SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND THE MARINE díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Dec 2000

Vol. 3 No. 6

Estimates for Public Services, 2000.

Vote 30 - Marine and Natural Resources (Supplementary).

Chairman

On behalf of the committee I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Byrne, and his officials. This meeting has been scheduled to consider a Supplementary Estimate in the amount of £10,515,000 under Vote 30, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. I remind members we are considering the Supplementary Estimate only. Members may not suggest increases or decreases and the debate should be confined to the specific subheads referred to in the brief on the Supplementary Estimate. A copy of the brief was circulated with the agenda and extra copies are available if required.

I propose we call on the Minister first who will outline the Estimate. Perhaps we could agree that, following the Minister's contribution, the Opposition spokespersons would have ten minutes each and a further five minutes after that so that we can conclude at a reasonable time.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Byrne)

Since this is my first time performing under your chairmanship, I take this opportunity to congratulate you. I know you are doing a good job.

The Supplementary Estimate for Vote 30 for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources proposes additional funding for the Marine Institute under Subhead F2, additional funding for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara under Subheads H1 and H2, and additional funding for the Petroleum Infrastructure Support Group under Subhead L3. The additional funding sought for 2000 for these grant-in-aid subheads amounts to £11.387 million. Following the application of savings and a shortfall in receipts, the net Supplementary Estimate required is £10.515 million.

Subhead F2 relates to the Marine Institute's capital development. The Marine Institute is responsible for the direction, co-ordination and promotion of the national marine research effort to support the seafood and marine industries and to realise the potential of the marine resource. Additional capital funding of £3.9 million is required for Subhead F2 in 2000 to provide for initial expenditure of £3.5 million on the new national marine research vessel and £400,000 for additional temporary accommodation for the Marine Institute.

Provision has been made under the national development plan for a new marine research vessel to cover outer continental shelf activities. Tenders have now been received and evaluated by the Marine Institute. A contract will be signed by the end of this December. The provision of £3.5 million this year for the new marine research vessel will enable a higher initial down payment to be made on the vessel when signing the contract. This will reduce the overall costs of the contract, hedge against inflation and ensure the delivery target of 2002 is met.

The provision of an additional £400,000 of capital expenditure will provide for essential temporary accommodation, including laboratories for staff of the Marine Institute, pending a decision on its relocation to permanent accommodation.

Subheads H1 and H2 relate to BIM and its administration and capital development. Additional non-capital funding of £6.389 million is required to meet additional expenditure by BIM in a number of critical areas. This will ensure delivery of immediate and urgent strategic support to assist the fishing and aquaculture sectors to adjust and adapt to an emerging difficult environment.

As regards measures to support and incentivise change in the sea fishing sector - the white fish quality assurance scheme - the fishing industry is heavily fuel dependent. Fuel costs are running at £29 million per annum and represent a substantial part of operational costs for fishermen. Fuel prices have risen by 100% since January 1999 and this increase is causing significant difficulties for the industry. High fuel prices are also exacerbating emerging labour shortages in the sector. Earnings for crews are estimated to have fallen by 25% since January 1999. Strategic measures to equip the industry to adapt to this new environment are clearly required.

With the agreement of the Minister for Finance, I am taking two key initiatives to assist the fishing sector to position itself more effectively to adapt to high fuel prices and labour shortages involving a once-off package of £4 million. The initiatives, comprising a fish quality and safety assurance scheme and a fuel efficiency grant scheme, are designed to incentivise improved operational standards in the industry and a structured response to change. The schemes will contribute to improved safety, quality, efficiency and best environmental practice in the short, medium and long-term.

Quality control has been identified as a critical development challenge for the fishing industry. Poor quality and grading of fish constitutes a significant constraint in terms of efficiency and maximising value. The introduction of total quality control systems for the catching sector is therefore a priority for skippers and crews. Enhanced quality is the key to better prices and is all the more critical given the decline in whitefish stocks. This initiative, which will be implemented by BIM, will involve incentivised modular safety and quality training programmes for skippers and crews, leading to best practice in operational safety and the introduction of quality protocols on board vessels. The total cost of the scheme is estimated at £3 million and funding is now sought for this purpose under Subhead H1. The objective is to have the scheme up and running with the first series of training modules in the next few weeks.

