline as shown in the Ordnance Survey maps done in the early part of the century and the coastline now. A large investment must be made in this area and the Department must introduce a programme to address this problem.
I welcome the objectives of the European project, which will help the Department in relation to a code of practice and management methods. This area must be addressed in the same way as the harbours and the fishing industry. We are an island community, but if the coastline recedes to Athlone, there is not much hope for those people who now live on the coast. It is a big problem which the EU should favourably consider as we are the only real island in the European Union. We need to protect ourselves from the Atlantic Ocean due to changes in the weather; the Department must also address this issue. Unfortunately it will cost a lot of money, but I hope the Department will look at different ways to use the money effectively.
There is no need for exorbitantly priced projects if, for example, planting or gabions are needed. I know the Rosslare matter was of concern to the people of Wexford and that the work needed to be done. However, the amount spent there does not need to be spent all round the coastline. This matter should be adressed in various ways. I hope a management proposal will be made available, even if it takes ten or 20 years because people will wait if they know their area will be protected.
I notice the Minister intends to update, or maybe completely change, the 1946 Harbours Act. Under that Act, only 12 ports are entitled to State aid and grants, to which Deputy Coughlan alluded. We need new legislation which will allow a larger number of harbours to be grant-aided. If a significant amount of money was spent on the upkeep and enlargement of some harbours, they could be the source of a significant industry. To date, small harbours have not received State aid.
Harbours were built over a century ago by the British withhout modern technology or machinery and it is a disgrace that we are depending on them to service a fishing industry. Given that the British were able to build these harbours without modern technology and equipment it is a poor reflection on us that we cannot do something similar or, at least, as good today.
In better times when salmon fishing was lucrative, up to 40 people earned a living from a small open harbour in my constituency — one which was not all weather. If such a harbour was made all weather — by that I mean protected from gales — 100 or 200 people could be employed in the fishing industry. Dozens of similar sites round the coast could provide considerable employment, if money was spent on them. It is not good enough that money is spent only on the main harbours. Coastal communities deserve fair treatment, which they have not received. Those using 30 to 35 foot boats, mainly open boats or half-deckers, cannot get in or out of such harbours when the weather is bad. They need a facility where they can moor their boats in dangerous conditions.
Existing harbours, which do not come within the scope of the 1946 Act, do not get the benefits of upkeep and maintenance which the 12 main ports receive and are not dredged when they become silted. This is an inhibition as far as industry and the numbers employed are concerned. Even if such a harbour is all weather and tidal, it is not as useful as it might be and, threfore, may not be often used. There is a lot of scope for fishing in this country, which is not being utilised but I have no doubt it will be by the Spanish, Portuguese and French when they get close to shore.
Small harbour men may fish for species such as cod, codling, herrings and mackerel and may do a vast amount of gill netting even during the winter months. They may also fish for lobster, crayfish and crab during the summer, if they have mooring facilities in an all weather harbour. At present they do not have that facilty because too much emphasis is placed on the 12 harbours recognised in the 1946 Act. I have never seen so much money made available, most of it due to the availability of Strucural Funds. The Minister should broaden the ambit of aid to harbours in general and his Department should draw up a strategy to do that.
In response to Deputy Haugey's point about the development strategy for the central corridor, its elements should be set out in the first instance — the provision of facilities by the end of 1994 for at least three competing ro-ro freight ferries at Dublin Port as compared with one previously. This is a signal improvement for those who talk about competition on the central corridor.
As regards the investment programme, some £175 million will be spent in ports and on multi-purpose ferries, that is, car, passengers and freight. I will break down that figure. Some £65 million will be spent by Stena-Sealink on a new high speed service vessel, the HSS, and £45 millon by B & I on a supper ferry. About £40 million will be spent on Holyhead Port to cater for the HSS and the B & I super ferry, £16 million in Dún Laoghaire harbour to cater for the HSS and at least £5 million in Dublin Port to cater for the super ferry.
It is important to stress the need to encourage the entry of a third operator, especially in the small fast ferry sector and the provision of modern handling services for lo-lo traffic at three separate competing facilities at MTL, Coastal and B & I. This strategy, in so far as ro-ro freight and lo-lo services are concerned, will be largely concluded this year. The key remaining decisions relate to the investment required in the ports of Dún Laoghaire, Dublin and Holyhead to facilitate the operation of B & I super ferry and HSS vessel.
