I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore.
Estimates 1996.
Vote 30 — Marine (Supplementary).
Deputies will have a copy of the Supplementary Estimate and will have received a briefing note from the Department of the Marine on what is proposed. The Supplementary Estimate, which is for the token amount of £1,000, proposes increases in spending by the Salmon Research Agency together with the provision of a training subsidy for Irish merchant seafarers and a payment to the Arklow Harbour Commissioners. This Supplementary Estimate encapsulates important objectives in the areas of maintaining the quality and excellence of our marine research, of ensuring that Ireland continues to produce high quality seafarers and of promoting and maintaining efficient and effective port facilities.
Subhead D3 covers payment to Arklow Harbour Commissioners. The port of Arklow, though small in national terms, is of considerable local importance. Unfortunately, since 1993 its financial position has deteriorated giving rise to a likely deficit of £69,000 by the end of this year.
I am seriously concerned that the financial situation at Arklow Harbour this year should require intervention by the Exchequer. I would not ordinarily countenance any situation in which harbour authorities, set up to meet local requirements on a commercial basis, should receive a State subsidy for day-to-day activities.
I have reviewed the financial situation of the port and its future prospects. I feel that the circumstances of the Arklow case, where exceptional temporary difficulties have arisen, are unique. I am prepared, therefore, as a once-off measure to make a repayable grant of up to £60,000 available subject to detailed conditions aimed at allowing me and the port some breathing space to develop a long term sustainable solution. These conditions include that it is a repayable grant; the Department of the Marine may exercise the right to attend all board meetings until such time as the grant is repaid; the Arklow Harbour Commissioners must return monthly cashflow statements to the Department of the Marine; in the event of non-compliance with the conditions outlined or changes in the performance of the port the amounts may be adjusted or the facility withdrawn entirely and strenuous efforts are to be made by harbour management to reduce operating expenditure during 1996 and beyond.
I have already installed a management adviser to examine and report on the existing management procedures and ongoing difficulties. The adviser will identify deficiencies that may exist, develop a restructuring plan and a course of action to restore the future financial viability of the port and suggest the time frame for the recommended approach. The commissioners will guarantee their own and the port management's full co-operation in this regard. The cost of this consultancy will be met by the commissioners.
Subhead F2 covers the Salmon Research Agency, which is a national agency under the aegis of the Department of the Marine engaged in research on salmon and sea trout. Over the years the agency has made valuable contributions to salmon and sea trout research. It has played an important, and too often an unappreciated, role in carrying out field research for the Department of the Marine.
The wild salmon is an invaluable resource to this country. A healthy population reflects both a high level of water quality and prudent management and conservation of stocks. These in turn are influential factors in portraying Ireland as a natural and unpolluted environment. By European standards this is very true, but we need to guard these priceless assets, and this means supporting the work of bodies like the Salmon Research Agency.
The agency is currently experiencing financial difficulties. Until recent years, it had been in a position to effectively finance its research activities from its own resources. Its financial difficulties are due to a decline in income from its own resources in the main to a collapse in the market price for salmon smolts for the aquaculture industry in 1991. In 1992, a disease outbreak in the agency's commercial smolt stock necessitated the slaughter of commercial stock. The losses incurred as a result of these financial setbacks severely depleted the agency's reserves.
While the original brief of the agency was to undertake research on salmonoid breeding, rearing techniques and census work on wild populations, its workload has increased significantly in recent years. The SRA has been caught between increasing research demands and a collapse of its income from ‘own resources'. It has been forced to use its reserves to maintain the level of operations which it deems necessary to carry out its commitments in national and EU research. In the course of a year, the agency inevitably faces additional demands. This has meant it has to carry out work on a budget designed for a smaller volume of work.
To enable the agency to meet its obligations in 1996 it is proposed to allocate additional funding of £140,000. An amount of £100,000 is proposed towards building up depleted reserves while some £40,000 is proposed towards meeting a shortfall in the funding of the agency's staff pension scheme.
This increased subvention does not, however, provide a satisfactory long-term solution to the funding requirements of the agency. Neither does it overcome the structural weaknesses in existing arrangements whereby salmon research is conducted by a number of State bodies, namely, the SRA, the Central and Regional Fisheries Board and the Marine Institute. The purpose of setting up the Marine Institute was to integrate marine research carried out by such State bodies under one roof. I have therefore decided in the light of the continuing financial difficulties of the SRA, the long-term interests of its employees and the overriding need to bring about an integrated coherent approach to salmon research generally, that the SRA should as soon as practicable become part of the Marine Institute.
I should in this context pay tribute to the chairpersons, board members and staff of the SRA for their sterling work. In particular, I must single out Dr. T.K. Whitaker, who served as chairman of the board for many years and who, as he has done in all his public service roles, made an outstanding contribution to the success of the SRA.