Capital funds of £1 million under Subhead H2 are sought to deliver on the second initiative proposed. The fuel efficiency grant scheme is an innovative scheme designed to deliver major improvements in the fuel efficiency of fishing vessels. In addition to the tangible benefits for fishermen in terms of fuel efficiency savings, the scheme will deliver an environmental dividend. The scheme will provide grant support for the introduction of new vessel management systems through the use of advanced computer technology, the installation of vessel trawl monitoring systems and improved insulation on board vessels. The fuel efficiency grant scheme will be administered by BIM and will be in place in the coming weeks. The total cost is estimated at £1 million.

The committee will be aware of the exceptional problems this year arising from naturally occurring biotoxins which have resulted in prolonged closures of a number of shellfish production areas. This has impacted badly on the rope mussel sector in particular. The shellfish sector is vitally important to coastal regions and is currently at a production level of 16,000 tonnes. The main production areas affected by the prolonged closures are Bantry Bay, Kenmare Bay, Bruckless Bay in County Donegal and, to a lesser extent, Dunmanus Bay and Killary Harbour. In the five key bay areas above, 9,000 tonnes of rope mussel production, valued at £6 million, have not been harvested. A substantial part of that production will be lost and future crops are at risk. Losses of more than £5 million have been estimated with the risk of the sector collapsing.

The objective of the shellfish package, which will be administered by BIM, is to provide financial aid to assist eligible shellfish producers with a once-off environmental clean up of the redundant stock and to restore and secure production capability for the future. The package is designed to remedy the immediate crisis caused by the prolonged closure and will also be directly linked to the medium term strategic measures which will position the industry to adapt to and overcome the challenges posed by harvesting closures.

Some £2.5 million is required for the total quality management system under Subhead H1. It is intended to have the scheme in place within the next few weeks. An additional £100,000 is sought to complete this year's programme under the total quality management system for mussel processors. The additional £100,000 for 2000 of current funding arises specifically from the significant demand from client processing companies for staff training and the engagement of technical advice to design quality control systems. Under BIM's budget for 2001, Book of Estimates, £1 million will be provided to further enhance the total quality management programme, which is a significant increase in funding.

As regards retirement gratuities and pensions, £661,000 is required to fund additional retirement and superannuation requirements of BIM in 2000 arising primarily from the implementation of a voluntary early retirement scheme as part of a restructuring and overhaul of BIM's domestic and export marketing capability.

A co-ordinated local aquaculture management system initiative, CLAMS, is under way for the Killary Harbour area. This is a further phase of the CLAMS process already in place in Bannow Bay and Roaringwater Bay. The funding of £50,000 will support phase 1 of the Killary CLAMS plan which involves the removal of obsolete old mussel rafts and the re-positioning of long lines to comply with licensing and environmental requirements. Inshore fisheries initiatives will total £45,000. BIM is putting in place pilot inshore fisheries development committees on a phased basis around the coast. South Wexford, the Dingle peninsula, west Galway and north Mayo are the locations of the first pilot projects. The additional funding sought for this year will underpin progress on these initiatives before the year's end. Further significant expansion of the inshore fisheries development committee network will take place in 2001. These initiatives are the cornerstone of a new strategic approach to conservation management and development of our inshore fisheries resources.

Marine diversification projects will total £32,000. The PESCA programme, now nearing completion, supported fishermen to diversify into marine leisure and tourism activities by the acquisition of dedicated vessels. Follow up support for promotional and marketing activities has been identified as critical for these projects. Funding will enable six promotional projects to proceed before the end of the year.

Under subhead L3, additional funding of £98,000 is required this year to facilitate projects under the petroleum infrastructure programme which supports infrastructure for petroleum exploration and development through training, goods and services, equipment purchase, limited data acquisition and research support.

