We will deal today with the Estimate for the Department of the Marine. I welcome the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Coveney, and the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore. I have circulated a proposed time schedule for this evening's business for information and I propose, by agreement, to conclude not later than 6 p.m. I call on the Minister for the Marine to make his opening statement.
Vote 30 — Marine (Revised Estimate).
As this is my first appearance before the committee. I thank Members for the opportunity of discussing the Estimates. I look forward to the exchange of views.
The Estimate calls for gross expenditure of £56.5 million by the Department of the Marine in 1995. When once-off 1994 factors are taken out of the picture, the Estimate represents a significant commitment of additional resources to the marine sector by the Government The once-off factors were the special aid to the fishing industry arising from exceptionally bad weather in the winter of 1993-94 and the award of ex-gratiapayments to certain former Irish Shipping employees.
Before commenting in detail on policy issues and the Estimates, I would like to speak briefly about the Strategic Management Initiative which is underway at present in all Government Departments, including the Department of the Marine. The full process in my Department has involved a thoroughgoing and fundamental analysis of the Department. We seek to define our mission with maximum clarity and build an organisation which will carry out that mission to the highest standard. The Government is determined to modernise the public service, building on its strengths and tackling its weaknesses. The public service must serve better the needs of its customers, while ensuring the general taxpayer gets value for money.
The Department of the Marine has general responsibility for regulating, protecting and developing the marine resource. The Strategic Management Initiative has identified five core mandates in this context. They are: protecting and saving lives at sea; protection of the marine environment, including the aquatic environment for freshwater fish species; regulation and development of fishing sectors; regulation and development of maritime transport sectors; and regulation and development of the marine coastal zone for economic and leisure purposes.
The SMI has recognised a number of factors. For example: the deeply held view among the marine community that the marine resource and marine administration have not in the past always been a high enough priority on the national agenda; the growing recognition that the marine sector is important and has the potential to contribute more in a tangible way to the economic and social life of the nation; and the strong commitment of the Department of the Marine and its staff to promoting the safety and interests of the marine sectors.
Resulting from the SMI process, the Department will dedicate itself to working closely with agencies and sectors and meeting customers' needs with equity and integrity. The Department will seek to ensure safer seas and ships, cleaner waters, the development of our fisheries, competitive maritime transport services and sustainable marine zone management. Management and programme objectives, together with the strategic initiatives which are required to enable the Department to deliver on its mission, have been established.
In addition to the SMI, among the most notable developments of the past year were the following: the launch of the £140 million Fisheries Operational Programme; the launch of the £19 million Tourism Angling Programme; the Port Investment Programme of over £130 million; the arrival of the new £46 million vessel "Isle of Inisfree"; the imminent arrive of the Stena Sealink high speed vessel and related investment at Dún Laoghaire Harbour, and the launch of the thoroughgoing overhaul of marine policy. I will return to a number of those developments, but I would like at this stage to comment on a number of important live policy issues which I think will be of interest to Deputies.
Given the importance which the Minister of State and I attach to it, I will comment now on the overhaul of marine policy which is underway at present. The Government's programme commits us to pursue an integrated approach to the protection and development of our marine resources. It has been a consistent theme of debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas that we have not begun to realise the full potential of the marine sector. The purpose of the review is to address this acknowledged deficiency. I want to see tha potential unlocked in the interests of regional development, job creation and national economic and social prosperity. To do so, we need to reassess policies and strategies and develop a coherent vision of the way forward. The review will be undertaken in full consultation with the many sectoral interests in the marine area and those inputs will critically inform the process.
We are taking three specific initiatives which will advance the review process in a practical way. First, we will have public debate on the issues involved. The Marine Institute has been invited to arrange a series of high public seminars focusing on the separate dimensions of marine policy. This will get under way in June. Second, we will bring together a Marine Advisory Council. The council will include independent experts of international standing to advise on longer-term strategic options in marine policy. Third, a major review of the organisational and management structure of the fishery service is under way and is being undertaken by independent counsultants. This review will look at the institutional framework for the sea fisheries, aquaculture and inland fisheries sectors. The reviews will be comprehensive and will cover all State agencies operating in the sectors together with the related functions and services of the Department of the Marine, including the management of the Fishery Harbour Centres. It will advise on any changes necessary to improve the coherence and efficiency of the delivery of public policies and services to those sectors.
Since taking office, I have been listening carefully to the views of many individuals and organisations on the present structure of the fishery service. While there has been praise for the commitment and professionalism of the staff of the fishery service, there are strong and conflicting views on its overall efficiency and coherence. This points to the need for a review of the kind now under way. It also ties in with the strategic management process at the wider public sector level and in the Department of the Marine. Our only agenda in this exercise is how best to harness the human and financial resources of the State's fishery services in the best interests of the sectors and in the public interest. The challenges arising due to pressures on fish stocks, on the marine and freshwater environment and from the development opportunities presented by increased EU funding makes it imperative that we get value for money.
Before turning to the Estimates, I would like to talk briefly about shipping policy. For an island State, located on the geographical periphery of Europe and critically dependent on shipping to carry over 75 per cent of our international trade, it is axiomatic that a national shipping policy should emphasise the importance of efficient, competitive and safe shipping services to meet the needs of Irish trade and tourism. In this context, we have a long-standing policy of full commercial freedom of shipping in this country. I believe that the balance of national advantage continues to lie in that direction. Nevertheless, within the framework of a cohesive national maritime policy it will be important to endeavour to accommodate, as far as possible, other often competing considerations. How, for example, do we ensure as a country that the pool of native maritime skills and expertise does not dry up, if employment opportunities for Irish and other EU seafarers continue to be curtailed by the availability of third world crews at 30 per cent or less of the cost of EU seafarers?
Any review of reformulation of our national shipping policy is bound to be a problematic exercise in the light of global shipping developments during the past ten years. Nevertheless, the strategic objective of a review — under way at present and which is to be concluded later this year in consultation with the social partners — is to enable Irish shipping companies meet international competition under comparable cost conditions and with consequent employment and economic benefits but without any compromise on safety. That is clearly a difficult problem to deal with.
In the past this forum has noted that the marine sector has been underfunded. I agee with that. A look at the Estimates themselves will indicate that I have been able to address this issue in some respects. The Estimates before this committee seek to enhance our capabilities as a nation to maximise the benefits which may be gained from the marine resources at our doorstep. They represent a commitment to invest in the future and in research for the future.
