The House will now hear two minute statements on matters appropriate to the Minister for the Marine and to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. I propose to call the Deputies I have selected in the following order: Deputy Sheehan, Deputy McGinley and Deputy Finucane in respect of matters to the Minister for the Marine and Deputy Bradford and Deputy Connaughton in respect of matters to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Each Deputy is entitled to two minutes in respect of each matter and each of the statements will be followed immediately by a two minute reply by the appropriate Minister. We will now hear a two minute statement from Deputy Sheehan.
Adjournment Debates. - Marine and Agriculture, Food and Forestry Matters.
I wish to thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this matter. There are 25 fishing vessels operating out of the port of Kinsale and 65 fishermen employed. I request the Minister for the Marine to give favourable consideration to the application by Kinsale Harbour Board for the development of the port to facilitate fishing and cargo vessels that operate out of the harbour. The Minister should give urgent attention to the board's request. It is of paramount importance that this matter gets favourable consideration from him in view of its importance to the livelihood of the people involved. This is not a major request and only involves the development of Adam's Quay in Kinsale by extending it 40 metres as a landing berth for boats to take on diesel and ice and facilitate the landing of fish catches.
The development of this quay is vital to the 25 fishing vessels and 65 personnel operating out of the port as the main pier in Kinsale is too small to accommodate both fishing and cargo boats. The estimated cost of the proposed development is approximately £400,000 and the harbour board is willing to meet its portion of the cost of the work provided the Department agree to pay its part of the cost.
It is important that the onshore facilities are improved rapidly to enable the fishing industry, which is vital to the future livelihood of the town of Kinsale and its hinterland, to expand.
I urge the Minister of State, as a Cork man, to accede to my request on this important issue and thereby play his part in retaining this valuable industry in the area.
The Deputy is moving very far east.
The Minister moved west last night.
The Department of the Marine is currently implementing the final year of its fishery harbour development programme for the period 1989 to 1993. No provision was made under this programme for development works at Kinsale Harbour and in view of this, it will not be possible to carry out any works at the harbour during 1993.
The Department of the Marine is currently drawing up a new fishery harbour development plan covering the period 1994 to 1997. To this end the various maritime local authorities and harbour authorities, including Kinsale Harbour Commissioners, were invited to make formal proposals for development works in the fisheries interests and for which they would be prepared to make funds available. Kinsale Harbour Commissioners submitted their proposal in July 1992. The commissioners proposed two possible development options for the harbour. These were (a) to extend the existing quay or (b) to construct a new quay. Both options were estimated to cost approximately £800,000. The commissioners also indicated their wish to provide an ice plant on the fish landing quay, the construction of an auction hall and the provision of washing and showering facilities.
The commissioners wrote to the Department of the Marine on 16 March outlining proposals to construct a new fishery quay at Adam's Quay, Kinsale, at an estimated cost of £400,000. The commissioners have also indicated a willingness to make a contribution to the costs of the work. The Department of the Marine and I are conscious of the limited facilities at this harbour and the conflict between commercial and fishing activities. The Department is examining the proposal with a view to its possible inclusion in the new development plan. However, pending finalisation of the plan and clarification of its funding, I am not in a position, at this stage, to say if it will be possible to undertake the work in question. The Deputy can be assured that I will be sympathetic towards the needs of Kinsale.
I want action.
The Deputy will get action.
I thank you, Sir, for affording me the opportunity to raise this matter. Coastal erosion is one of the most serious environmental problems affecting our coastal regions in the past number of years. The problem is particularly pernicious along the western seaboard. In Donegal alone there are in excess of 70 areas seriously affected, stretching from Rossnowlagh in the south of the county along Murvagh, Portnoo, Arranmore Island, Gweedore, Magheraroarty and to Dunfanaghy in the north, to mention but a few.
Thousands of acres of agricultural land are regularly flooded in Rossnowlagh due to serious breaches in protective banks erected many years ago. Portnoo is particularly hard hit with a golf course, a road and a caravan park being seriously undermined and endangered. There is great concern on Arranmore Island at the serious extent of erosion there with fields, farms and houses being regularly flooded. Gweedore, Magheraroarty and Dunfanaghy have been similarly affected.
With successive winter storms the situation is becoming more serious and more dangerous for people living adjacent to these coastal crisis points. There has been complete neglect by successive Governments in providing coastal protective measures. One could justly say that the only serious attempt to curtail the stormy ravages of the western Atlantic was almost a century ago by the congested district boards.
In recent years funding has been completely inadequate. Representations were often passed from one Department to another, from the local authority to the Department of the Environment, to the Office of Public Works, to the Department of the Gaeltacht or the Department of the Marine — passing the buck from one to the other. Will the Minister give coastal protection the utmost priority particularly in the areas of Donegal I specified? An immediate survey should be commissioned to identify the worst areas and a priority list established without delay.
I realise that national resources are limited, but funding for the prevention and arrest of further damage to our coastal environment and communities should be sought as part of our submission to Europe for regional and cohesion funding.