Since assuming my present responsibilities as Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, I have become increasingly conscious of the importance of a competitive shipping sector to an island nation dependent on maritime transport for the functioning of its economy. One of the areas I felt to be of prime importance is the training of seafarers. High quality training is necessary not only to ensure that vessels operate on an efficient and safe basis, but also to ensure continued employment of Irish seafarers in the Irish, EU and global markets.
Considerable progress has been made in achieving a number of important objectives in areas that have been highlighted in the course of intensive dialogue between my Department and the various interests in the sector. I introduced with Government approval in April last, the shipboard training grant scheme in respect of students at Ireland's sole mercantile marine training facility at Cork regional technical college. Those involved in the sector appreciate the importance of shipboard experience. Placements for Irish students were becoming increasingly difficult as a result of recent UK schemes under which shipowners receive a shipboard training grant confined to UK nationals.
The present scheme should overcome the difficulty being experienced by students of Cork regional technical college and allow them to continue to qualify with distinction as marine engineers, deck officers, etc. It is my intention to assess urgently how throughput can be expanded, given that employment is virtually guaranteed. It is also my firm intention to see how training of ratings might be expanded. Holding the Presidency of the Maritime Transport Council, we are devoting particular attention to making seafaring as a profession in the EU more attractive and to enhancing skills through good, solid training programmes. The more seafarers we have, and the better trained they are, the more employment we will have and the safer our vessels will be.
As part of this effort, we are hosting in Dublin this month a major conference on the training and employment of seafarers in EU member states under the auspices of the EU Commission and organised on my behalf by the Marine Institute. It has often been alleged that aspects of the marine sector remain underdeveloped. The challenge for the Government is to realise the potential of the sector and to facilitate and support the necessary investment which will allow the sector to support wealth and job creation particularly around the coast. Our awareness of the importance of the sea has grown in recent years. Research bodies like the Salmon Research Agency have been playing a key role in building awareness about aspects of the marine resource. Effective fisheries research is essential for the conservation and management of the resource.
I am keenly aware of the importance of high standard training programmes. The measure proposed today for training of seafarers will, in the long term, provide a valuable contribution towards ensuring the highest possible safety standards for passengers and crews. The measure proposed for Arklow is a once-off measure designed to guarantee exports and support employment. Our ports are currently undergoing radical transformation. They are being developed into modern service industries, with facilities and management structures in line with the commercial realities of the 1990's.
These are the measures proposed and I hope the committee considers them worthwhile. The offsetting provisions have been outlined to the committee in the briefing note supplied. I look forward to our discussions.
Mr. Smith
I welcome this supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Marine. We have made it clear on this side of the House on a number of occasions that marine resources are underdeveloped. While we are talking about token sums in terms of these total resources in this Estimate, nonetheless we welcome the moneys which have been provided by the Minister.
Two issues dealt with in this supplementary Estimate were raised during the year following a visit I made to Mayo. I have been concerned for a number of years, particularly since I served as Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology, about the lack of respect for research and the lack of awareness of the potential that basic research has to enable us to further develop our natural resources. I was concerned about what was heard at that time. The Minister will recall that he indicated to me the amounts of money which had been provided and how they had been increased, as well as the percentage of funding provided by the State and from private sources for that resource. It is clear the Government is responding to that need.
I support substantially increased funding for marine research. We will not be able to manage our coastal and inland fishery resources unless we know more about them. We know less about the sea than we should for a maritime nation and remedying this will take political commitment on all sides. The Department of the Marine is a small but growing Department. It has had its difficulties. Estimates are sometimes decided on the basis of what was received the previous year. Increases at the rate of inflation are not sufficient if we are to tackle this resource in the future in the correct way.
While I do not have the details of subhead D3, Arklow, it is a pity we have to deal with a circumstance like this following the introduction of legislation this year on the commercial harbours which, I take it, is almost ready now for full implementation. We had a very thorough debate on this legislation and the Minister was concerned to make sure that payments would be an absolute last resort. It may send out a wrong message and I hope the circumstances in which it is being done and the allied condition that is applied in terms of having an official on the board are broadly understood outside of Arklow. The Minister will come under increasing pressure from other places where there are difficulties by virtue of this precedent and I hope for all our sakes that it stands up.
I welcome the increase for the Salmon Research Agency which does exceptionally good work and I wish to be associated with the comments the Minister made about the staff. I hope the staffing problems there in relation to pensions etc. are being dealt with. I also wish to be associated with the Minister's comments in relation to T.K. Whitaker.
On a visit to Cork regional technical college early last spring I became aware of the difficulties that had arisen there because of a competing grant consideration available in the UK. I welcome the changes being made because it would be impossible for the colleges to compete against those kind of considerations. We all have to come back to training in the fisheries sector, not just in terms of what is happening in the regional technical college, but also in terms of overall safety and future policies in that area.
The Minister said it has often been alleged that aspects of the marine sector remain underdeveloped. He could leave out the word "alleged". While we are dealing with a small supplementary Estimate today, perhaps our minds are elsewhere. Major discussions are taking place at EU level in terms of what will happen to the broader fisheries sector in the next year or so.
