asked the Minister forAgriculture if any progress has been made towards the building of a breakwater at Schull.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers. - Breakwater for Schull (County Cork).
A further inspection of Schull harbour has been made by an officer of my Department but I am not yet in a position to say what steps can be taken to improve the facilities in the harbour.
In view of the Taoiseach's specific request for recommendations from Deputies representing areas such as West Cork for schemes ready for operation, would it be possible now to expedite this very necessary work and give thereby very badly needed employment in Schull, one of the centres of successful fishing in this country?
The trouble about the scheme is that it is not ready for execution. As the Deputy is, I am sure, aware a scheme was submitted to the Fisheries Branch by the Cork County Council last September. That scheme was not adequate to the requirements of the fishing industry in Schull as visualised by the Fisheries Branch and a consultation was arranged between the county council officials, officials of the Board of Works and an officer of the Fisheries Branch and it was agreed by them there and then that the scheme was not sufficient. A search is being made by the officials concerned for a suitable alternative site. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that, recognising the cost will run into something in the region of six figures, a great deal of care will have to be taken in the preparation of the scheme.
The Parliamentary Secretary is no doubt aware that this scheme has been mooted for 14 or 15 years. There have been schemes and counter schemes. The situation now is that Schull is giving a reasonable contribution to the fishing effort. It is agreed by all the interested parties that a breakwater is necessary. I suggest that in the exigencies of the present employment situation the Fisheries Branch might expedite thecommencement of a scheme long overdue in that area.
That is just the difference between people looking for employment and the Fisheries Branch. We are not just looking for some scheme. In our view what has been proposed is not adequate to the requirements of the fishing fleet at Schull.
Is there any reasonable hope that in the scheme the Fisheries Branch apparently wants, the fishermen certainly want and the area as a whole badly needs the employment content of the scheme may become a practical reality in Schull?
Nature has not been so kind in relation to Schull as to make the solution of the problem as simple as that. I assure the Deputy the matter is being prosecuted with the utmost diligence by the Fisheries Branch.
Accepting that assurance without hesitation, can we now tell the people in Schull that there is a reasonable prospect that within the foreseeable future something will be done about a breakwater there?
So long as the Deputy is not precociously provocative.