Subhead U deals with appropriations-in-aid. Projected receipts of £53.123 million reflect a shortfall of £17.202 million on the original Estimate provision. The shortfall primarily relates to the postponement of forestry and fishery receipts from the EU under the respective operational programmes 1994-99; delays in EU advances and draw downs for forestry pending final approval of the regional operational programmes 2000-2006, and reduced levels of EAGGF funding under the regional operational programmes and rural development programme 2000-2006.

Estimated savings totalling more than £18 million are projected on a number of subheads under Vote 30. I understand that details in this regard have already been provided to the committee.

Total additional grant-in-aid funding of £11.387 million is requested; a reduction of £17.2 million in receipts is projected, and estimated savings of more than £18 million have been identified. A net Supplementary Estimate of £10,515,000 is required. The funding will enable the delivery of key strategic initiatives, notably for the fishing and aquaculture sectors at a most critical juncture for their future. The initiatives are designed to assist the sectors to adapt to the difficult environment which has emerged, and to overcome the considerable challenges faced.

Chairman

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, for taking us through the Supplementary Estimate. I welcome the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, to the committee. I will now call on Deputy Connaughton, Fine Gael spokesperson on the marine and natural resources to make his contribution.

Mr. Connaughton

For obvious reasons, Fine Gael will not oppose this Supplementary Estimate. If I had to be critical, however, I would say that some of the subheads are not enough, but at least an attempt has been made to deal with them.

I will bring a small matter to the attention of the Minister and his officials. When I received the Supplementary Estimate document a few days ago, I thought it would have contained far more information. Some of the information in the Minister's speech should have been in the document. I am used to dealing with other Departments, and a greater in-depth briefing of what we are doing here should have been included in the document. There should not be any difficulty in outlining at greater length what is behind this Supplementary Estimate. There is no reason it should not be done because the matter is transparent. It is unacceptable to receive a two or three page briefing on this matter when one is talking about an expenditure of £10 million or £12 million. The Department should have gone to more trouble to ensure the Supplementary Estimate was outlined more graphically, as some other Departments do.

When the Minister is summing up, he might provide some information about the relocation of the Marine Institute's research vessel. I take it the sum of £3.5 million we are discussing is a down payment on this vessel, but will the Minister give an indication of the total cost and where the vessel will be relocated? I fully understand its proposed purpose but I am not sure how it will be manned and where it will be positioned. I welcome any research programmes because we have not undertaken enough programmes of that nature in the past. In so far as this effort is concerned, I am totally behind it. In my book, anything to do with research always provides good value for money. However, I would like to have some more information about what exactly is involved in this project: the total cost, the vessel's location, its contact with the Marine Institute, and what sort of people will work aboard the vessel.

My central question concerns the increased cost of fuel oil for the shipping fleet and the huge increase in inflation. Is this being taken as an item under the aegis of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources? Given the huge costs involved, is this matter being benchmarked, because it appears that the Minister wants to achieve certain things with a small amount of money? I know the Minister cannot discuss what will happen in tomorrow's budget, but can I take it this is the Minister's way of helping the fishermen? Both the Minister and I have met groups of fishermen around the country and we know they have had a horrible year. Catches are down and the fishermen are facing increased fuel and labour costs. The Minister has outlined all that in his speech, but if this Estimate is the Government's answer to what fishermen are seeking, there will be a fight and a half. People in Killybegs, Castletownbere and elsewhere will be very disappointed if all they will receive is what is contained in this Supplementary Estimate. I assume there will be something major in the budget for them, although I do not know. I assume the Minister knows but cannot tell us. For the benefit of fishermen and their families around the coast, there had better be something more than what is outlined in this Supplementary Estimate or there will be many worried fishermen.