There has been friction between B & I and Stena-Sealink. B & I took the view that it was getting the wrong end of the stick in relation to Holyhead. However, in recent weeks Stena-Sealink and B & I have held discussions about the need to provide the type of facilities which would cater for the B & I super ferry in Holyhead. As we know Holyhead like a number of other harbours in the UK is owned by Stena-Sealink.
This now requires a decision by the Government in relation to the disposition of ferry services in Dublin bay and the financing of the Dún Laoghaire project. It also entails the pursuit of a balanced agreement between B & I and Stena-Sealink in relation to the financing of dedicated investment for B & I and Holyhead. There has been progress, not only in relation to talks between Stena-Sealink and B & I and the facilities required arising from conclusions sought, but also in regard to a mechanism for the financing of Dún Laoghaire, which has been put in place until a harbour Bill comes into being. This will be an interim Bill, which will pass through the Dáil before the recess. Although I represent it I see Dún Laoghaire in a national context as it has been operating since 1860 as the principal passenger port in Dublin Bay and in 1993 accounted for 66 per cent of passenger ferry traffic.
Another interesting point, which may put Deputy Haughey's concerns to rest to some degree, is the investment in Dublin Bay ports. The treatment of Dublin Port on one hand and Dún Laoghaire on the other is significantly different. In Dublin Port, the 1989-93 programme provided a £22 million investment, £10 million in EC aid, in facilities which covered the ro-ro/lo-lo freight, bulk modes and the acquisition of a tug. In Dún Laoghaire Port, the 1989-93 programme involved an £800,000 investment, £400,000 in EC aid, in facilities. The total investment programme for Dublin Bay ports in 1989-99 is £70 million, broken down into £54 million for Dublin Port and £16 million for Dún Laoghaire, although I hope that the £16 million will increase slightly. The investment of £54 million planned for Dublin Port is designed to provide an upgrading in the B & I passenger terminal, three separate and competing facilities for lo-lo freight and enhanced common user and speicalist bulk handling facilities. That is the up-to-date position on that point.
Deputy Coughlan made a valid point in relation to the amount of moneys available under the coastal erosion programme. In view of the harm done to our coasts, the moneys available do not appear to be adequate. The Estimate for 1993 was £200,000 and the outturn for 1993 was £208,000. The Estimate for 1994 is £500,000 which is an increase of £292,000 on the previous year. However, a percentage of nothing is still nothing. I know the Department is considering this very closely but this is not an adequate response to the very serious problems to which Deputy Coughlan referred.
Deputy Deasy, in a very able contribution, made the valid point that in updating the 1946 Harbour Act in the forthcoming new harbour Act, the total concentration on the 12 ports mentioned in the Act seems unfair. It must be pointed out that 85 per cent of the trade goes through these harbours. However, this does not diminish or lessen his philosophical and political point in relation to the contribution which small harbours can make to local communities. It is something which I am addressing in the Department at the moment.
There are also small harbours in the west, north west and south west where the expenditure of between £20,000 and £50,000 could make all the difference. For example, two or three weeks ago I was in Rosmuc, one would be ashamed of the road infrastructure around it and the harbour is abysmal. It is a tidal harbour providing for 10 to 12 half deckers. I understook to have a look at investing in it but the sort of money which I have available in the Department, as I stated before the Deputy arrived is simply not sufficient. To be able to cater for the harbours which Deputy Deasy so properly addressed would take large sums of money which are not available to me.
However, I am very conscious of the point which he made and I am very uneasy about going to places such as Rosmuc and trying to console the people there who have been disadvantaged for years. The only consolation I can give them is to provide a relatively basic standard where they can pull in their boats in comfort and safety. I accept what the Deputy said.
The amount of money allocated under this subhead is an insult to the fishing and marine industry. The Estimate for subhead D.3. — Secondary State Harbours — is £20,000 this year. Such a sum would not even put bollards on the pier in Rosmuc to which the Minister referred, let alone meet the required demands. I visited Darby's Point on Achill Island last weenkend and I was amazed by the lack of facilities. There are two old hulls of ships filled with concrete acting as a buffer for boats which come in at high tide. It is a disgraceful situation. How can the fishing industry prosper when we are not tackling the real problem?