I will now make some comments about the subheads themselves. I will deal with the administration budget, subheads A.1 to A.7, first. The administration budget expenditures will increase from £9.5 million in 1994, to £9.9 million in 1995. Administrative budget expenditures support and underpin all the other programmes of the Department of the Marine. The budget has been under extreme pressure in recent years, arising particularly from the needs of new marine safety, marine environmental and other programmes. The increased resources of £410,000, allocated in 1995, reflect these pressures.
I will deal next with Marine Safety and Shipping Services. Expenditure under the Marine Safety and Shipping Services Programme will increase from £8.5 million in 1994, to £9.5 million in 1995. In commenting on marine safety I take this opportunity, as Minister, to pay tribute to all those involved in the task — vital in the literal sense — of protecting and saving life at sea. These include the crews of my Department's contract helicopter and the Defence Forces. I may not pass over the excellent and voluntary contribution of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution — recognised in a small way in this programme — and the Coast Life Saving Service teams organised under the auspices of the Department's Marine Emergency Service.
The Irish Marine Emergency Service of the Department is responsible for the bulk — almost £6 million — of the expenditure under this programme in 1995. The service is responsible for operational control and co-ordination aspects of all types of marine emergency response, including search and rescue, sea and coastal pollution, shipwreck and casualty response. The major part of that allocation is for the IMES medium range SAR helicopter service based at Shannon which — to the end of April 1995 — has flown 494 missions and saved 329 lives. As has been noted in the brief for Deputies, progress on the LORAN C Navigation System is on hold, at present, pending completion of court proceedings under way.
I will deal next with harbour development and coast protection, subheads D.1 to E. Expenditure from the Marine Vote under the harbour development and coast protection programme will be £4.2 million in 1995. Deputies will be aware, however, that the bulk of investment funds in ports is channelled through the public capital programme, in all some £31 million in 1995. The allocation for commercial ports in the Estimates provides for some small grants towards capital works, including feasibility and technical studies, at ports which have funding difficulty. A major port investment programme of £130 million to £140 million, for the period up to 1999, is planned. This programme will be funded from ports' own resources, borrowings and EU aid. The programme for the spending of that money will be announced shortly.
Priority will be given to investment in the strategic ports of Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Rosslare, Waterford, Cork, Foynes and Limerick. A programme of investment in the main regional ports, to support regional development, is also planned. This programme involves the improvement of commercial harbour infrastructure, including optimising the use of existing harbour infrastructure and resources to facilitate the provision of fast, reliable, direct and cost-effective sea passenger and freight services. This policy also involves major changes in the management structures of the main ports and improvement in labour relations and cargo handling practices. The text of the Harbours Bill has now been approved by Government, and is being printed with a view to early introduction in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Bill will provide for the introduction of commercial semi-State structures at the larger commercial seaports. The main thrust of the new legislation — which is designed to facilitate commercialisation and a more customer responsive service — will be to relax ministerial control whole increasing accountability for operational and financial performance.
In relation to coastal protection, I note the application of EU funding to the development of environmentally sensitive methods of coastal protection which was commented upon in the brief for Deputies. The ECOPRO project could provide valuable lessons for the future management of threatened coastlines. Coastal erosion is a serious and growing problem. This is recognised in the Government's policy document A Government of Renewal, which states that the Government will “develop and implement a targeted coast protection policy”. This is under way in conjunction with local authorities with a view to drawing up a programme of national priorities to be undertaken between now and 1999. This year’s programme of work is the beginning of that process.
The £670,000 allocated in 1995 will be utilised to continue the works at Rosslare Strand, County Wexford, to build on the works undertaken in previous years at the Maharees, County Kerry, and the commencement of a new scheme at Bray, County Wicklow. A number of other schemes are under consideration in the context of available resources. I am satisfied that these works will go a long way to providing a permanent solution to the problem of coastal erosion affecting these particular areas. The amount of money necessary to deal with this problem, in its totality, would be quite prohibitive. It will take much time and many choices will have to be made along the way.
With regard to Marine Research, subheads F.1 to F.3, expenditure under the Marine Research Programme will amount to £4.6 million in 1995. This is an increase from the 1994 figure of £2.4 million. Marine research is essential if we are to realise the potential of the marine sector. To enable us to fully exploit our marine resources, we need to establish a broad range of marine expertise and facilities. Deputies will see from the Book of Estimates that there is to be a major increase in research spending in 1995. Research is the way to development. This year's Marine Vote for research is, in that sense, also a vote of confidence in the future.
The Marine Institute, which was established in 1992, is responsible for the development and management of the marine and fisheries research and technological activities needed to underpin economic development. The institute also has responsibility for overseeing the allocation of EU grantaid under the recently launched EU Operational Programme for Fisheries (1994-1999). This programme provides for investment of over £8 million in marine research. The main objective of the funding is to enhance the performance of the Irish marine sector through research and technology transfer and to provide the research and technological development capacity to support sustainable development of all marine resources. The Marine Institute has, since its foundation, made steady progress to enable it to deliver on its statutory obligations. Its significant increase in funding this year will enhance its capacity to develop our natural marine resource. The increase in funding for the fisheries research centre in the Department and the continued payment of a significant grant-in-aid to the Salmon Research Agency is further evidence of the Government's commitment to marine research.
Expenditure under the sea fisheries and aquaculture programme will be £13 million in 1995. Again, there is a significant commitment of additional resources, especially when the 1994 once-off special payments to the fishing industry are discounted.
Before commenting in detail on the programme, I would like to touch on some policy issues here. The agreement reached at the Fisheries Council in Brussels last December on the integration of Spain and Portugal into the Common Fisheries Policy was a satisfactory outcome, in all the circumstances, for Ireland. I believe that it will provide continuing protection for the Irish fishing industry. Since December much work and tough negotiations have gone into translating this political agreement, line by line, into hard and binding arrangements enforced by Council Regulation. We have maintained a determined approach in these negotiations to ensure that the arrangements will provide for a stringent and effective management of fishing effort, and in particular for real control and enforcement. The draft regulation reflects in every way what we signed up for in December. I would like to pay tribute to the officials in my Department who conducted that painstaking work with considerable success. In the negotiations, we secured a number of key concessions. There will be no increase in the quotas available in Irish waters to Spanish vessels and that is not widely understood. Spanish fishing effort is to be maintained at its present level — a maximum of 93 vessels — and, significantly, will continue to be distributed on the basis of existing geographic spread. We have, nonetheless, managed to secure continuing recognition of and protection for "the Irish Box". Spanish vessels will be totally excluded from the Irish Sea. Only 40 named vessels of the 93 will be allowed to fish in other parts of the Irish Box. Here again, these 40 vessels will continue to be distributed in accordance with the existing geographic spread.