We all accept that the Minister will have a huge task in Brussels next week in so far as the proposed cuts in cod and hake catches are concerned. I am led to believe the Commissioner will seek between 50% and 75% cuts in the catches for these species. If that happens the hardship it will cause will be equalled only by that facing farmers over BSE. I have no idea how either of the two will pan out but it certainly looks like a winter of discontent whether one is a farmer or a fisherman. I have no doubt the Minister, in fairness to him, will fight his corner but I sincerely hope the Government will be behind him. Fisherman have told me - I cannot say I have experience of this one way or the other - that if it happens, there will be a dramatic reduction. I understand that in some parts of the EU, fishermen are not able to catch the quota allowed because it is not there. This is a hardy annual of the fishing community as to who is right - whether it is the scientists, the fishermen or the quota holders - but we will not go into that today. Something will have to be done by way of financial help for fishermen who have overheads and a crew and who are not allowed to catch fish; although even if they were, the fish might not be there. I hope this is being taken seriously. I am not sure it will be given the attention it deserves.

With that in mind, I formally propose that we, as an Oireachtas committee, issue an invitation to the various fishing interests to come here next Tuesday, given that the Minister will be in Brussels next Wednesday and Thursday, to outline their concerns and where they see problems arising so that when the Minister goes to Brussels the following day, he will know where he stands with those people. From a national point of view, it is important that the Minister of the day has the backing of his country. I am sure the Minister has heard much of what concerns the fishermen already but it should be heard formally within the confines of this Oireachtas committee.

I know very little about the fuel efficiency grant scheme. Will the Minister take us through it and outline how it will be administered? I see the environmental impact it will have but will it be too costly for the ordinary fisherman with an ordinary fishing boat to expend the type of resources needed? Will the Minister give us an indication of what the grant aid will be or will it be a full grant which will pay for the lot? Sometimes those fuel efficiency grants require a certain level of operation in terms of catches and the whole process and it may well be that many skippers will not be able to afford this and will not be able to avail of the scheme. Will the Minister give us an indication of exactly what he has in mind?

I was in Bantry recently - in fact, the Minister was there a week or two before me - and it appears the rope mussel sector is having huge problems. I was led to believe it was being decimated. It apparently cannot get the go ahead from the scientists and is not getting the necessary certification of good health for the mussels. If this continues, the industry will be wiped out. I understand some financial help will be given to help clean out the beds or bays as they are called. That will not do great good for reinvestment and all the things those involved will have to do. As the Minister is aware, huge store is put on the mussel sector as one of the growth areas. This funding will help clean out what is already there, but what about a restart programme or start up after that? What funding will that get here or in the budget? There has been huge under spending under many subheads. I find that difficult to understand because from what I can see of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and many other Departments, there is huge scope for investment. We are always being told the potential has not been reached. There is a series of things for which the Minister provided money but for whatever reason, the money was not taken up. I would like to know what is wrong. Is there a delay in the system somewhere along the line? For instance, coastal protection and management has been under funded down through the years under every Government so I do not understand how there is money left to go back to the Department. I would have thought people would have been screaming for coastal protection and management money.

On grants for the promotion of forestry, I had thought there was a huge increase in demand for afforestation, although I know there is not. I would like to know why that was not drawn down. If I had time, I would go through many other areas with the Minister. One could pick out five or six subheads for what would appear to be extremely important development but for whatever reason, the money the Oireachtas allocated has not been drawn down. Will the Minister give me some indication why that has happened?

While accepting the SuppIementary Estimate, it appears there are huge problems facing the fishing industry. I would like the committee to agree to my proposal to meet the interested groups before the Minister enters negotiations next Wednesday in Brussels with a view to strengthening his hand on that occasion.

Mr. J. Brady

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I do not know much about fishing because we do not do very much fishing other than a bit on the Blackwater and the Boyne. One thing that concerned me - Deputy Connaughton touched on it - was the savings which have arisen in the planting programme and that it has been slower than anticipated. Like Deputy Connaughton, I thought that not enough money was available for planting forestry.

I am very concerned about the amount of good land in my county and in other counties that is being planted with trees. With all the disadvantages in agriculture at present with the BSE scare and so forth, I suppose one cannot blame farmers for planting trees on good land. I saw millions of pounds being spent by the Office of Public Works on improving drainage in counties, including my own. After spending millions of pounds draining land for agriculture, we seem to be planting trees on it as well as on land that has not been drained. I would like to know the Minister's view on the afforestation of some of the finest land in this country.