In my constituency of West Cork numerous small piers need extension because the fishing boats cannot land their catches. They have to wait for up to six hours for the tide to land their catches. This is not a proper service for an industry which needs to be nurtured and built up. Two weeks ago a doctor was called to visit a seriously ill patient on Whiddy Island in Bantry Bay and he had to wait on the boat for an hour and a half before he could disembark on the island. He then had to wait again for the tide before he could get on the boat to go back to attend to his other duties on the mainland.
I am amazed that the Minister cannot get sufficient funding to alleviate such conditions. There are similar piers in Ahakista, Durrus and elsewhere in the same situation — even in the picturesque village of Crookhaven of which the Chairman has such fond memories. I have no doubt that a fishing boat or yacht cannot approach the little pier at Crookhaven because it is completely silted up and without landing facilities of any description.
I agree with Deputy Deasy that all those piers could be put on a relatively sound footing and in working order if the necessary finance was made available. I also agree that subhead D.2., which provides for the State harbours, accounts for almost 80 per cent of the Estimate in this category. The impact of that is quite substantial. It is estimated that the commerical operation of Dún Laoghaire will generate a substantial income to the Department in the region of £3.839 million. Almost all the money available in this section of the Vote should not be spent on Dún Laoghaire Harbour. The money generated by Dún Laoghaire Harbour is enough to make it self-sufficient.
That is what will happen. When the ferry is operating the money available will be far greater and it will be self-financing.
Will this enable the Minister to allocate more money to secondary State harbours built by the British Government before the foundation of the State? If we are to develop a lucrative fishing industry and create the jobs envisaged by the Department, the Minister will have to get funding to alleviate the serious problems at small piers and landing slips.
If the Minister and his Department turn a blind eye to those projects, we will be sacrificing a natural resource which could be of great benefit to this country. The development of this industry is hampered by a lack of finance. The £20,000 allocated to secondary State harbours is peanuts. It would not even put proper bollards on some of the piers mentioned.
The roads structure in the vicinity of piers where people are trying to develop fish prodution needs to be upgraded. The main road into Castletownbere is not geting £1 of EU funding because it is a not a national secondary route. Why is a road leading to the second largest fishery port in Ireland not being upgraded to national secondary or even national primary status?
It is most important in view of the roll-on/roll-off services operating between here and mainland Europe that we facilitate the traffic generated by the fishing industry in those areas. The only way that can be done is by allocating maximum funding to the area. I urge the Minister to give a better commitment to this area.
I know the Minister visited Rosmuc recently and sympathises with the point I have made about these piers. However, pious words will butter no bread and if we do not provide money for the people in Rosmuc and other areas to develop the necessary facilities, I cannot see much of a future for the fishing industry. I appreciate the Minister inherited this problem but I urge him to do everything possible to redress the serious anomaly in this section of his Department.
The £20,000 allocated for secondary State harbours is a joke. Where are the people who drew up our National Development Plan? How do they intend to spend the £7.2 billion due to us in the next five or six years? The Minister is doing his best, but the paltry sum available to him makes it seem like the story of the five loaves and the two fishes, if Members will pardon the pun. If the EU is serious about deleloping rural Ireland, both it and the Government must decide on a strategy for developing our fishing industry and secondary State harbours. The funding in this area is totally inadequate.
The Minister will recall that some time ago he met a delegation on the development of Arklow. Arklow depends on its fishing industry and harbour to generate the economy of the town. It is one of the unemployment black spots along the east coast and the harbour is probably the most important on the south-east coast. Has the Minister any good news on the development of Arklow port?
Is there any provision in this Estimate for beach development as opposed to coast and harbour development? I specifically refer to the development of a beach in Kenmare, County Kerry, the environs of which suffer severely due to the lack of a beach. It is the only deficiency in that area in terms of its appeal to tourists. A project has commenced to create a beach close to the town and a significant amount of money has already been raised locally. I think money was promised from European sources. Is the Minister aware of the project and has he taken the dimensions of the project on board? Does his Department intend to contribute to the development of this badly needed facility?
On the lack of funding for harbour development will the cutback in the National Development Plan and its effect on the Department have an impact on the harbour works proposed here? The money in some of the subheads is limited. How will the European cutbacks affect these programmes?
We have heard a little about the PESCA programme in the past few months but we do not have exact details, I understand the programme was designed to help develop and regenerate coastal towns and communities. The work outlined by a number of Deputies here would certainly be part of that regeneration. Could funding be obtained under PESCA to do some of the work mentioned?