One of our main objectives was to ensure that the control and enforcement provisions would be stringent and effective. I am happy to say that our key proposals, notably real time catch reporting and a greatly enhanced role for the coastal state, were included in the final agreement. We also managed to secure recognition of the heavy financial burden faced by Ireland on fishing surveillance by getting a firm commitment at Council giving us additional financial resources. While there is still some unfinished business to turn these commitments into hard realities, I will be building on the progress to date at the forthcoming June Council and look forward to a positive outcome for Ireland.
I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the recent fishing dispute between Canada and the EU. The committee will be aware that an agreement was reached last month. I am hopeful that the resulting settlement will prove effective and lasting, in the interests of all the parties and to the benefit of management control and conservation of fish stocks which must be the primary concern and responsibility of us all. I am happy to say that two representatives of the Naval Service and one inspector from our Department are actively involved in the monitoring of that agreement.
I stress again, as I have done in a number of fora since the issue emerged, that Ireland's principled solidarity with the EU throughout the dispute should not be represented as being soft on conservation. Far from it, we share the conservation concerns of Canada and other states. Ireland has been at the forefront in the EU in pressing for tighter controls and enforcement in the management and conservation of fish stocks. The Irish industry, I am glad to say, agrees that its own long term interest lies in having a tightly controlled system for it and for everyone else. I should emphasise "for everyone else" first. However, there has been great difficulty in persuading many of the fishing states in Europe to go the same route. We are continuing our efforts to ensure that all necessary control measures are put in place in EU waters. The EU/Canada dispute centred on fishing activities in international waters.
It is important to clarify that the responsibility of a state to ensure that fishing regulations are complied with in its own waters is quite another and separate matter. Normal fisheries control activities carried out in Irish waters have no connection with the dispute between the EU and Canada. We are committed to ensuring that there is strict adherence to the rules by all vessels on our waters. This is essential for the proper management of fish stocks. Since last year increased resources, notably the two new Casa aircraft, have significantly enhanced the Irish fisheries surveillance capability. Since 1 January the protection services have boarded over 250 fishing vessels and detained 24 vessels. There is no targeting of particular fleets and the statistics bear this out. As I have said, however, we are determined to control and enforce conservation measures on all vessels fishing in these waters whether they be Irish, French, British, Spanish or others. Our policy is non-discriminatory when it comes to conservation. It is and will continue to be firmly and objectively geared to cracking down on illegal fishing activity, irrespective of nationality. The operational programme for fisheries provides for the comprehensive development of the fisheries sector for the period up to 1999. The relevant programmes are designed to maintain and strengthen the fishing industry's contribution to the national economy. The programme covers all areas of fisheries: fleet, aquaculture, processing and marketing, harbours, training and research.
The future viability of Ireland's coastal communities depends on the provision of adequate facilities for the fishing industry. In this regard, I am fully committed to providing a well-equipped harbours infrastructure at strategically located landing places around the coast. This year's Estimates allocation of £3 million will be used to finance the second phase of development works at Kilmore Quay, County Wexford, including the reconstruction of the east breakwater and berthing wall; the completion of the pier extension at Darby's Point, County Mayo; and the upgrading of facilities at the fishery harbour centres owned by my Department, including major structural renewals to the quays at Dunmore East.
Over the last number of months I have visited a number of fishery harbours and met with local delegations to discuss the requirements of the fisheries sector with regard to landing facilities. I am satisfied that significant investment is required at our landing places. However, the funding available for infrastructural improvements of fishery harbours, over the period to the end of 1999, is insufficient to meet investment needs and I will therefore be making every effort to secure additional Exchequer funding for this important area. That will certainly be one of my priorities. I am sure that the Members of the committee will support me in this regard.
Other expenditure within the programme will proceed in accordance with the operational programme for fisheries to which I referred earlier and to which a total of £140 million —£62 million of which will come from Structural Funds — has been earmarked in the period up to 1999. The operational programme will comprehend, for example, the following measures: restructuring and modernisation of the fishing fleet in conformity with EU targets and to increase the take-up of under-exploited fishing opportunities; new aquaculture projects and the expansion of existing facilities, new species development, production methods and technical support services; ice plant projects at key fishing ports; new processing facilities, equipment and installations and upgrading of existing facilities; development and strengthening of markets for fish and fish products; and development of the skills base needed to support employment in the fisheries sector.
Our inland fisheries are a valuable resource. Concentrated mainly in the more disadvantaged areas of the country, they offer significant opportunities for jobs and economic activity. The year 1995 sees a major commitment of additional resources to the sector, with voted moneys now exceeding £13 million. In recognition of the importance of our inland fisheries resource, a comprehensive investment programme in the tourism angling product totalling almost £19 million over the six year period 1994 to 1999 has been included in the tourism operational programme.
The purpose of the tourism angling measure is to ensure that our coarse, game and sea angling is upgraded to the best international standards with a view to substantially increasing tourist angling and revenue and the creation of valuable sustainable new jobs, particularly in the more remote and disadvantaged areas where the majority of our prime fisheries are located. The main areas of development under the tourism angling measure include, for example: physical in-stream and bank development; stock management; provision of improved systems for monitoring and protecting water quality; rehabilitation of depleted sea trout fisheries; and acquisition of certain strategic sport fisheries. These measures will contribute directly to an enhanced angling tourism product with consequent generation of jobs and revenue. I thank members of the committee for their attention and I look forward to the discussions which will follow. The Minister of State and I will be happy to take your questions. As members know, he is dealing with certain areas, inland fisheries in particular. We can share questions.
Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you for keeping to our time schedule for today's debate. We will now have the opening statement from the Fianna Fáil spokesperson, Deputy Browne.