The Department has limited funds at its disposal for coast protection schemes. The Department's coast protection allocation for 1993 is £200,000. The bulk of this will be spent on the ongoing development at Rosslare, County Wexford, and on a grant to Wicklow County Council for works completed last year at the Murrough in Wicklow town. I should add however that the Department spent £20,000 in 1992 on the maintenance of the coast protection scheme at Rossnowlagh, County Donegal.
In order to formulate a programme of coast protection works for the next few years, the Department of the Marine wrote to all maritime local authorities in 1991 requesting them to submit a list of priorities for coast protection projects which they consider would be warranted and feasible and for which they are prepared to make funds available. Donegal County Council made a comprehensive submission on the coast protection needs of the county. Included in the 30 sites identified by the authority as needing attention are Rossnowlagh, Portnoo, Arranmore and Maghery.
Drawing, inter alia, on the submissions received from the various coastal authorities, plans for a comprehensive coast protection programme have been drawn up in the context of the allocation of the next round of Structural Funds. Decisions have yet to be made by the Government on the priority and funding to be attached to this programme. I have given coastal protection priority in my submission for structural funding.
As a native of Foynes, and a member of Foynes Harbour Board — my late father worked with that harbour board — I have more than a passing interest in getting additional funding for the harbour. Foynes Harbour is a prestige port along the west coast and up to 31 March last it took in 1,250,000 tonnes of cargo. Taking into account that volume of business, and what has happened in Foynes over the years, this is a tremendous success story which has been achieved without substantial funding from the Department of the Marine. That port has always tried to invest and reinvest its own savings.
The port is restricted at present because it can cope with only 36,000 tonne ships and in the work horse of the Atlantic there are Panama registered ships weighing up to 70,000 tonnes. We have made a comprehensive submission to the Department of the Marine for cohesion funding.
I compliment the officials on the tremendous work they put into the preparation of that submission, which has been costed, qualified and assessed. The linchpin of the plan is an increase in capacity to cater for these 70,000 ton ships.
There has been much rhetoric in past years about expansion of facilities in the Shannon estuary. Foynes should be the linchpin for such developments, which should be assisted by the allocation of Cohesion Funding. We have submitted a comprehensive submission but funding is vital. The development of Foynes harbour will lead to the development of further industries in the area and make Foynes a greater success than it is at present.
The Department of the Marine invited submissions from commercial harbour authorities and private companies for projects to be considered for funding under the Cohesion Fund and a further round of European Regional Development Fund funding. Foynes Harbour Trustees have presented a £19.6 million development plan for consideration.
The development plan consists of the construction of a new deepwater west berth some 230 metres long which will be able to accommodate ships of up to 70,000 tons deadweight, capital dredging of the channels entering the harbour and the central harbour area to allow passage of these very large ships and the development of a road system and warehousing facility in the port area.
My Department is evaluating all submissions received in order to develop an integrated and strategic programme of investment in harbour facilities. This programme will be assisted by the EC Cohesion and Structural Funds and will enable our key commercial ports to cater for increasing demand and new designs of ships.
In the Programme for a Partnership Government the Government has indicated that port investment will be concentrated in key commercial freight and passenger ports, including the Shannon Estuary. A project team is currently examining all proposals for the development of the Shannon Estuary as a major European economic trading bridgehead, and the proposals put forward by the Foynes Harbour Trustees are being examined.
All submissions received in the Department of the Marine are being evaluated on an equal basis to ensure that the country has the portal infrastructure and handling equipment necessary to cater for our needs into the next century. As the Deputy will be aware, the Department has received a very large number of proposals for the development of both national and regional ports. On the basis of these demands, a comprehensive port development programme has been submitted by my Department for consideration in the context of the preparation of the national plan for the utilisation of the next round of Structural Funds.
Pending the settling of the ports allocation in the national plan, I am not in a position to indicate the extent to which it will be possible to include the Foynes proposals. I pay tribute to the Foynes Harbour Trustees for their magnificent achievements over the past number of years.
The Minister is playing his cards close to his chest.
I rise to bring to the Minister's attention once again the disadvantaged areas saga. I can say with some certainty that if "disadvantaged areas" was the name of a record it would be at number one in the pop charts — it has been raised in this House more often than any other topic in recent times.
The concern expressed by Deputies about this matter arises as a direct result of what we have been told by our rural constituents on an almost daily basis. The saga of the long-sought extension of the scheme, followed by the possibility of a review and an appeals process has been with us for some considerable time. The farmers concerned, their families and the local communities are most perturbed that there has been no positive news to date.
Can the Minister give me an indication as to when the appeals panels will finally present their reports to his Department and when action will be taken? Can he give an assurance that those farmers who, as a result of the appeals process, will be declared to be eligible for disadvantaged status will receive funding from Europe in 1993?
The Minister is well aware of the crisis in agriculture, the need to keep people on the land and retain the maximum number of people possible in rural areas. The disadvantaged areas scheme will play an integral part in this process, but action must be taken and a decision made now.
I thank Deputy Bradford for raising this matter. Unfortunately I have to tell him at the outset that this long playing record will be in the charts for some time.