I answered the Deputy's question on the National Development Plan while he was out of the room. There will have to be some adjustment to the marine allocation. This is the subject of ongoing discussion with the European Commission and the details are not yet finalised. However, I assure Deputies that the objectives of the national plan and its priority of job targets will be maintained. I am confident that the totality of the expenditure over the planned period will be close to if not on target.
Dún Laoghaire is generating a substantial surplus and is not displacing other expenditure. It is a very profitable harbour and we seek to make it more profitable by bringing more people into the country. Ultimately, when the new car ferry terminal for the high speed Stena is in place, we believe an additional 500,000 people will come. They will not remain in Dún Laoghaire, although we hope a large majority will stop there, but will travel throughout the country, spending money at hotels, bed and breakfasts and camping sites. This is the benefit of the Dún Laoghaire project and it will also have spin offs for the town.
Deputy Quill referred to the Kenmare beach development. I know Kenmare, having spent a large amount of time with my family in the Sneem area over the years, it is a beautiful town well worth visiting. Unfortunatley, there are no moneys available in the Department for beach development, that is a matter for the local authority in the first instance. To give the Deputy the bad news first, I can do nothing about it because it is not within my remit. Perhaps if the Deputy went to the local authority, it could do something. I am not certain what the Deputy has in mind in relation to Kenmare. Is it the building up of a beach or containment of an existing beach?
The creation of a new beach and a strip of coastline at a place called Cosc, which is about three miles along the Parknasilla road to Sneem. The project has already commenced.
I was not aware of that and it seems to be a good project. However, the cupboard is bare as far as beach development is concerned.
Deputy Bradford made a point about harbour development regarding the PESCA programme. I was there at the beginning and as the Deputy is aware, it is a new Community initiative in the fisheries sector. It was launched in February as part of the Community's response to the structural changes in the fishing industry, brought about as a consequence of a number of factors, including global fleet reduction, the ongoing instability on the markets and the possible enlargement of the Union. The aims of PESCA are to help the fishing industry to overcome these difficulties and contribute to the socio-economic survival of regions dependent on fisheries through the development of job creating measures.
While the specific elements of the programme have yet to be finalised, it is understood that aid will be available for inter alia diversification into other activities, such as tourism, and measures which would help to create or maintain employment in such regions. An overall allocation of 250 million ECUs has been made. The allocation to Ireland has yet to be decided, although Ireland should have a very good call on PESCA. Our drawdown could be significant in the context of what the Deputies have discussed.
The Commission is currently finalising the initiative in consultation with member states and expects that it will be published in the next month or two. To generate interest and encourage the submission of concrete and innovative projects for implementation at local level, the Commission will give widespread publicity to the initiative. In particular, it will organise a series of information presentation in coastal regions over the next number of months.
The Department of the Marine will have overall responsibility for the submission of an operational programme for PESCA, covering the period 1994-99, to the Commission by the end of the year. My notes include an outline of the types of measures which will be covered by the PESCA initiative. Perhaps I could give the Deputies a copy of that without going through it because it is rather tedious in its presentation in the sense that it is very small type, etc. It is a good and worthwhile initiative and we will make the best of it, as is our entitlement.
Is it more a programme of diversification rather than developmental?
It could be. It is a mix of both. It appears that there is greater emphasis on diversification but we will examine it closely.
Would it be possible for the Minister to circulate a copy of the information document to all Deputies? Many Deputies come from maritime constituencies and would be interested in it.
I will undertake to comply with those instructions. With respect to Deputy Sheehan, who has a fund of knowledge and wisdom when it comes to the fishing industry, he is wrong about the fishery harbours. Under subhead G1, the development of fishery harbours and fishery harbour centres, £3.4 million is available for undertaking capital work at fishery harbours, including the State owned fishery harbour centres, such as Dunmore East, Killybegs and Rossaveel. In relation to Castletownbere, £142,000 is provided for synchro lift renewal and provision of speed ramps. In relation to Howth, there is £25,000 regarding the release of contract retention moneys. There is a provision of £1,157,500 for fishery harbour centres. Other fishery harbours include Burtonport, Keelbeg and Portmagee and I was asked for the first time to do something about Darby's Point some months ago. Something is now being done about it.
I am delighted.
The development and pier extension, if my memory serves me correctly, will cost £250,000. That is not a bad effort.
There was nothing more despicable than to see two old, rotten ship hulks, filled with concrete, tied to the pier at Darby's Point. It was deplorable.