Mr. Sheehan

I congratulate the Minister on his vision and wisdom in the short time he has been in office. He has made an impact in the industry. We will not hear too many complaints about him provided he keeps his ear to the ground and listens to the men of the sea. Be that as it may, I am very disappointed with the herring industry in the Celtic Sea this year. The quality is poor and the price is now lower than it was 30 years ago. I was talking to fishermen the other day who say they are only just breaking even due to the cost of oil for the boats. As Members know, the cost of running fishing boats has escalated enormously in the past 12 months. The Minister says he is going to invest £3.9 million in the promotion of marine research, with £3.5 million going to the new marine research vessel this year. What benefit will this vessel be to us when we see quotas for blue scabbard and other continental shelf fish that were not there before? Is the Minister satisfied that the quotas imposed on the Spanish fishing fleet are adhered to strictly? We seem to be good Europeans. Our farmers, fishermen and other citizens are good Europeans. However, Spain and other countries seem to flout the conservation laws and fishing quotas and they seem to get away with it. Has the Minister investigated the system of monitoring the landing of fish stocks in Spanish ports? I am led to believe it is a happy-go-lucky situation and we will have to be more vigilant about it. For the past 50 years I have seen Spanish fishing vessels trawling almost up to the coast of southwest Cork and Kerry.

I also maintain there is not much good in having research and conservation carried out unless the rules are adapted. Over the past 30 years I have seen young fish shovelled out to gulls from fishing trawlers, both foreign and Irish, coming into port. Something should be done to enlarge the mesh net or the trawl or whatever method is used to allow baby fish to escape. If one kills the baby stock, how can the north Atlantic stocks be replenished? We have failed hopelessly to salvage our fishing stock in the EU. We have the finest fish in the world in the north Atlantic but stocks are decimated with all the young fish being killed and shovelled out to the gulls on the way into port. I often doubt the wisdom of the policy which allows that, as the day will come when fishing stocks will be completely decimated. We are heading that way.

The majority of our whitefish catch is exported the minute it is landed in Castletownbere, Union Hall, Killybegs, Dingle and Howth. It is iced, put into refrigerated lorries and 90% of it is sent to the Spanish market. Recently we visited Grimsby on a fishery knowledge expedition and 5,000 boxes of fish came into that market that morning from the Faroes, Greenland, Norway and Scotland. That was processed by four factories in Grimsby and was then shipped out to various parts of Great Britain by 2.30 or 3 p.m., a few hours later. Those factories employed 300 people and we should be employing 200 to 300 people in places like Castletownbere, Union Hall and Killybegs processing fish for the Spanish markets. The Spanish are making all the money out of our raw material. We are forgetting about that.

In regard to aquaculture, the Minister mentioned Bantry Bay, Kenmare Bay, Dunmanus Bay and Killary Bay and said that 9,000 rope mussels have not been harvested, which amounts to £6 million, because of the red tide. I tabled a question for oral answer regarding the steps the Minister would take to monitor the effect of the red tide on aquaculture. The reply was that the red tide had no bearing on the matter. I circulated that to people in Bantry who said the Department must not be au fait with the matter.

Sitting suspended at 5.48 p.m. and resumed at 6.10 p.m.

Mr. Sheehan

I mentioned a parliamentary question to the Minister on 17 October 2000. I asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the steps he would take to combat the threat of the red tide menace to the aquaculture and mariculture industries. The reply stated:

I should clarify for the Deputy that the organism responsible for "red tide" does not produce toxins that can accumulate in shellfish or finfish tissue and does not, therefore, pose a threat to human health through the consumption of fish or shellfish.

A range of other algal blooms are directly associated with the presence of biotoxins in shellfish. A comprehensive and rigorous programme of testing for biotoxins in shellfish, is essential to protect public health and market and consumer confidence in Irish shellfish product. The national biotoxin programme is being enhanced and resourced through a range of actions involving all the State agencies concerned including the Food Safety Authority, my Department, the Marine Institute and BIM, to ensure that the highest standards are in place in the interest of consumer safety industry and customer confidence. The industry is being consulted on all the measures being taken.