I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State and I welcome the very detailed document the Minister presented. It goes into very fine detail about how he sees the fishing industry developing over the coming year. I notice that in his speech the Minister has been very complimentary to himself in saying that he has been able to negotiate a substantial increase in the estimates for the coming year. He will need further substantial amounts of money if he is to carry through what he outlined here today.
The fishing industry throughout the EU is going through a period of change at present. It is only right that we in Ireland should have another look at the development of the fishing industry. I welcome the Minister's overhaul of Marine policy. He states clearly that he will look at all aspects of the industry including sea fishing, aquaculture and inland fisheries. All of these sectors make a very worthwhile contribution to our economy but at times they do not work hand in hand. Co-ordination between these sectors needs to be improved. I am sure that the Minister in his overall review will be looking at this area because sea fisheries is very important for job creation and for the economy, as are aquaculture and inland fisheries. Inland fisheries has perhaps not got the priority it has deserved over the years. There is tremendous scope for tourism development in this area which will in turn create jobs with the resultant economic benefits to local communities. I ask the Minister to seriously consider how our inland fisheries can be further developed in the coming year.
The Minister also mentioned port and harbour development. Port development has been piecemeal to date. The Minister talks about major expenditure in port development in Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Rosslare, Waterford, Cork, Foynes and Limerick. These ports are not competitive enough and this problem has to be addressed. Many exporters export through Larne and Belfast because it is far cheaper to do so. It never ceases to amaze me how exporters from the south-east, for example, can haul their product to Larne and Belfast and export it more cheaply. They will say openly that this is a fact. When the Minister is reviewing port policy and development he should look seriously at this issue. Poor industrial relations, bad work practices and outdated structures have probably contributed to this over the years but I am sure with the massive expenditure the Minister is now proposing he will address those problems and ensure that more jobs are created in the ports he mentioned. It is not in the best interests of the country that people bypass our ports and use other ports to export their product.
Many harbours around the coastline are in need of adequate funding. Too often such development is left to the local authority, particularly in the smaller harbours. Small harbours are very important to local areas and local authorities do not seem to have the funding to develop them. The Minister must examine this area seriously because there is tremendous potential for development of our fisheries and job creation in relation to harbours and access to harbours. The roads and harbour facilities are bad and the local authorities do not have the wherewithal to develop them.
Irish fishermen are at present wondering what the future holds for them because the EU is directing their future with quota restrictions and decommissioning of boats. They are very concerned and the Minister must address their concerns. It seems unfair to me that when we talk about over-capacity of about 40 per cent in the EU Ireland has been asked to do her share because when one considers that Ireland has 1,500 boats in Ireland and Spain 17,000 boats, one would have to say that Ireland is not causing the over-capacity in Europe. It is important to protect the fishing industry in this country. We have to look seriously at the modernisation of the Irish fishing fleet. Many of our boats are old and out of date. Boats over 30 years of age in particular need funding. These boats have been excluded by the Minister and by regulations in recent times. Many fishermen have contacted me since I started this job asking me to ask the Minister to look seriously at providing funding to help bring boats over 30 years old up to the required standard, because their owners are not in a position to buy new boats. They are not even in a position to partially modernise the boats. They need Government funding and I ask the Minister to consider providing some.
I also ask the Minister to look seriously at the Spanish problem because Irish fishermen are very concerned about continuous illegal fishing by Spanish boats. I appreciate that the Minister has done a reasonable job and I compliment the Naval Service which has done a tremendous job over the last three or four months in apprehending so many boats illegally fishing off our coastline. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether it is the case that while the navy boat is bringing in one Spanish fishing boat which has been apprehended for illegal fishing, other Spanish trawlers are fishing in Irish waters because there are not enough naval vessels to patrol the Irish Box. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what naval presence is in the Irish Box when a Spanish trawler is being escorted into port.
The method of operation of the Spanish fleet leaves a lot to be desired and the Minister must continue to put severe pressure on the EU and on the Spanish Government to cease these illegal operations. Many Irish fishermen feel that if the Spanish trawlers are not apprehended they are landing their illegal catch back home in Spain at ports with the full support and knowledge of the Spanish Government and the Spanish Department of the Marine. I know that the Minister has taken strong action on that matter but even more severe action is needed, particularly in advance of the changes in January 1996. Irish fishermen are concerned that if we are not able to keep them under control at present, we will be even less successful from 1 January 1996. I appreciate the Minister has negotiated special funds for control and monitoring that within the EC and perhaps he would tell us how much money he expects to acquire for this monitoring and controlling of Irish waters.
I ask the Minister to look seriously at training and again it is important to update the facilities available for training fishermen. Training is very important to the industry as it is to any industry. BIM is involved in this area at present, but extra funding is required for the Greencastle fishery training school. It is difficult for fishermen to get away for training, particularly those with families. On most boats, the money acquired for the catch is shared between the fishermen. If they go on a training course for a week or two, they have a problem securing money to look after their families. This problem must be addressed. In reply to a Dáil question recently, the Minister said he would examine the need for mobile training units in smaller harbours and ports. In terms of smaller boats, people are not in a position to go to Greencastle or other such facilities and mobile units would be an ideal way of providing a training service for these fishermen.
Erosion is a major problem in most coastal areas, including County Wexford. I appreciate that the Minister is continuing to make funds available for Rosslare harbour. Thousands of acres on the County Wexford coastline have been washed into the sea. This causes problems for farmers through loss of land, but it also causes problems for smaller communities in the context of tourism development. Vast areas of land have been washed into the sea with the result that some caravan parks and houses have also been washed away. Some type of aid package is required. Former Minister, Deputy Andrews, set about acquiring funds from Europe to deal with coastal erosion. This was the first recognition from Europe that funds should be made available to deal with this problem. It is important that the Minister tries to secure additional funding to that secured by the former Minister. Millions of pounds will be required to solve the problem.
Seaside resorts and the coastline are enjoyed by people from Dublin and the inland counties. Perhaps the time has come to seriously examine the possibility of funding measures to deal with coastal erosion through a charge to which every area contributes. Rosslare, Courtown and other similar local communities are raising vast sums of money and carrying out work themselves with little help from the local authority and the State. However, this is totally inadequate to deal with the problem. A national policy on coastal erosion and a substantial increase in the amount of funds available to deal with it are required. The Minister must examine this area seriously.