All these ugly objects are being remedied and that money will be expended at Darby's Point. We will spend £450,000 at Kilmore Quay. That is a total of £2,205,000, giving a grand total of £3,362,500.
Deputy Deasy's point is valid and bears repeating. Money was put into smaller harbours in Baltimore, Ballynahowan, Co. Galway, Ballycotton, Bantry, Bunagee, Bunowen, Bunbeg, Brandon, Burtonport, Carrigaholt, Castletownbere, Cladnageeragh——
Despite the Department, we got it fixed.
No, it was because of the Department. The Deputy made an unfortunate remark. I will return to it. The list of small harbours were money was spent also included Cleggan, Courtown, Cromane, Crosshaven, Crumpan, Darby's Point, Derryinver, Dingle, Doonbeg, Downings, Duncannon, Dunmore East, Glinsk, Greencastle, Howth, Inver and Keelbeg.
When I came into office, I instructed that a harbour be built at Keelbeg, Cork, at considerable expense but if money is spent there it is at the expense of some other project.
It was long overdue. The fishermen's co-operative there is excellent and has generated jobs never envisaged.
I ask the Minister to respond to the other Deputies.
The list of small harbours where money was spent continues: Kells, Kilmore Quay, Killary, Kilkee, Kilkiernan Bay, Killybegs, Killmackillogue, Kinsale, Knightstown, Liscannor, Lough Swilly, Port na Blagh, Portmagee, Portmore, Rathmullen, Renard, Rosroe, Rossaveel, Rossadilisk, Roundstone, Scraggane, Seafield, Ventry and Wexford.
Arklow must not be in the book.
Arklow is there. I recently had the pleasure of meeting a deputation from Arklow who put forward an excellent set of proposals. I cannot give the Deputy good news now and say that the moneys sought are available. However, the proposals are still being examined critically in the Department and we are aware of the problems there.
Given that the Minister is aware of the difficulties in Arklow, I am sure everyone in Arklow and in the constituency would be disappointed if Arklow did not qualifly for some of the £5 million. The point has been sufficiently made and the response from the Minister was encouraging.
Arklow port will become a commercial harbour under the new harbour Bill. As I indicated to the deputation, there was no provision for 1994 though we will look at it in future years. I am deeply conscious of the problems in Arklow but I do not want to give the Deputy hope where it may not exist.
I would impress upon this committee the seriousness of that port for the entire east coast as well as for the economy of the town of Arklow.
I know all about harbours and how important they are as the trading hearts of towns and villages. That is what we have been discussing today.
Will the Minister consider including Ardmore on that list? In his reply the Minister did not refer to upkeep and dredging. Dredging is a major problem in many small harbours. A harbour quite close to me, Helvick, a commercial fishing harbour, has immense problems due to lack of dredging. The major commercial harbour at Waterford has a serious dredging problem. In recent weeks silting has prevented two cruise liners from berthing at the new port of Bellvue causing a major loss to the economy of Waterford city. What is the Minister's view on the provision of moneys for dredging?
As the Deputy knows, Waterford has benefited hugely in the recent past from the Government's support for the Bellvue terminal and for Waterford harbour generally having regard to its location in what might be described as the southern corridor. As far as dredging is concerned, I would be very anxious to get all the details the Deputy may have. Perhaps these facts are available in the Department. I assume the information has been given to the Department.
Yes. It is a hot potato and has been for some time.
If it is a hot potato I will have no problem about dealing with it. I do not know what the end result of dealing with it will be but I will certainly look seriously at it. This Government recognises Waterford as a precious place in the context of development, and, presumably, future Governments will recognise that also. We have literally put our money where our mouths are in regard to Waterford, bar the dredging problem which the Deputy has raised. I will have a serious look at it.
We will move on to aquacultural development under subheads G.1 to I.3.
Under subhead I.3. on fish processing, we have been encouraged by the investment the Department is to make to help fish processors come up to European Union standards. Could the Minister advise me on the uptake of moneys made available? Several projects are with the Department and I would like to know if the Minister is happy that all the fish processors eligible to apply have applied. Is the Minister satisfied that the fish processing industry will be brought up to the proper standards expected by his Department?