We wish the Minister well in his compromise proposals, which are necessary in the context of what the EU Commission is doing. We would like to know these proposals because we have a fair idea of what the Commission is seeking. If the Commission gets its way fisheries will be in the hands of a few large boat owners and the owner skipper, with which we are familiar, will be a thing of the past. Ownership would fall into too few hands with disastrous social and economic consequences.
We have a small, ageing fishing fleet, an underdeveloped resource, lack of training and safety equipment and other problems. However, faced with the way the Commission appears to be going, it is very important that the Minister and his colleagues fight to secure the best possible deal for Ireland in these circumstances. I wish him well and hope a conclusion will be reached.
Regarding the reduction of fleet capacity, I read recently the Dutch are approximately above 60 per cent of their fleet capacity based on the third programme for fleet capacity reduction. There is no sign of them acceding to the Commission in terms of reducing it. They are taking over the Presidency for the next six months. It is crucial, therefore, that decisions be obtained before this happens.
I do not underestimate these difficulties. I am aware of the pitfalls and difficulties from my experience as a former Minister working in the EU Presidency and with the Commission. A sliding rule system is developing where those countries with a bigger fishing capacity and who do not reduce it to meet the EU requirements normally accept the same kinds of penalties as those countries that have not caused the over fishing, the fishing of immature fish and the other problems we face. Conservation is crucial, but surely the countries that have caused the problem must be seen to carry a bigger share of the blame than small countries, such as ours, which have such a much higher dependence than others who want to ride roughshod over EU policy.
I welcome the increases included in this Supplementary Estimate. I am extremely happy that two areas which I sought to be included are now provided for. Will the Minister assure me on the Arklow circumstance because of the necessity to ensure we do not take the slippery slope of picking up the tab for inefficiency or other problems, given the precedent this would create for other harbours with acute difficulties? They may see this as an opportunity for the taxpayer to help them every time there is a problem.
What are the full circumstances with regard to bailing out the Arklow Harbour Commissioners? The Minister of State suggested this was a repayable grant.
Loan.
The word used was "grant". What is a repayable grant? Is it a loan? Why is this terminology used? Does the Minister of State foresee a prospect where this money may not be repaid, despite the fact that he has an official sitting on any board meeting which he deems necessary in the interest of his Department?
I am a member and former chairman of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners. We have fared reasonably well and I am pleased we have succeeded in getting grant aid for a development at New Ross. However, it is hard graft and it requires us to watch our pennies. It is a question of developing our trade. Our profits have increased in recent years through increased efficiently. Where did the Arklow Harbour Commissioners go so wrong that the Government now finds it necessary to give them a grant of £60,000? Will the other harbour commissioners apply for similar grants, given that it is easy to make a case for any harbour being in trouble?
I agree with Deputy Michael Smith on the importance of marine research and would underline the commitment made over the past two years to enhancing our marine research effort. This includes the decision to proceed with the purchase of the new research vessel, the strengthening of the Marine Institute, which has now proceeded to establish the most modern marine data centre in the world and which has drawn favourable international comment, and the efforts to begin the mapping of our share of the continental shelf.
In this context it is interesting to look at what the Marine Institute calls the real map of Ireland. It shows that 90 per cent of it is under water and largely undiscovered and under developed. There is significant potential for this territory, not just in terms of fishing but for sea bed resources, etc. In the years ahead we will look increasingly to the resources of the sea as a source of economic activity. The marine research being undertaken now is very important in that context.
I also agree with the favourable remarks made by Deputy Michael Smith on the salmon research agency. I am sure he will agree with me that in developing our marine research effort, it is important that we take the most focused, co-ordinated and best value for money approach. This is one of the reasons I intend to proceed with
bringing the salmon research agency under the overall marine institute roof. Last year we brought the fisheries research centre of the Department under the marine institute. The intention is to bring all of our marine research effort under the Marine Institute.
With regard to the fisheries sector and the discussions taking place at EU Council of Ministers level, this is primarily a matter for my colleague, the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett. The key elements in the proposal include: fixing effort reduction rates, defined in relation to identified critical stocks and areas; special treatment of small-scale coastal fishing vessels; a weighted approach to establishing fishing effort reduction; the achievement of efforts reduction targets through effort management or capacity, or a combination of both; the fixing of objectives for MAGP IV on the basis of the objectives of the preceding one; a three year programme with a six year horizon via a mid-term review and a fully transparent and verifiable basis for the segmentation of member states' fleets.
Are these the Minister of State's proposals?
Yes. The rationale for this approach is in line with the comments made by Deputy Smith. The proposal from the Commission for a 40 per reduction in the fleet was not acceptable and we made that clear from the outset. At the same time, however, it must be recognised that there is a necessity, on a global level, to conserve fish stocks. Such stocks are in decline, while the capacity and demand for fishing them is increasing. There has been an imbalance within the European Union in the way the fishing industries of respective member states have developed. For a variety of historical reasons, Ireland was a late starter. While part of our fishing industry, has progressed rapidly in respect of fishing mackerel, etc., particularly the pelagic fleet which is mainly based in County Donegal, the white fish fleet has not developed to the same extent.