The Disadvantaged Areas Appeals Panel is currently analysing data from the survey of areas which appealed their non-inclusion in the disadvantaged areas. Because of the size and complexity of the task it is not possible to predict when it will be completed and, while it is in everyone's interest to have the job done quickly, it is equally important that the panel should carry out a thorough analysis as a prerequisite to having acceptable recommendations for submission to the Commission in Brussels for ratification. I would like to assure the Deputy and the House that there will be no delay in finalising the issue here and, once the submission is ratified, there will be no delay in making payments available to successful applicants. I am as concerned as everyone else to ensure that rural areas benefit to the maximum possible extent, both in terms of extension and reclassification, from the disadvantaged areas scheme.
I am afraid the Minister has played the same old signature tune.
Please, Deputy, the Minister's statement ends the debate.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity to raise with the Minister a very serious matter which has been raised in the House on many previous occasions, that is, the non-payment of the various cattle and sheep grants to farmers. It is with a certain degree of frustration that I raise the matter this evening. I have to say — I do not know if it is the fault of the Minister, his heart is in the right place — that someone along the line is not performing his duties properly. I cannot understand why the officials in the Department have stated publicly that farmers receive approximately 50 per cent of their gross income via the postman. Several farmers who have made representations to me and many more in other areas have been waiting for their cheques for four months. Do the officials in Agriculture House have any idea of the anxiety and frustration this delay is causing to farmers? I am sure the Minister will agree that if he, I, a journalist or doctor had to wait four months for our salaries there would rightly be an outcry. Why is it in the age of technology that those cheques cannot be issued in the same way as social welfare cheques are issued every week? What is the reason for the delay?
One farmer in south Galway who has a 45-acre farm received no payment for his cattle in 1992. He is owed £1,500, which is a sizeable sum of money. He has been waiting for this cheque every day since the middle of last December. To make the matter worse, he has been unable to buy fertiliser or pay for his cattle feed. He has reached his borrowing limit in the bank. His entire farming system has been put out of kilter because the Department has not paid him EC money it received before last Christmas. This is most unfair.
I am not interested in statements about the improved payments position on the preceding year. I assume this is what the Minister will tell me. Such a reply is no good to a farmer who has not received his money. It is a civil right that people should receive their money on time. These farmers are entitled to up-to-date information on their files. Once files leave the local district office it is almost impossible for applicants to get information on them — a sort of KGB attitude is adopted. Can the Minister do anything to help those farmers who have not, as yet, received their cheques?
I thank Deputy Connaughton for bringing this matter to my attention and to the attention of the House generally.
At present 99 per cent of applicants due payments under the 1992 cattle headage, beef cow, sheep headage, goat headage and equines headage schemes have received their payments. Over 99 per cent of applicants due payments under the 1992 ewe premium scheme have been paid and approximately 97 per cent of suckler cow premium scheme applicants have been paid.
The percentage of June/July 1992 applicants under the special beef premium scheme who have not yet been paid is approximately 8 per cent. The vast majority of the unpaid cases are the subject of queries. It is generally accepted that there was a substantial improvement in 1992 in dealing with claims under the livestock aid schemes. For example, payments in respect of applications submitted in 1992 had issued to 284,000 applicants by the end of 1992 compared with a corresponding figure of 217,000 applicants in 1991. In addition, my Department paid out £340 million in premium and headage grants in 1992 compared with £280 million in 1991.
My Department has already put into place an warning system which identifies errors on special beef premium applications and this system does speed up the clearance of these errors. There are some errors, however, which cannot be detected by the early screening system because the errors do not become apparent until field inspections are carried out or cross-checks are done with other applications and other information available within my Department.
In view of the vast increase in the number of applications that my Department will have to handle in 1993 for the headage and premium schemes following the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy it will be essential that farmers pay greater attention to detail in completing their applications. To assist them in doing this I arranged a series of meetings throughout the country earlier this year to explain the requirements arising from the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the introduction of the EC integrated control system. I was very pleased with the very large numbers of farmers who turned up to those meetings and I hope that will improve the situation for the coming year.
At my request, Teagasc has put in place a package of measure to assist farmers in dealing with the complexity of the new Common Agricultural Policy arrangements, while also advising them how to secure optimum income under the various schemes. The extra £1 million which has been provided in the budget to enable Teagasc to extend its small farm development service should contribute significantly to this effort.
The Deputy will be aware that the procedures for claiming the premium and headage grants are largely dictated by EC regulations and audit requirements which are designed to ensure that grants are not improperly paid.
Nobody wants that.
As I said earlier, my Department simplified the application procedures in 1992 following consultation with the farm organisations. We intend to keep the procedures as simple as possible in the future, while at the same time meeting the control requirements of EC regulations and auditors.
I believe that significant advances have been made in dealing with 1992 applications. Every effort will be made to build on these improvements in 1993.
In regard to the farmer in the Deputy's south Galway area, I would very much like to have the details because I do not want to preside over a scheme that causes hardship. When 100 per cent of the funding comes from Brussels it would be quite wrong if we could not implement a scheme that would allow payments due to farmers to be made in full and on time. That is my priority for the coming year.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 April 1993.