It has been brought to my notice recently that a considerable amount of shellfish seed which has been imported from the Continent, in particular from France, is not disease free. As a result there has been quite a considerable outbreak of disease in mussel beds, oyster beds and shellfish beds in general in the south. The Minister's officials must be aware of this. It could lead to the virtual destruction of the shellfish industry as we know it on the south coast and, for that matter, throughout Ireland. I am not satisfied from what I have heard that the restrictions on the import of seed are sufficient. In fact, I am not sure if there are any restrictions. Action should have been taken long ago because I first heard of this problem a year ago. It has developed rapidly since then and has become rampant in recent months.
Under subhead G.1. I thank the Minister for his comments and generosity regarding Keelbeg, a beautiful project which I presume will be completed this year. We look forward to the Minister taking Baltimore's request into consideration.
I thought the Deputy was going to invite me down to open Keelbeg.
With pleasure. I would be only too pleased to have the Minister in our constituency. The Minister did not comment on the provision of a pier on Whiddy Island which is long overdue. A medical practitioner was unable to come to the aid of a stricken islander and had to wait until high tide for his boat to reach the small pier there. It would not cost a great sum to construct a new pier on Whiddy Island. In view of the safety regulations that the Minister is insisting upon for ferries and other vessels from the islands, will the Minister give priority to improving the jetty on Whiddy Island for the benefit of people there?
On the conservation and management of fisheries, I emphasise the necessity for a good fishery management policy. Coservation of our fish stocks is of primary importance, otherwise we will end up with nothing. I am amazed that we cannot influence our European counterparts to see eye to eye with us on the conservation of our fishing stocks in the Irish fishery box area. It is of vital importance to us as the only island nation left in the EU now that Britain has been joined to mainland Europe by he Channel Tunnel that we insist in Europe on a conservation area for our fishery stocks. There is no better area off our coastline for conservation purposes than the Irish fishery box.
I am dubious about flagship operations here, they should be abolished. They are of no benefit to our economy. They would not even buy provisions in the ports in which they are sited. They take their fish to Corunna in Spain and other French ports. We must insist that the business tycoons whe come here from the golden triangle of Europe are not allowed to prey on our fishery stocks which we should be nurturing for conservation and posterity.
With regard to the conservation of fisheries the Minister should insist at EU level that the square mesh fishing net is made compulsory in fishery nations of the EU. A fishing net was retrieved recently 12 miles off Mizen Head by an Irish trawler. It was miles in length and the mesh was so small that the new five-penny piece would not fall through it. That shows the severity of the problem. The net was being used by a Spanish fishing trawler operating in that area, it is evidence which the Minister's Department should examine. How can our fishery stocks be protected against such violation by Spanish and Portugese marauding trawlers?
There is also the problem of secret holds for small fish. There is a lucrative market in Spain and Europe for small fish and the Minister must insist as quickly as possible that the EU introduces stringent laws and regulations to ensure that fishing vessels use the square mesh net. That will ensure that undersized fish can swim away.
A number of questions were raised about the review of Iberian accession arrangements.
Special rules have been applied to Spanish and Portugese vessels fishing in Community waters since the accession of Spain and Portugal in 1986. These restrictions include in particular the prohibition of Spanish and Portugese vessels from fishing within the Irish box which, under the Treaty of Accession, expires at the end of 1995. These vessels will have access, like the vessels of all other member states, to the present Irish box from 1 January 1996. This matter was settled ten years ago and, as a Treaty provision, was not open for renegotiation. The aim in the review was to negotiate a new framework which would ensure that the activities of these fleets could be properly tracked and controlled.
The initial proposals would have involved giving free rein to the vessels of Spain and Portugal. The proposals were effectively withdrawn as a direct result of my intervention in November and December and strong opposition from a number of other states. Unfortunately, the other member states withdrew their opposition for various national reasons and Ireland was left on its own. However, that is water under the bridge.
At the December 1993 Council Ireland also succeeded in blocking the proposals because they did not fully meet Irish concerns. The review was again discussed at the 12 April 1994 meeting of the Fisheries Council and a new framework regulation was adopted which provides a framework under which detailed measures will be implemented to follow those currently applicable under the Iberian Act of Accession. It does not give free rein to the Spanish fleet and there is no question that the final package, to be adopted later this year, will do so either. Our Spanish predator friends will not have what they were seeking under the Common Fisheries Policy as originally negotiated and under the Iberian accession as originally negotiated. I agree with the Deputy's views. The Spanish fishermen, as distinct from the Spanish people — we have a very big market in Spain for our fish and we must be very careful — are not to be trusted.