Two routes have been proposed. The first is the "big is beautiful" approach which concentrates on large vessels, processing and onshore activity. The difficulty in this regard is that it ignores the requirements of coastal communities where the dependence on fishing occurs on a smaller scale. Clearly, because of the numbers of fishermen involved in the white fish area and the condition of the vessels on which they work, we must place a heavy focus on that.
Bearing in mind the deplorable state of the white fish fleet, has consideration been given to the provision of grant aid?
Grant aid is already available and the condition of the white fish fleet was considered in the context of the fishing vessel safety review. The recommendations of the review are being progressed.
Are they nearly ready for implementation?
Yes, progress is being made. With regard to the question of Arklow Harbour Commissioners, the problem with Arklow harbour dates back to 1993. The immediate problems arise from the purchase and operation of a dredger in Arklow. As Deputy Byrne is aware, Arklow is an estuarial harbour and there are major problems with siltation. The harbour commissioners purchased a dredger in 1993 and have experienced difficulties with its operation. Combined with the fixed nature of their commercial activity, which is mainly dependent on a small base, this has meant they have suffered losses.
The Arklow Harbour Commissioners approached the Department and set out the difficulties they were experiencing with regard to their financial position during the current year. It was apparent that some assistance would be required and we agreed to provide it. Taking on board the points made by Deputy Byrne, I do not believe a precedent has been set in this situation. Fortunately, Arklow is the exception to the rule in respect of all harbours designated for establishment under the Harbours Act. The other harbours are doing quite well but Arklow has particular difficulties. The short-term difficulty is of a financial nature but it would not be acceptable to allow Arklow to continue to require assistance from the Exchequer. For that reason, in addition to applying the conditions applied to the repayable grant, which is the same as a loan——
Why not call it a loan?
It is a matter of terminology but it can be described as a loan.
The repayments are similar to those applying to a loan.
I thought Deputies took exception when a Minister used a term which is different to that employed in scripts. For that reason, I decided to adhere to the text of the script.
The Minister of State should continue to do so.
It is the normal difficulty people face when they encounter something in a script which they know is not true. Their nerve fails at that crucial point.
In order to clarify the matter, will the Minister of State inform the committee about the envisaged timeframe for the repayment of the loan?
A management adviser has been appointed to Arklow Harbour Commissioners who will report to the Department on what will be required to improve the performance of Arklow port and ensure that the loan is repaid as quickly as possible. The repayment of the loan will be dependent on the performance of the port and our primary concern is to ensure that the port returns to profitability as quickly as possible. For that reason, a management adviser was appointed to indicate how this can be achieved.
Is it an interest free loan?
It is.
I must contact my colleagues and we will submit an application tomorrow morning.
I live in a maritime constituency where, at times, the extent of maritime activity is extremely limited. We look enviously at Killybegs, at one end of the constituency, and Rossaveal, at the other, and at the massive length of coastline in between. Ministers and Ministers of State visit my constituency but very little in the nature of developmental activity has taken place there, despite the fact that a number of fishing communities are trying to maintain most of their income from the sea through operation of small vessels.
I appreciate we are dealing with the Supplementary Estimate but I wish to discuss three matters: salmon, seaweed and seals. I welcome the Minister of State's additional grant to the Salmon Research Agency which carries out its primary research at the Farren Laboratory in Newport. My party's spokesperson, Deputy Smith, and I visited the laboratory, and also Westport, to meet representatives of the agency who left us in no doubt about its problems. I am glad the Minister of State has provided additional resources to enable the agency to carry out its essential, necessary and internationally recognised work. The agency's relationship with the community and its potential to attract people visiting the area should be further developed. In times past, where there were not as many interpretative and cultural centres and other tourist attractions, the Salmon Research Agency was a high priority for visitors. Other centres have now come on the scene and it is not now regarded as attractive. There is potential for further education, school tours, etc. and the Minister should consider that in any future discussions with its personnel. I presume that because of the reduction of staff numbers, etc. the centre had to commit itself to the essential work it was obliged to carry out. Now that it has been provided with minor additional resources, the Minister should consider its potential for further education in the widest possible sense.
I was pleased with the House's decision to refer the salmon task force report to the committee to discuss its implications. I have not read the report as I knew we would have an opportunity to discuss it here. The House is the only organisation that can call itself truly democratic because we represent all the people. Many organisations which expressed views and made comments and observations to the salmon task force report would not necessarily represent everyone in relevant industries or sectors of them. Last week we had to demand Dáil time to discuss special areas of conservation, a matter which will also affect the incomes of small farmers in my constituency. We received concessions from the Minister on the point. However, I am disappointed that he decided unilaterally to implement some recommendations of the salmon task force report without the courtesy of giving us an opportunity as public representatives to put to him the views of drift net fishermen and other interested agencies. If the matter was correctly reported on 22 November in the Irish Independent, he will dramatically affect the livelihoods of a considerable number of fishermen who will not have the pleasure of applying for roll-over grant aid or considering the potential of pelagic or white fish. They operate from small boats and their sole means of livelihood is crab and salmon fishing.