Early retirement is available to farmers and many other groups. Teachers are now seeking this option by holding one day strikes and issuing a series of threats. However, fishermen usually finish work at 50 years of age, but there is no early retirement scheme available to them. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the suggestion that a certain element of early retirement will be included when boats are decommissioned. It is timely to examine the provision of an early retirement scheme for fishermen when they reach 50 or 55 years of age. Discussions in that regard must take place with the fishery organisations, but it is important to look at this area. It is generally accepted that the boats in the Irish fleet are old and that Irish fishermen are the oldest in the EU. Someone told me recently that the average age of Irish fishermen is 35 to 40 years old, which is the highest in the EU. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this aspect and outline how he intends to consider the introduction of an early retirement scheme.
I thank the Minister for appearing before the committee and making his views known. More funds will be needed to realise some of his ambitions and this side of the House intends to encourage him and keep him on his toes in relation to some of the developments he promised. I thank the Minister for making funds available to complete the Kilmore Quay scheme. We held a number of meetings with the Minister and he visited the area. I welcome the funds, but it has created its own problems and I ask the Minister to consider compensation for the lobster fishermen in Kilmore who have not been able to operate for a number of months.
I extend my best wishes to the Minister for the Marine and the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore. I am most pleased with the Minister's speech, which mentioned safer seas and ships, cleaner waters, the development of our fisheries, competitive maritime transport services and sustainable marine zone management. This is a bold venture. As Deputy Browne said, no matter what is spent in this area, more could be spent. We understand that position, but people should be pleased if they see regular improvement.
The Minister addressed the development of inland fisheries in the Estimates. Given that there is now peace in this country, there is great potential in this area. A tourist catching a salmon in this country can make in the region of £60-70 and I look forward to people who used to visit Ireland many years ago returning to spend a fortnight or three weeks enjoying the marvellous fishing which is available in this country.
I welcome the Estimates. It is a challenging and critical time for the fishing industry and marine policy in general. Since the opening of the Channel Tunnel, Ireland is the only island nation in the EU and it is fundamental that the Department of the Marine is in a position to grow and meet the emerging challenges in marine matters. I wish the Minister well in all his efforts.
The sea around our coast is one of our greatest assets and one which has been least explored. There is a rich harvest of food, not only for ourselves but also for the EU and Third World countries. Unfortunately, the sea is also supplying another type of harvest through drug smuggling along our coastline. I do not want to labour this point as it was discussed yesterday, but there is deep concern about this matter. The Taoiseach recently expressed his deep concern about the problems which have arisen through drugs coming into this country.
My party seeks an assurance from the Minister that the Naval Service will be given every possible support and resource to fight this battle, since it is the frontline against the drug barons. It is no secret that the south-west coast is now the prime area for the importation of drugs. The recent drug finds are only the tip of the iceberg. Vast profits are being made from illegal drug dealing and we must face up to the fact that as a small maritime nation, we do not have the sophisticated equipment or other resources to tackle this problem alone. We must be honest and admit that the facilities available to those in the frontline lag behind those available to the drug barons.
I pay tribute to the brave men and women in the Naval Service who carry out their task with dedication and courage. However, they must be backed by resources and equipment. The Naval Service must be allocated additional finance to increase the fleet and provide fast interception craft for use off the south coast. This problem will not go away if we turn a blind eye to it. There is a case for basing a special anti-drugs force in the south and we must make the EU aware of the seriousness of this situation. In the days of communitywide policing and intelligence co-operation, I strongly advocate Ireland's participation in the new European Maritime Security Agency. This agency could involve participation in a naval and air force, whose functions would include fisheries protection, air sea rescue, interception of drugs, immigration controls and maritime environmental surveillance and control. This is a policy long advocated by the Progressive Democrats. We believe it would ensure the best use of resources in preventing illegal and dangerous activity off our shores.
I pay tribute to the RNLI and the voluntary bodies involved in life saving and the promotion of safety at sea for over a century. They deserve our highest praise and I salute them for the extent of their activities and the success of their fund raising which supplements the contribution the State makes for the promotion of safety in our waters.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that there be rigorous enforcement of the specific criteria on the sea worthiness of all sea-going vessels. It is important that each sea-going vessel meets minimum standards of safety before it leaves the harbour. There should be a policing mechanism to ensure compliance with these standards and that all vessels are insured properly. We rightly have strict regulations on road worthiness and insurance of motor vehicles. We should apply the same criteria and standards to vessels that use our waters.
I see a great future for the development of the fishing industry. There should be more education in maritime technology, which is a developing subject in our third level colleges. The developments to date are to be welcomed but there is more scope for research into the development of our fishing industry. Unless there is such research and we plan for the development of a healthy fishing industry into the 21st century, we will not achieve our development potential and the Minister should seriously examine this.
In Limerick a small rescue service is provided free of charge. It operates from the top of Lough Derg to practically the mouth of the Shannon. People from all walks of life work in the service. They do this work voluntarily. I made representations on their behalf last year for some monetary assistance to be given to them for the purchase of oxygen and equipment. They only receive income from selling flags on a Saturday or running occasional functions. They do exceptional work for the Garda Síochána on the Shannon and on lakes and small rivers throughout the midwest area. I would like the Minister to consider providing them with financial assistance because they are doing great work for the people of the area.
I made provision for an opening statement by the Independent group but as there is nobody here to represent them we will move to a debate on the subheads. I ask the Minister to reply to each group as listed in the programme.
Before I ask my question, which refers to some of the rescue services, I join the Minister and Deputy Clohessy in complimenting and thanking the many people off our shores who contribute to life saving. I include in this the RNLI, which does an exceptionally fine job and which, by and large, collects its own money. They receive a subvention from the Department of the Marine. I am sure the Minister is very conscious of the fact that it needs extra funding for the provision of smaller craft in specific areas around the coast.
I compliment the coast and cliff rescue service. There are around 600 personnel in this service. We sometimes forget about those who man our light houses. They have played a significant role, not alone in ensuring that light-houses are kept functional but also in watching the coastline. Living in the shadow of the Hook lighthouse, I know full well that on many occasions they have saved lives. I thank the navy and our limited air force for the work they do. These are very professional bodies with tremendous sensitivity. We should compliment them as well as the Garda Síochána and the customs service.