The adoption of the framework regulation does not prejudice the content of the measures to be applied later this year. On the contrary, the regulation contains a range of criteria which will be to Ireland's benefit in the ongoing negotiations: recognition that the Irish box is a highly sensitive zone which will require special measures and close monitoring of fishing effort and resources to preserve balance; recognition that account must be taken on a case by case basis of the individual requirements of regions where socio-economic development of the local populations is particularly dependent upon fishing and related industries; there must be compliance with the principle that there can be no increase in the levels of fishing effort set down in the Ibernian Act of Accession; the bringing of the Spanish fleet within the framework of the reductions which apply to member states' fleets — the reduction could be up to 20 per cent; recognition of the need to establish sensitive zones or boxes where restrictions will apply. I would like to see substitute boxes in place of the Irish box in sensitive zones. However, that is for negotiation and I will not give hostages to fortune by saying what may happen.
The negotiation of these principles and provisions represents a considerable achievement and advance of what was on offer last December. If we had not fought as hard as we did in November and December the Spanish and Portugese would have had free access. Nevertheless, the Irish voted against the framework regulation for three important reasons: first, to preserve the possibility of mounting a legal challenge against the regulation; secondly, because the council did not agree strong advance guarantees on the specific controls which would apply and thirdly, to signal the importance Ireland attaches to this issue in the interest of the Irish fishing industry. We received ill-informed comment on this strategy from people who do not know and have not studied the fishing industry. However, we received the unanimous backing of the fishing industry. Those who made sneering references to the 11 to one vote should go to the trouble of finding out why we did it. That would help to achieve a proper analysis of the situation.
Ireland also made a unilateral declaration on control. The framework regulation provides that the Commission will submit proposals for measures by 1 June 1994. The Council will decide on these measures by 1 January 1995. In relation to their 11 to one vote, this was not the first time it occurred. Germany voted against its 11 colleagues on one occasion recently at a Council of Health Ministers when it believed its national interest was being put in second place to the overall benefit and advantage of the European Union. There is no question of our vote being an unprecedented defeat. Countries vote against proposals and are outvoted on an ongoing basis. My French colleague was voted down on the tuna issue at the April Council and the Germans were voted down on the BSE issue. We mounted a major campaign at diplomatic level on this matter and it was difficult for other countries to give up what they have. The fight must and will go on and I am grateful for the support of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
In answer to Deputy Deasy, the shellfish inputs are from France. The opening up of trade is a result of the internal market. Some growers were importing oysters from France but that happened only last year. Under the new EU regime Ireland cannot unilaterally stop such trade unless fish health risks are demonstrated through health inspections.
Arising from the Deputy's intervention I will take the matter seriously. We exercise every level of control available under EU law. We have stringent regulations and close scientific analyses are made of these imports. We do our best and the relevant directives were strengthened by the Commission last year at our request.
The onus is on the shellfish industry to act responsibly and we believe it is doing so. There is no compulsion to import oyster seed from dubious sources. It makes commercial sense in the long term for the industry to be responsible. The problem may be exaggerated, however. There has not been a high level of input and no major disease has been found in any consignments. We are monitoring the position at all times. A sense of proportion should be kept but there have been bad experiences.
My information is that the contaminated consignments of seed have resulted in the disease spreading and it continues to spread. I would like to be reassured on that point.
The Minister mentioned French and Spanish fishermen catching undersized fish. What are the penalties for having nets to catch such fish? Does the Minister believe the penalties are sufficient to deter the fishermen, particularly the Spaniards? If necessary, will he increase the penalties so that it will not be viable to use undersize meshes, ensuring that the punishment will fit the crime? For instance, boats which use such nets could be confiscated.
As the Deputy is aware, the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill is passing through the Houses of the Oireachtas and much of what he seeks to achieve is in that legislation. The Deputy highlighted the problem; we have been trying to deal with the problems of secret holds, undersized meshes and undersized fish. When speaking at the November council meeting I shocked my colleagues with a detailed analysis of what the Spaniards were doing. I thought that might lead to assistance on the vote but unfortunately it did not.
The penalties are contained in this legislation. It provides for confiscation, increased fines, prison sentences, etc. I hope these do not arise but, despite our best efforts, our experience with the Spaniards has not improved.
I will examine Deputy Sheehan's request about Whiddy Island. If people are being disadvantaged I will try to provide money but we do not have a large fund.