Not only will the Minister affect their livelihoods — in the case of some fishermen in Achill, he will put their lives in danger. There is no river in Achill, so the suggestion that these measures would allow fish to escape to the rivers for spawning, angling and conserving stocks does not hold as it would in other areas. From next year Achill fishermen will no longer be able to fish within the 12 mile limit but will be forced within the six mile limit, on a craggy coastline, with prevailing winds from the west. They will shoot a mile-long net in a bay full of other gear like lobster pots, crab pots, etc. If the Minister wanted to be honest with those people, he should have abolished their right to drift-netting and put in place a suitable compensation package. In effect, he is abolishing that right by the back door. A meeting took place in Westport today — I was not aware of it and I do not know what representations the Minister received.
The Central Fisheries Board has not taken any decision on the salmon task force report. Two boards who debated it have rejected it. The board covering the Achill area — the North Western Regional Fisheries Board — debated it and took no decision but if the report had been put to a vote that board would also have rejected it. The only proposal I could agree to in respect of the curtailment of time, months, licences and milage limits is the proposal to curtail licences, because that is already taking place in practice — people are not availing of the number of licences which could potentially be claimed.
People who are knowledgeable in this area — particularly those involved in tourism and angling who would be interested in the further promotion of inland rivers — do not believe that what the Minister is doing is necessarily correct. If it is necessary to implement these proposals by regulation — perhaps the Minister can indicate if it is — I ask him to give some time to allow a debate on this matter. My viewpoint is not necessarily held by everyone on this side of the House, I accept it can differ from region to region, but differences should be taken into account because livelihoods are at stake. I ask the Minister to take those views on board.
Seals are a serious problem in my constituency. The matter has been highlighted on national television and I accept it is sensitive. Consultants can look interminably at the problem without taking the necessary decisions. A reasonable cull should take place. The fishermen complaining are those at the coal face. Many people consider seals to be nice, small, cuddly creatures but they invariably weigh 20 stone, more than anyone in this room, and can do substantial damage not only to wild stock but more particularly to the reared salmon/mariculture industry, whose importance is ever increasing.
The Minister has taken a keen interest in the seaweed industry and I ask him to bring forward a decision on its further development on the west coast. Aramara Teoranta has two plants. For many years it wished to establish a third plant on land it owned in Newport for which it had obtained planning permission but, because of other industrial interests, that matter was deferred. Those other interests were given every opportunity to prove their ability to re-establish their industry. Without making a political point, I am satisfied that the only way forward is for the Minister to give whatever support he can to Aramara Teoranta. The other company has been given a reasonable chance to show its bona fides and while its intentions were good it did not have the potential to re-establish. I hope the Minister knows what I am talking about but if he does not I can speak to him privately later. For many young people who stayed at home their first income was from collecting seaweed. While it might not catch the media's imagination, it has played a vital economic role in supplementing off-farm income and allowing young people to stay at home. It is still being collected and transported profitably to Donegal but at an additional cost of £60 a tonne. Why can that local resource not be kept in Mayo, where a state agency wishes to establish an additional plant on a property it owns and for which it has planning permission? The matter should be seriously re-examined because the potential is there. I may be hearing only one side of the story and no doubt there are other views to be borne in mind but I ask the Minister to take on board what I have said and see what can be done about it.
I ask the Minister to reply to all the points made by Members at the end rather than having a number of debates.
(Wexford): Further to Deputy Hughes’s remarks on the salmon task force report, the Minister will be aware that there are about 80 nets on the river Slaney and the fishermen are concerned that the Minister will implement the report without any talks or negotiations with them. Recently some of them had discussions with departmental officials but they were annoyed that the Minister did not meet them to hear their fears and concerns. There has been much aggression between the net men and the rod men for a number of years. Two years ago, the only acceptable person to bring the people together, draw up a task report for the River Slaney and implement it was the Bishop of Ferns. This was done with the agreement of the Department of the Marine. The net men are most concerned that the agreement will be thrown out and the Minister’s report will supersede all the good work which has been done to protect the River Slaney in recent years. As Deputy Hughes said, the Minister should consider full negotiations.
A number of years ago, the net men floated the idea with the then Minister that they might be bought out. This happened in Scotland, Sweden and other countries where fishermen were compensated and bought off the rivers involved. Perhaps this could be considered in the future but there is uproar about the salmon task force report and how it will affect the people involved.
I put forward a suggestion to the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, about mobile units for small harbours and ports to train young fishermen. As the Minister is aware, in the smaller ports, small family owned boats cannot allow one or two members of the crew to go to Cork or Donegal for retraining. The then Minister supported the idea and said he would consider it. However, nothing has happened since. Does the current Minister have any proposals in that regard?
