Vol. 395 No. 6
12 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Minister for the Marine if he is concerned by details published in an ESRI report in January 1990 which states that over 80 per cent of Government spending on fisheries is on administration and protection; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
42 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for the Marine if the Government accept the recommendations of the ESRI report, The Irish Sea Fishing Industry, published last month; if they intend to implement the recommendations of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Priority Question No. 12 and Question No. 42 together.
I welcome the publication of this report. The report contains very valuable research and analysis which will be useful in the on-going implementation and development of fisheries and aquaculture policy.
I have already had a preliminary examination made of the 14 specific recommendations made in the report. In this regard I am glad to be able to report that the vast bulk of them are already being pursued either by my Department or An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. As regards the remaining recommendations that are not, I have asked for an urgent appraisal and will implement those that may be considered worthwhile.
On the particular subject of the share of administrative costs in the total budget, it must be borne in mind that the regulation and management of the fisheries in the interests of conservation and in accordance with our Community responsibilities poses a considerable but unavoidable administrative burden. Indeed, the ESRI report itself points out that even if no development work were done on sea fisheries, the cost of protecting and regulating the existing industry would have to go on so that overall costs would not be reduced greatly.
In so far as the administration of grants and incentives is concerned, I am satisfied that these are managed on a cost efficient basis. I will be looking at the issue on an on-going basis in the light of the analysis in the ESRI report to ensure that the best value for money is received.
Will the Minister agree that to spend 80 per cent of an allocation on administration and protection is out of bounds if we are to develop our fishing industry? Will he agree that it is necessary to correct that method of expenditure? What is the Minister doing to reverse this trend? As long as this expenditure takes place we cannot develop our fishing industry in the way we need to develop it or create jobs, particularly in the remote parts of the country.
In the body of my reply I indicated my view in answer to the question of high costs. It is as well for the Deputy and the House to know what is going on by way of implementation of that report. Exploratory fishing costs money, particularly in the argentine, scad and blue whiting areas. Coastal surveys to locate sites for shell fish are taking place. Research work on new species suitable for fish farming is taking place. There has also been development work to determine the economics of farming a species other than those already farmed, for example, brill, plaice, turbot, cod and abalone. An experiment on eel growing has been carried out as the Deputy is aware, in her own constitutency but not with any great success. Studies are taking place to determine the effect of escaped farm salmon. Market research abroad is an administrative cost and BIM have officers in Europe. Negotiations with joint ventures are also taking place. One of the great difficulties with regard to the pelagic species is supplies for the processing factories. The Deputy will realise that there are a whole series of costs which are really administrative costs but are related very much to productivity.
The time for dealing with priority questions is now exhausted and I am proceeding to deal with other questions.