We now move on. Are there any questions on subheads J.1 and J.2, dealing with inland fisheries? No questions. We then move to subheads K to N, dealing with other services. Are there any questions on these?
There are two ex-gratiapayments to pensioners and former employees of Irish Shipping, in subheads L.2. and L.3. Deputy Bradford called for the scheme to be implemented quickly. As I said in my opening remarks the payments will begin in June and I want to see this episode brought to an end. The Department is doing this in the interests of justice and equity to a group of people who have been sorely tried and who gave great service to this country.
Any other questions on subheads K to N? No questions. Any questions on subhead O? No questions.
Vote 30 — Marine (Supplementary Estimate).
A new subhead, subhead H.4, is on the agenda. The Dáil gave leave today to move this Supplementary Estimate which was not in the original Estimate.
Minister for the Marine (Mr. Andrews): This provides for a sum of £5 million to be made available as special aid to the fishing industry.
When will this money become available to those who are sorely in need of it? Fishermen have great difficulty repaying loans on their vessels and some of them have not made any money since last November.
The poor winter led to the demand from fishermen for compensation for loss of income as a result of being unable to fish. The Minister for Finance and I agreed to make £5 million available for the alleviation of hardship and stress. The scheme was formally announced on April 18 and will be administered by BIM. Application forms have been distributed and the applications already received are being analysed.
The scheme will cater for the needs of skippers and crewmen. I raised the possibility of compensation with EU Commissioner Paleokrassas and he agreed to consider giving money as part of a weather package. I have agreed to give a formal written submission to the Commission without delay, I am not certain when that will be but there will be no lack of urgency.
I will allow Deputy Sheehan a supplementary question later but other Deputies have indicated. I call Deputy Coughlan.
I am happy with the Minister's statement and I compliment him on his initiative. This is the first move to address weather problems, specifically the terrible hardships fishermen endured this year. I am glad he will expedite the programme.
How will the funding apply to crewmen?
I imagine a large number of crewmen suffered hardship because of the weather. Each one can write on the application form a detailed account of the circumstances under which he is applying and the reasons for the application. On that basis his case will be examined.
The closing date for applications is 31 May 1994 As in the case of Irish Shipping, I am anxious — this is a matter of equity and justice — that this scheme be quickly administered from the £5 million available. On the demands by another organisation for approximately £10 million to £13 million, that money is not available. That would not be a recognition, as Deputy Coughlan says, of a scheme introduced for the first time with the support of the Government and the Minister for Finance, in particular, who readily agreed to my request for funding.
I welcome the scheme because it gives some reassurance. Perhaps the Minister could ask his Cabinet colleagues to introduce a permanent scheme of compensation, although we hope it may not be used in 1995 or 1996? The scheme gives some reassurance to the people concerned, but perhaps some type of permanent structure could be put in place to cater for future needs.
We will be flexible about the applications and will assist the fishermen who have been hit by the weather. We are all affected by the weather, but I accept the Deputy's point. We can only pray that the weather will be better next winter and that it will not be necessary to establish such a scheme. However, it will be addressed if it is necessary. As to whether my colleague, the Minister for Finance, will be in as good a mood as he was on this occasion, sin ceist eile.
Is the application of the scheme strictly confined to skippers and seamen?
Yes.
A small category of people who operate from the harbours are affected by this and also by the inclement weather. I know some of them in Balbriggan and Skerries.
I appreciate the Deputy's point, but a line must be drawn.
With regard to people who are involved in the selling of fish——
Ancillary services.
——is there any possibility of considering them.
I do not want to mislead the Deputy, but one must have a limit on a scheme. Such an addition would not be appropriate to this scheme, therefore I will not look at this point.
It only affects one or two individuals in each harbour.
I appreciate that, but a line must be drawn and these individuals fall outside it. I do not want to offend the Deputy and I would like to be able to help, as I try to help all Deputies, regardless of political allegiance. However, I do not want to mislead the Deputy on this issue.
This concludes our consideration of the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for the Department of the Marine. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister, his officials and our staff. I extend our best wishes to our colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Mr. Gerry O'Sullivan. I thank the Members who have contributed, particularly the Opposition Members. This committee is adjourned until Wednesday, 1 June at 11 a.m. when we will consider the Estimates for Tourism and Trade. I hope the Bardini Reefer will not be on the agenda then.
The Select Committee adjourned at 2.05 p.m.