Deputy Smith expressed his concerns about the Commission's proposal for a reduction in the fisheries area. I expected the Minister, Deputy Barrett, to be in a position to negotiate an agreement before the end of the year. The Dutch will soon assume the EU Presidency for a year and given the Dutch fishermen's record in terms of overfishing, one must be concerned about the attitude of the Dutch Government to the fishing industry. There will be little sympathy or help for Irish fishermen when the Dutch take over the Presidency. Will the Minister comment on his fears in this area and how the position will impact on Irish fishermen in the future? When the 40 per cent level was proposed, an eminent professor said 720 jobs will be lost each year in the fishing industry. Will there be half that loss as a result of the revised proposals? What is the position?
Deputy Smith pointed out that the position in relation to fishing boats is not good. Will the Department move towards a situation where there will be a small number of large boats rather than a dispersed fleet of small boats? If so, it will have a devastating effect on rural communities which depend on the fishing industry for their livelihood. The Minister should consider an incentive package to allow fishermen to move up the ladder. Few fishermen can afford new boats but a significant number say they could move onto good secondhand boats, which are on sale in the EU at present, if adequate incentives were available. Given the nature of the small fishing industry and family operations, they are not in a position to buy new boats.
Deputy Byrne mentioned Arklow and he has a keen interest in Kilmore Harbour. Many fishermen are concerned about the ramshackle dredging operation in the harbour. It is very slow and tedious and it is not working well. I was there last week and the fishermen are very concerned they are not being looked after properly regarding the dredging.
The committee was to discuss the issue of salmon at a later date but since Deputy Hughes and Deputy Browne raised it earlier, perhaps all the members should refer to it. The Minister may not have been involved in fisheries but he is aware of arguments between various sectors in the salmon fishing industry which use snap nets, drift nets or draft nets. I will not ask the Minister to explain the difference between them. I have some idea because I live among fishermen who use them. I will not mention people who get fish by other methods.
I am glad a man from the west is present because I wish to confirm there is not total agreement among people around the coast that all is well and everybody is pulling their weight. Some pull more weight than they should. What is the position off the west coast? Is the Minister satisfied regarding the number of salmon which should return to rivers in the south, south-east and east? What level of successful surveillance is carried out on the west coast? Is the perception correct in the south and south-east that a blind eye has been turned not just by the current Minister but also by many of his predecessors? Have we caved in and are we afraid?
I assure the Minister that the perception at home is that the number of salmon returning to our rivers is much scarcer than it should be. This puts pressure on people in all directions and, consequently, Deputy Browne found it necessary to raise the issue. We have all met groups of salmon fishermen in the three categories I mentioned and each one expressed anxiety. As I said previously, I admire the way the Minister has gone about his business and hope he continues along those lines. He should engage in consultation before it is too late. Many different interests are involved but on the basis of advice and finding the best solution all round, consultation is required.
Regarding Arklow, the word "loan" rather than "repayment grant" should be inserted. I suspect that term has been included for a purpose and the money may not have to be repaid. Everybody uses the cliché that more jobs could be created in coastal communities. The Minister will agree these are the most remote areas and the most unlikely to attract industry as a result, but I have no doubt there is immense potential. Suggestions have been made about reduction and conservation but this means Irish fishermen will fare badly. The Minister and the EU are aware that, per head of population, there are more Irish fishermen than any other fishermen and we should have our fair share of fish. Given the number of members present there is an obvious lack of interest in this industry, which has massive potential. Perhaps this is why it has been used as a barter and the Department of the Marine has always got the wrong end of the stick.
Our fishing harbours are poor. There are nine small fishery harbours in Wexford for which Wexford County Council is responsible. The total amount that could be put into the estimate this year for those harbours was £8,000, which is very little. All we can do is fill in the odd hole.
Duncannon is an active port which has potential for the development of industries related to fishing. The congestion there is unbelievable. Surveys have been done and we are ready to start development. We are happy that successful work has been done at Kilmore Quay, although there is still work to be done there. I do not wish to be too parochial in mentioning Duncannon; I am sure there are other similar ports. If we are serious about the fishing industry we must have proper harbours. Duncannon is a sheltered deep harbour which should help to make it successful.
Deputy Browne mentioned the fleet and I heard recently of a trawler that has been in use since 1936. Such vessels are trying to compete with Spanish trawlers built two years ago. I do not expect the Department of the Marine to purchase a new fleet and provide every fisherman with a new trawler. However, the matter must be examined seriously. Will we be able to compete to catch the fish available or are we to let the industry run down? We must be prepared to grasp the nettle. There is more sea water in the blood of the Irish population per head than anywhere else and we are entitled to our fair share of the catch.
Safety and rescue leaves a lot to be desired. When will the commercial boards be in operation? Piracy by the Spanish and others is blatant to those in the fishing communities. Why is it that our naval vessels pursue Irish boats more often than Spanish boats? Is it the case that our naval vessels are not capable of keeping pace with the Spanish trawlers? I do not want a blind eye turned to anyone but there are foreign trawlers with false hulls yet we do not concentrate on them. The concentration is on the Irish trawlers which can hide nothing.