Mr. Fahey

There is a misunderstanding there.

Mr. Sheehan

When I gave a copy of this to every mussel producer in west Cork they said the Minister was gone——

Mr. Fahey

It is called AZP. It is a different toxin from the one the Deputy mentioned.

Mr. Sheehan

The red tide was the reason the mussels in Bantry, Roaringwater and Dunmanus Bays were thrown out. I know that well.

Chairman

The Minister said he will explain when replying. If there is another vote we cannot come back as another meeting is scheduled for this room at 6.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanton

Can the Minister tell us about Subhead L.3, the infrastructure support group? Who gets that money and what do they do with it?

Regarding savings, Deputy Connaughton has already alluded to marine and natural resources tourism and said that the savings were due to delays in putting in place marine tourism and leisure projects and certain mining tourism projects? What specific projects have been delayed?

There was a similar reply regarding coastal protection and management in that savings were due to delays in the commencement, and slower progress than expected. Where are these projects and what was due to be done that has not been done?

The same question arises with regard to subhead G.1 - a slower than anticipated rate of progress with certain harbour works. Will the Minister tell us where these works are to be carried out, which ones have been delayed and when does he expect them to start?

Is my area of east Cork part of any coastal protection or tourism initiatives? Has the Minister yet received the report that he has been awaiting for months from Cork County Council, on coastal protection in Youghal, where at least £5 million of work is required? I cannot use unparliamentary language but will the Minister write a stiff letter to Cork County Council to send on that report, as the strand in Youghal is disappearing by the minute? With every storm we have, we are losing feet of strand. It is not good enough that a report is sitting in Cork County Council while the Minister hands back to the Exchequer money he cannot spend. I ask him to act pro-actively on this.

Mr. Fahey

I thank Deputies for their positive contributions and critical analysis. This is one of the most significant Supplementary Estimates ever introduced by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and is far and away the highest amount of money ever gained in a Supplementary Estimate.

The £4 million for the fishing sector to deliver quality, safety and fuel efficiency is in response - but is not the only response - to the difficulties experienced by that sector for a variety of reasons, most of all because of the fuel crisis. The £3 million package will be built around quality, fuel efficiency, safety and conservation. As an example of the practical nature of the programme, we will run a series of seminars on quality between now and Christmas and every fisherman, deck hand or skipper who attends will be paid £500 for attendance. That is a practical measure to put money into fishermen's pockets after they have been affected by recent difficulties. That is one measure and there will be further measures in the new year. As Deputy Connaughton said, I cannot anticipate what will be in the budget tomorrow, but this £4 million is a significant amount that has not been given before. It is a once-off measure to deal with recent difficulties.

Mr. Connaughton

Will those fishermen be registered? What if their families come with them? How will the Minister decide who gets £500?

Mr. Fahey

There will be criteria laid down and strict guidelines will apply. BIM and the industry have discussed these measures and they are already agreed in principle. We do not anticipate any difficulties with them.

The same applies to the £2.5 million for the rope mussel sector. It is designed to deal with the problems identified by Deputy Sheehan. That industry is devastated and it is intended first to help with re-stocking, which is costly, and we will also provide financial aid to assist shellfish growers to salvage shellfish product. We will put significant extra money into a better monitoring system. We are concerned with the monitoring system. We are and have been in discussion with the industry to make it more efficient and to ensure we do not close areas unless it is absolutely necessary. However, our absolute prerogative has to be food safety. Let us make no bones about that.

Deputy Connaughton asked about the fuel efficiency scheme, which comprises a range of measures which have largely been agreed with the industry to improve vessel management systems with advanced computer technology, vessel trawl monitoring systems and improved on-board insulation. Vessel fuel efficiency savings have been made in Scotland and we are considering doing something similar. We will provide up to 40% grant-in-aid support to vessel owners to introduce a number of these systems and to put in new equipment, including new, fuel-efficient engines. There is a series of initiatives there and I have no difficulty in providing further money, as the year progresses, under this heading.

Mr. Connaughton

Do these relate to the new safety proposals?

Mr. Fahey

No, safety proposals will also be incorporated.