There are many subaqua clubs around the coastline, which, at the drop of a hat, will come to a location where there has been loss or suspected loss of lives. They often sacrifice a day's pay and, in some instances, pay for weeks. I live in an area where, unfortunately, we have lost too many lives over many years and have had multiple drownings. I am very aware of the subaqua clubs in Hook, Wexford, Waterford and Kilkenny. The members of these clubs, above all, should be complimented. For some strange reason, coastal communities, however far they may be from a tragedy——
I am sorry to interrupt you but your contribution is very wide of the business with which we are dealing.
The Deputy is drifting off course.
Do you think I am running aground, Chairman? Coastal communities come together and help during tragedies at great cost to themselves. All of them should be highly complimented.
My question on subhead A is whether the Minister is happy with the co-ordination of the coast and cliff rescue services. Volunteers are paid from this subhead. My opinion is that co-ordination is not at the level it should be and that there are many willing people whose expertise is not used to the fullest. I am not sure whether we require extra training or change of personnel in particular locations. I suggest that far greater productivity could be obtained from various people around the coast if there was better co-ordination and they had more radios. I do not want to ask for extra money because there are other areas with far greater needs.
As a rural Deputy I compliment the Minister and the helicopter service for the service provided to islands. I compliment the service for the work it has done in relation to flooding over the last few months. It is one of the few State organisations which deals with reasonable requests in a reasonable time. Unlike other Departments and bodies, it does not make a big issue out of such requests. If there are problems on islands it deals with them. I hope it will continue to do so.
I want the Minister to comment on the load line regulations. A number of people who have come to my clinics have small boats and use them to bring anglers fishing in the summer months. EU load line regulations will come into force next year. I hope these will not be like EU fishing regulations, which are agreed by every member state but implemented by none. I hope this country will not be the only one to implement these regulations.
The Minister has met deputations on this issue. I ask the Minister not to introduce these regulations next year. The people who will be affected are prepared to talk to the Minister about the safety aspects of this but they are concerned about the severity of the regulations and say they cannot implement them. They are in this business in only a small way to supplement their income during the summer months but the regulations will put them out of business. It should not end up like the fishing regulation which allows the Spaniards to fish in our waters and nobody can control them. I do not see why our small time fishermen, especially in the west, should have to obey these EU regulations; they may not even be followed by other members of the EU.
This is not a Second or Committee Stage debate. We are dealing with the Estimates of the Department of the Marine and the subject under discussion is administration. I do not want to restrict Members unreasonably, but they must confine their discussion to the Estimates.
We will do the best we can to meet the Chairman's requirements. While I do not want to take from the special expertise, commitment and dedication of the Minister and his junior colleague, both of them must admit that they inherited a Department which took a number of initiatives over the last number of years which are now coming to fruition.
I want to briefly refer to the strategic management initiative and I am delighted that the Minister has continued to take that on board. There is no doubt that the capacity, management and expertise of the Civil Service can be improved and expanded in a democratic and responsible way. Far too often, issues which have to be dealt with at ministerial level could be dealt with as well, if not more capably, at Civil Service level — this would be the same as far as public relations and other activities are concerned — which would allow both Ministers to concentrate on the more serious issues. I am delighted that the Minister is continuing that programme and we look forward to further change.
The operational programme for fisheries, the tourism angling initiative, the purchase of aircraft and new vessels all form part of decisions made by a previous Administration. We also welcome the changes and the concentrated effort the Minister is making in overhauling marine policy and other initiatives, such as coastal erosion.
There is a fairly dramatic increase in the allocation for consultancy services under subhead A7. Could the Minister tell us exactly what is involved and to whom or what is this increased allocation dedicated?
A number of the questions do not strictly arise under this heading. However, as long as we do not continue in this fashion, perhaps the Minister will briefly reply to some of the points made.
I would like to respond to the question from Deputy Smith first. I readily accept that I inherited a Department in good shape from my predecessor. We had an extremely friendly handover the night the Government changed and the Deputy was good enough to brief me on some of the more important issues. The success which I was fortunate to have in Brussels in December was part of the process with which he was deeply involved and I am happy to recognise that. Deputy Smith's comments on the Casas and the strategic management initiative, which was an initiative of the last Taoiseach, are also true and I am happy to continue and build on them.
The increase in the allocation for consultancy services is primarily because of the cost of the engagement of consultants to carry out the review of the fisheries area. The consulting firm who have just been appointed — Price Waterhouse — got this on a competitive basis.
Is it engaged outside?
It is internal. However, one international person in this organisation has a particular knowledge of the area. It also did some previous consultancy work for the Department of the Marine, but a number of tenders were sought, extensive interviews were conducted and the Minister and I were closely involved in the process.
Is there a timescale for the completion of that report?
Yes, approximately three months, starting around now.
Deputy Ring made a comment about helicopters with which I readily agree and I thank him. The load line regulations have nothing to do with the EU, but the Deputy's conception that this has been imposed by the Union is widely held.
It is accepted by the Department of the Marine and the authorities generally that there have been too many accidents involving leisure craft and other boats around our coasts and that we have to bring in regulations. We have been sensitive in doing that and their implementation has been delayed considerably because of the ongoing discussions with sea angling groups and other interested parties. I cannot give the Deputy much joy on this matter but if a specific measure is causing difficulty to a large number of people and an alternative is available, the Department will look at that, as it has done in relation to other comments.
Will the Minister vary the regulations as they apply to small and big time operators? There must be safety regulations for all boats, but if their implementation means it would cost the smaller operators thousands of pounds, they will not be able to afford it and will have to get out of the business.
The Department should look at the predicament of the smaller operators and give them the opportunity to continue in the same way they have over the past 20 years.
I cannot agree to let them carry on the same way as they have for the past 20 years because we have to tighten up on safety generally. However, I understand what the Deputy is saying. The full time sea angling boats accept the situation and in many cases, can afford to make the necessary investments. We are trying to facilitate people who help with festivals in particular — this has arisen in Cobh, Westport and other areas — who are brought in for a certain weekend or peak period, but I would not want to send the signal that we are prepared to exempt unsafe boats from the regulations because we also have a duty to those using the boats.
Deputy Byrne mentioned the co-ordination of the Coastal Cliff Rescue Services. From my limited experience the greatest need for co-ordination is between the Coastal Cliff Rescue Service and the Civil Defence because both of them spring from different Departments. They perform some of the same functions and there seems to be a lack of co-ordination at times.