With regard to the salmon smolts and the decline in income to the research agency, is the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1996 ready for publication? To what extent has the fact that we have been unable to develop the aquaculture industry in line with the operational programme affected the agency? Norway produces about 300,000 tonnes of fish farmed products. We produce about 13,000 or 14,000 tonnes. What has happened in the Commission in the battle being fought for a better deal so Norway will not swamp the market to the detriment of the rest of the Community?
I dissociate myself from the expressions of doom about the fishing industry. The Minister for the Marine and the Minister of State have played a large part in restoring confidence in the fishing industry. Vast strides have been made in the south-west in promoting aquaculture and the fishing industry generally, including the construction of three extensions to piers on the south-west Cork coast. There is a viable turbot industry on Cape Clear Island. There is a multi-million pound mussel development in the Bantry area giving employment to over 120 people. These developments are the result of good planning by the Minister and the Minister of State.
It was a former Minister who got it all started.
The former Minister did nothing. He never delivered anything for west Cork.
A Deputy
What about Deputy Coveney?
Deputy Coveney was not in office long enough. However, he shifted that man.
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
It was made off the cuff. I withdraw it. The Deputies opposite were highly critical of Deputy Coveney when he was Minister for the Marine. Solomon himself could not make a law to suit every fisherman.
I disagree with Deputy Hugh Byrne's suggestion that a blind eye had been turned to salmon fishermen off the west and south-west coast resulting in a reduction in the numbers of salmon in the rivers in the south-east. The level of investigation carried out by the South-West Regional Fisheries Board in conjunction with the Naval Service has resulted in many prosecutions for illegal fishing. The letter of the law has been applied.
There may be a depletion of the stock of salmon in the rivers in the south-east but that may be the fault of continental trawlers fishing in the Irish Box. They are playing havoc with the salmon migrating to the south-east for breeding purposes. It is not the south-west Cork or Kerry fishermen who are responsible.
What is the Deputy's point?
I congratulate the Minister of State on the manner in which he has tackled the salmon review group's recommendations. Before Deputy Byrne leaves——
I will listen to the Deputy on the monitor.
——I guarantee him that if the Minister introduces his plan, there will be a future for the salmon fishing industry.
I believe the Deputy.
The Deputy should know that prevention is better than cure. The Minister said he will organise a four day week for salmon fishermen and introduce legislation to make the monofilament net legal. This will stop fishermen from being fined for using such nets. I have spoken to natural salmon fishermen operating in my constituency and in south Kerry and they all support the Minister's salmon conservation plan. They are delighted to co-operate with the Minister and the Department in the implementation of these new regulations. Fishermen will now have an opportunity to make a livelihood which they were denied by previous Ministers in charge of this Department.
The Deputy should not hit the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Coveney, as hard as that.
The Minister of State was not in the Department of the Marine long enough to make an impact. If he had been, he would have produced good results as well. The man who succeeded him and the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, have made a huge impact on the industry. I have no doubt that if we preach doom and gloom there will be no future for the fishing industry. We should always think and speak positively to get results in an industry which is vital to the economy.
I brought the problems with the pier at Darby's Point on Achill Island to the attention of the Minister for the Marine and he authorised a grant to be paid a week before the by-election.
The Deputy announced it.
I am delighted Darby's Point now has a proper pier for the fishermen of Achill Island because they are hard working men. This area deserves the same recognition as any other part of Ireland.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, and the Minister, Deputy Barrett, for the magnificent work they have done to improve the fishing industry. They have kindled a bright light in the fishing industry that will not be extinguished if they are left in charge of it.
After those glowing tributes, it should be easy for the Minister to reply to the questions raised.
I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy Sheehan. If he omitted anything, I will include it in the reply. Deputy Sheehan made a good point about the danger of talking ourselves into a depression about the fishing industry.
Was that the impression given by the debate so far?
No, but if one did a balance sheet of the positives and negatives of this industry, there would be more negatives. The Irish fishing industry has grown considerably since our entry to the European Union and many of its problems have been there for a long time.
As regards the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet, 128 projects have been approved at a cost of over £15 million. In the aquaculture area 51 projects have been approved at a total cost of over £12 million. Some £12 million has been spent on ports and 103 projects have been approved in the fish processing area at a cost of over £18 million. Some 13 projects have been approved in the marketing area and £3.2 million has been spent on training. We have already spoken about what is happening in the research area. Considerable progress has been made as regards investment in the modernisation of the fishing industry. We immediately faced the problems and difficulties presented to us by the Commission's proposals on fleet reduction and we clearly stated they were not acceptable. The Minister, Deputy Barrett, took the opportunity, while chairing a meeting of the European Council, to put forward alternative proposals which we hope will be agreed at Council level.