Mr. Connaughton

They come under a different heading.

Mr. Fahey

Yes. We will have further proposals in this regard. It is all contained in the Book of Estimates. It is not correct to say this is simply an additional amount we require in a Supplementary Estimate.

I accept Deputy Connaughton's point that there are major difficulties in the whitefish sector. The whole question of the quotas now being proposed will undoubtedly bring hardship and we all accept that. We have been very aggressive in putting forward alternative means of preserving our whitefish stocks outside the tack and quota system, which we believe is a blunt instrument that has not worked. Consequently, we have twice had discussions with the Commissioner and his staff on a series of technical measures, such as the reduction of mesh sizes, the closing of spawning areas and the provision of observers on board. We are adamant that we want progress on those initiatives. We hope to proceed this year with further developments along those lines. A huge amount of fish is being thrown overboard, as Deputy Sheehan pointed out. There is a huge amount of waste and undoubtedly the big factory ships are not being monitored in the same way as they should on the pelagic side, therefore we will be very aggressive in trying to fight our cause in Brussels with the quotas. However, we must be realistic, and the fishermen know best of all, that some of the stocks, particularly cod, are almost extinct and every single measure that can be taken must be availed of. We will fight our corner as best we can.

Regarding deep sea species, we are new to this sector and we are concerned by the imposition of quotas. We will put considerable extra resources into the industry this year to try to carry out more research and to exploit those species even more. We feel there is potential there.

Regarding the research vessel, the £3.5 million now being provided allows us to make a down payment of £5.7 million on this boat, which will be the best in the world. It costs £25 million and Deputy Connaughton will be delighted to know this boat, the Celtic Explorer, will be based in Galway.

Mr. Connaughton

We will not blame the Minister for that.

Mr. Sheehan

One would always expect a Minister to christen it.

Mr. Fahey

Regarding Deputy Sheehan's comments, we are far behind the rest of our competitor nations in terms of our knowledge of what is happening off our coastline. This vessel and the seabed survey now commenced will give us significant extra knowledge and with that knowledge will come more fishing opportunities such as those we now see in the deep sea sector.

Deputy Sheehan mentioned herring. Herring prices have been low for some years. There are some signs of improvement. Quality was a big issue for the Celtic Sea herring and we have provided quite an amount of extra resources to improve quality. Again, there is a need for improved conservation and some of the technical measures I talked about are now being taken.

I agree with Deputy Sheehan about marketing and processing. We are now taking significant steps in this area and Members will see grants to enable people to take early retirement from BIM. There is a new marketing manager in the organisation who is bringing in a new team, so there will be major emphasis on marketing our product. We have just completed a study by Indecon on the processing sector and we will invest significantly in restructuring that sector. Again, I agree entirely with Deputy Sheehan's sentiments and we will take them on board. Raw material leaves Ireland which should have processing and value-added sides to it.

Mr. Sheehan

The red tide?

Mr. Fahey

There are a number of these toxins which may be euphemistically described as red tide but the main problem toxins are AZP, DZP, TSP and ASP; those are the technical terms. Those are the biotoxins that have caused the greatest difficulty, and AZP in particular. The opening sentence of the reply related to the scientific advice from Marine Institute scientists. The reply was trying to be helpful but there may have been some misunderstanding. We will clarify that.

Mr. Sheehan

We never have any trouble with the mussel industry on the southwest coast until the red tide appears. Then the Department of Health and Children closes down the whole operation. I do not know what is wrong.

Mr. Fahey

What the Deputy calls red tide may not necessarily be red tide. It may be a specific type of biotoxin. The difficulty is that if these tests are not positive, then from a food safety perspective we have no option but to close down those bays. We are examining the type of testing being done, particularly the 24 hour test Deputy Connaughton mentioned, and we are trying to bring in a more effective chemical test. We are establishing new chemical labs which will enable us to be more accurate so that it may not be necessary to close bays as in the past. Our overriding consideration has to be food safety.

Mr. Connaughton

I take the Minister's point. The funding in the Supplementary Estimates goes primarily to cleaning out the bays. Am I reading that right?