The Coastal Cliff Rescue Service and the Civil Defence perform cliff rescues and often feel that they have a validity in the same areas. The Civil Defence is an employee of the local authority but its equipment is funded by the Defence Forces. The coast and cliff rescue service is an initiative of the Department of the Marine. There is a lack of co-ordination and I would like to do something about it. As Minister in both Departments I am probably in a good position to try and I will certainly take the points on board. The Deputy has reinforced my view.
There is a lack of co-ordination within the coast and cliff rescue service. I have been involved too often, not in rescues but unfortunately in the location of bodies. There is room for improvement. Every so often there is a practice with what is locally known as the apparatus. Greater co-ordination and maybe a little more professionalism is needed in that area.
There is a Civil Defence training school in the Defence Forces. The Deputy is probably right that people operating voluntarily in cliff rescue may not obtain as much training as they need. There may also be local personal difficulties and it is difficult for the Department to cope with them. However, I agree there is room for better co-ordination. It is an important service and it is cheap from the State's point of view.
We will move to debate subheads B and C, marine safety and shipping services.
The RAF is mentioned in subhead B.3. We should thank the RAF for supporting us on many occasions. Under subhead B.3 have all of the costs incurred following the Capitaine Pleven II incident been repaid? Have we succeeded in getting all the money or has it cost the taxpayer money?
Under subhead B.5 I spoke earlier about the lighthouses off our coasts which are paid for by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. Our lighthouses support a number of foreign vessels sailing close to our shores many of which would never dock in Ireland. Therefore dues cannot be collected from them in Irish ports. Do we have any redress? Can we collect dues from those ships which are using our coastlines and our lighthouses?
The lighthouses have complex financial arrangements. There are three lighthouse services in Ireland: Northern Lights which covers Scotland. Trinity House which covers Britain and Irish Lights which covers Ireland. The lighthouse fund is made up of significant contributions from the shipping companies in London. It is supplemented by lighthouse dues collected in Ireland and the Irish Government also subscribes money. One could argue both ways. A ship going up the Irish Sea and into Belfast pays dues effectively to Irish Lights and a ship going into Liverpool pays Trinity House. The Deputy's point is partly covered by the existence of third fund involving the shipping companies operating out of London which contribute to the overall lighthouse service as well. It is an equitable arrangement overall.
Is the Minister happy with the level of payment?
Yes.
Was there a cost to the taxpayer because of the incident involving the Capitaine Pleven II?
I will have to check the details. We got some costs but I do not think we got the total amount. I do not have the exact figure but I will get it for the Deputy.
Because of the risk to life of many Irish people, we are at least entitled to a full return and the taxpayer should not have to carry any of the cost.
That is certainly how we would operate in principle. However, in many cases trying to trace the real owner of a ship registered in Panama — I am not saying that is the case here — is very difficult. A previous Minister had to try to chase down the problems following the incident off the Stagg's Head in Cork. Trying to get to the bottom of who was the real owner of that ship was like being on a merry-go-round around the world. However, the principle mentioned by the Deputy is what we should try to achieve at all times.
I thought Deputy Sheehan had a share in it.
I remind Deputy Byrne that a Minister from his party had great difficulty finding and never did find the owner of the Bardini Reefer which is still lying at the entrance to Castletownbere harbour.
We will move on to subheads D.1 to F.3 harbour development, coastal protection and marine research.
On minor harbours I mentioned the funding problems local authorities were having. Does the Minister intend to discuss with local authorities how harbours out of which small fishing fleets operate can be upgraded or developed? On commercial harbours I mentioned Larne in my initial statement. Does the Minister have any concerns that so many people are exporting through Larne and does he see any possibilities for addressing this? Many people maintain that companies are heading for the Monaghan area or across the Border because of the peace process mainly because of the cheaper cost of exporting their product through Larne and Belfast. Will the Minister comment on that?
On harbour development, to what extent is the Department in consultation with local authorities and the Department of the Environment about the general infrastructure needed for the increased traffic expected to follow from major investment in our harbours? The Minister may recall that when the first stage of the developments for Dún Laoghaire was being contemplated, significant funds were needed immediately to increase the road capacity. Are there discussions to ensure that when major schemes of that nature are contemplated, we do not encounter infrastructure problems which it would have been better considered at an earlier stage?
Coastal protection is becoming a bigger issue and it is an area where there has been considerable neglect. The Minister has been honest in saying that he cannot cope with this except on a phased, long term basis. Is any consideration being given by the Government as to how additional funds could be raised for this purpose? Could some of the employment schemes operated by the Department of Enterprise and Employment be envisaged for these operations given the high unemployment at present?
As a former Minister for science and technology, I recall visiting fishery institutes and research centres in Denmark. The extent to which research has developed there is frightening because we are not keeping pace with it. I welcome the increase for this purpose which is essential in the interests of further developing a modern fishing industry.
To what extent is the Minister's Department interrelating, primarily with the Department of the Environment, on water pollution? We have real difficulties with the European Union on Cohesion Funds and efforts have been made by successive Governments to make sure that these could be streamlined in a more advanced way. It seems to me that necessary infrastructural activities in this area will frustrate some of the aims unless they can be managed more quickly.
I thank both the Minister and the Minister of State for meeting the Foynes Harbour representatives recently. I am pleased that priority is being given to investment at Foynes, which is recognised as a strategic port.
Parallel with port developments, as Deputy Michael Smith said earlier, you have an association with the Department of the Environment regarding road structure. The Minister of State might recently have noticed that the N69 from Limerick to Foynes is seriously deficient in catering for the amount of activity along the estuary. The operational programme provides for it but it may or may not be a strategic national secondary route. Is the Minister having parallel discussions with the Department of the Environment about their plans for that road network? The success of Foynes and the estuary depends on developing that road which carries heavier traffic than many of the national primary routes.
I welcome the text of the Harbours Bill as published and I look forward to that legislation being implemented. As a former member of a harbour board, I think it will free many harbour boards from much unnecessary bureaucracy. While I mean no disrespect to the Department of the Marine in saying that, at least it will be autonomous.
The Minister says that £130 million will be invested up to 1999, but within the Estimate for this year no significant amount of funding is associated with the development of commercial ports. I hope that next year the tap will flow for certain commercial ports that have already submitted development plans to the Department and are serious about their intentions up to 1999. I hope the Minister will give an incentive to ports by topping up their own investments with associated EU funding.