Deputy Hughes appeared to bemoan the lack of investment in marine activities in County Mayo. I strongly rebut that because my Department has invested a considerable amount of money in that region. Part of this Estimate relates specifically to the Salmon Research Agency located in Newport.
That is welcome.
That is on top of the considerable resources provided for the Salmon Research Agency as part of the sea trout rehabilitation programme. In addition, the aquaculture industry is being developed off the Mayo coast on Clare Island, for example, where a new facility was opened by Molloys.
It is in the private sector.
It is strongly supported by the State. In addition, approximately £2 million was invested in the development of the Moy system and there was another considerable investment in the western lakes which was aimed at protecting wild trout. The Department of the Marine has invested a lot in County Mayo.
Points were made about the report of the Salmon Management Task Force. We cannot be accused of doing anything unilaterally in this area. When the task force was established, it became involved in a wide-ranging consultative process which included a series of meetings at different venues around the country. When the report was published, a further series of meetings were held to consult the different interests in the fish sector. This was in addition to the normal meetings which took place with the representative organisations. When I published the report in September I said I wished to have it debated in the Oireachtas. As Deputies said, differences in salmon management have more to do with one's location and the gear used to fish than any political differences.
The primary objective is to preserve salmon stocks because they are in decline. Deputy Hugh Byrne asked if I was satisfied there were enough salmon getting back to the rivers. I am not. As they are not getting back to the rivers we need a better system of management of the salmon stocks before we reach a critical state of decline in the stock. Whatever Deputy Hughes may say about livelihoods being threatened now, they will be threatened in a dramatic way if there are no salmon to fish.
What about the figures for the Moy river for the last two years? They are at an historical high.
The reason they are historically high is the investment we have put into the development of the Moy river, the measures taken in relation to lifting the nets at the mouth of the river and the considerable management of the Moy system.
The small fishing communities should not be deprived.
Overall the level of salmon in our waters is about half of what it was ten years ago and that in turn is about half of what it was in the 1960s. There is a problem of decline which will have to be addressed. There have been demands — which I do not support — for the abolition of fishing at sea for salmon. Whether somebody is fishing at sea, in an estuary or by rod and line it should be possible to manage the fisheries and involve all the interests concerned with salmon fishery in a way that makes sense and ensures there is fish for the future. These are issues that may be discussed when the committee considers the matter.
(Wexford): The Slaney salmon management plan is working well.
It is and for that reason I have decided it will stay in place. Fears were expressed that it would be overtaken by the recommendations of the task force. A case was made that the plan is working well and the different interests are happy with it. I am happy with that and the plan will remain in place. I am anxious that other systems might take a lead from it. Yesterday, I met a deputation from the Shannon Estuary area and I recommended to them that some of their difficulties might be addressed by examining the way the matter has been dealt with in the Slaney area.
Does that open the door for Deputy Hughes to some extent in terms of the application of national policy but having due regard to systems working well in regional areas?
I understand Deputy Hughes's problem to be different.
I am referring to the local interests getting together and coming up with a solution agreeable to the Department. The Deputy is not talking about a river problem and there is a rugged coast involved. If the local interests came up with proposals which would achieve the same balance in terms of conservation and improvement would that be acceptable?
One of the key recommendations in the report is that there should be a move to salmon catchment management. At a local level the different fishery interests would reach an accommodation which provides for the best system of management for their catchments. It is a mechanism I am anxious to encourage. Circumstances vary from one catchment to another.
The Arklow issue is exceptional. I reassure Deputy Hugh Byrne that there is no question of Arklow being treated more favourably than any other port. Exceptional circumstances have arisen in Arklow. We have provided short-term assistance to which we have attached strict conditions. In addition, we have appointed an adviser to address Arklow's problems and to examine how the company can be made profitable.
Is that what the additional £60,000 is for?
It is partly for that and to address some of the short-term financial difficulties.
The new companies will be set up early in the new year, well in advance of the election.
What about the fisheries legislation?
The Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1996, dealing with aquaculture was been published recently and will be introduced in the Seanad.
(Wexford): What plans are there for the smaller harbours and the mobile training units?
One mobile unit has been prepared by BIM for visits to small ports and harbours and another is being prepared. These initiatives are intended to address training needs arising from the fishing vessel training review.
That concludes our discussion.
I thank the Chairman and the Members for their courtesy.
We have had a good discussion. As in the past, the opportunity to raise issues above and beyond the scope of the debate facilitates the Opposition in obtaining information quickly as distinct from doing so by tabling parliamentary questions or engaging in debates in the House. We appreciate the Minister of State and his officials facilitating us in that regard. I hope Deputy Sheehan recovers from that onslaught. We look forward to a positive approach to the development of the marine. However, we are always mindful that silence on the Opposition's part and agreement with the Government is very bad for the Government. We have the Minister of State's interests at heart.
We shall avail of Deputy Sheehan's kind invitation to visit the new developments to which he referred as part of our programme for 1997.
I assure Deputy Smith that I will be co-operative on all occasions where common sense prevails.