Mr. Fahey

And restoring the capability for production. In other words, we will assist mussel farmers to rebuild the industry.

Mr. Connaughton

How does the Minister propose to do that? I am not an expert.

Mr. Fahey

There will be a detailed scheme worked out. The details are being worked out by BIM and the industry and we will give out more information on that shortly.

Mr. Sheehan

I warn the Minster about the overstocking of mussel lines in any bay. That is like having too many cattle on a farm; they die for the want of food. If there are too many mussel lines in a bay the quality evaporates completely.

Mr. Fahey

Regarding the meeting with fishermen Deputy Connaughton proposed, I am in constant contact with the fishermen's organisations and met two of them last week. I do not see a benefit in further round table meetings next week, but we propose discussing some of our responses with the industry between now and the lead-up to the Council meeting. We are trying to represent their position as best we can. We discussed their major concerns with them in the past week and we are continuing to do so. We are happy to make available to them the scientific case our team is putting together and to involve them. I have invited them to become involved in the Council in Brussels. They appear satisfied with that.

Mr. Connaughton

While it is not an issue as far as I, the Minister and the committee are concerned, it is good practice for those groups to come in to this committee, just as it is for other interest groups and other committees.

Mr. Fahey

I have no difficulty with the fishermen coming in but it would serve no useful purpose next week, as we are all engaged intensively with the preparations and we would not achieve anything with a meeting with the committee. I am happy to meet so that we can have any discussion of the industry as we progress.

Chairman

Deputy Connaughton is proposing we meet the fisheries organisations. We would not invite the Minister.

Mr. Fahey

That is a matter for the committee.

Mr. Sheehan

We will not be able to communicate with the Minister in Europe.

Chairman

We will get a message to the Minister.

Mr. Fahey

It would be the first time the committee failed to communicate with me. It is always welcome to communicate with me.

Deputy Sheehan mentioned Spanish fishermen. Obviously, we must be responsible in terms of our controls and agreements and in staying within EU legislation. We would expect every other country to do likewise. I have no evidence to suggest the Spanish are any different. If that is not the case, I would be happy to bring the matter to the attention of my Spanish counterpart.

Mr. Sheehan

Has the Minister ever tasted paella, which contains the young of various species of fish, on his trips to Spain or the Canaries? At what locations do the Spanish catch those fish?

Mr. Fahey

I suggest that the Deputy's evidence is anecdotal in nature and there would be a need to obtain concrete proof. If he can provide proper evidence, I will gladly take it on board.

One of the major difficulties to which the three Deputies referred is that money is not being spent. I am equally disappointed that money is returned to the Department of Finance. There is no point in denying that a problem exists, the kernel of which is that local authorities, which are responsible for delivering many of our programmes, are simply not geared up to carry out the relevant work. In respect of the coastal erosion programmes, local authorities are not able to carry out the amount of work required of them.

There are also problems relating to planning, objections, environmental considerations, etc., which have affected the harbour programme. For example, the Killybegs harbour project has taken much longer to plan than originally anticipated and the costs involved have also increased. There have also been problems with a number of the marina projects, a number of which - such as those at Rosses Point, Cahirciveen and other locations - have been on the blocks for some time.

The lead-in period to major development projects is sometimes much longer than normal and this year we are trying to ensure that planning matters are expedited and that the objections we received are dealt with more effectively. The number of those objections has risen, particularly in view of the involvement of Dúchas. The ability of the construction industry to deliver on contracts has become a major factor and we are considering ways that will allow us to deal with this problem. It will not be easy to do so because the type of marine engineering projects to which I refer are quite large in nature and there are a limited number of contractors capable of dealing with them.

With regard to the case in Cork, I do not know whether we have received a report from Cork County Council. We have been in contact with the council and pressed it to provide the report. We are aware of the urgency of the situation and we will try to respond as quickly as possible.

I have covered most of the points that have been made. As already stated, further initiatives will be taken which are already detailed in the Book of Estimates. Obviously, I cannot comment on tomorrow's budget but we are keeping our fingers crossed.