Can the Minister provide information on the progress into research on sea trout and the improvements which have been made? Over the past couple of years the sea trout population on the west coast has been practically wiped out by lice infestation. Has there been any improvement and can the Minister provide an update?
Coastal erosion is a problem in Wexford, a county which has 177 miles of coastline. Wexford's coastline is very soft and gentle like its people.
More like its hurlers.
I would prefer if the Deputy did not mention that this year. I am grateful that there is an ongoing commitment to Rosslare but, unfortunately, Rosslare will take about £5 million which I understand is the sum total of money available for the next five years from the national programme. That will cause concern in Wexford because Duncannon, Cullenstown, Cahore and Courtown are also in a bad way.
Some 7,000 acres in south Wexford, comparable to the polders region in Holland, are below sea level and protected by a bank and pumping machines. I do not know if people take global warming seriously but I certainly do because if such warming occurs at the rate suggested then that 7,000 acres will be under severe threat.
I accept that the situation is not the fault of the Minister who inherited it, but it was only in the last tranche of funds from Europe that we received any commitment to deal with coastal erosion. It was not included the last time despite the current and projected dimension of the problem. Greater EU funding must be sought for a national programme to stop coastal erosion. I know from the Minister's earlier comments that he accepts this argument. On this side of the House we will fully support it because we literally cannot afford to lose any more ground. As Deputy Browne said earlier, we have already lost quite a lot.
I was disappointed that Duncannon did not get a mention in the document on fishery harbours. The Minister and his officials will probably hear the name Duncannon constantly in the future so it would be wise to put funding in place. I make the point because many jobs could be created in that locality if the infrastructure was right.
Duncannon is penalised because many trawlers which are operated by Duncannon people have to land their catches at Dunmore East, Kilmore Quay, Rosslare and elsewhere due to the limited scope of the harbour. Consequently, landings made by the people of Duncannon are not being credited to that harbour and thus the area is penalised. The amount of money required for an extension to Duncannon harbour is not great. I thank the Minister for his personal interest in Kilmore and for successfully bringing about what I hope is a conclusion to the problem there.
As chairman of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners I will be glad to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, on Friday. I am asking the senior Minister to make sure that he brings the cheque with him.
In relation to commercial harbours, substantial moneys have been poured into Dún Laoghaire, Rosslare, County Louth and elsewhere. Will the Minister insist that the live trade, which is topical at the moment, will be encouraged? It might be suggested that any shipping company using a publicly funded port should be obliged to carry on what I would regard as a legitimate trade. Ferry companies should not be allowed to cherry pick, which is what is happening with Stena and Pandoro at present. They are two tremendous companies but they are cherry picking. This should not be allowed. A publicly funded port cannot be used by a ferry if it does not carry what is known to be and is accepted as legitimate trade.
Deputy Clohessy mentioned the drugs trade. Recently the national drugs team signed memoranda of understanding with various harbour authorities so that the Department of the Marine would participate fully in the fight against drugs. The drugs problem here is increasing. Prevention is better than cure and if drugs can be seized at the point of entry the problem, obviously, will lessen. It is said that only about 10 per cent is seized at the point of entry and with greater resources this percentage can be increased considerably.
In Rosslare — I mention Rosslare because I know the port but my remarks apply nationally — there are three arrival areas, for foot passengers, freight and cars and there are only eight personnel to watch them. They have one dog, "Jake", who has been so successful that Fianna Fáil is considering putting him forward as a candidate in the next election in that constituency. In view of the successes in Rosslare, and other areas, it is surely cost effective and certainly socially effective to provide more sniffer dogs like "Jake", who has been invaluable, and to increase the number of personnel.
He is worth his weight in gold.
Much more so. I ask for the greatest possible commitment from the Department of the Marine to the Department of Justice and to any other Department involved in trying to halt the influx of drugs into this country.
Listening to Deputy Byrne one would think there was a strike by printers of cheque books when his party was in power because very few cheques were sent around the country then.
We looked after the Deputy too well.
I congratulate the Minister on the magnificent job he has done in his Department since he was appointed. He has brought a breath of fresh air into the Department. Deputy Byrne said he intended to keep the Minister on his toes. I doubt that the Minister got off his toes since he was appointed Minister. I am aware he spent eight hours without a break talking to the fishermen at Castletownbere on a Sunday.
He was thanking the Deputy profusely for arranging the delegation.
The Minister agreed to meet the delegation. He was so willing he travelled to meet them. I welcome the Ministers' announcement that he is providing finance for capital works upgrading at Tralee and Fenit harbours and for the dredging of Bantry harbour. I take it that the dredging of Bantry Harbour and further improvements of the regional ports will go ahead shortly.
Deputy Joe Walsh was responsible for that.
That poor man had enough to do in his own ministerial position. I note that £2.756 million is again being provided for Dún Laoghaire harbour. It is estimated that a commercial ferry operation at Dún Laoghaire will generate an income of £4.6 million. Do I take it that it will go to the Department of the Marine?
Yes.
That will be a great boost to the Department. No matter what money Dún Laoghaire gets it is self sufficient with perhaps a surplus. That is generated by the amount of trade in the area. I am also intrigued that Deputy Byrne was critical of the Minister regarding the environmentally friendly coastal protection scheme. He sought more money under that scheme for County Wexford. A sum of £771,000 is being provided for that scheme and practically 90 per cent of it is going to County Wexford. None of it is going to my constituency of south west Cork——
That constituency has more representatives.
——where, if coastal erosion continues at its present rate, 30 per cent of it will have fallen into the Atlantic ocean within the next decade. Deputy Walsh is well sheltered inland; there will be no coastal erosion in his part of the constituency. That also applies to my colleague, Deputy O'Keeffe, who is also well sheltered.
Deputy Sheehan is exposed.
The poor unfortunate man on the Mizen peninsula — part of which disappears into the sea with every storm — will be affected. There is severe coastal erosion in the Rosscarbery-Baltimore area and there is a major problem in Glandore where a street of houses is in danger of falling into the sea. We cannot devote the entire Estimate under the ECOPRO scheme to County Wexford. Other areas must be preserved, especially in my constituency. We appear to be the forgotten people in south west Cork as far as the environmentally friendly coastal protection scheme is concerned.
There will be no more joining delegations now.
How much money will be allocated to Darby's Point this year and when will work be completed? Deputy Sheehan announced the first stage of that before the by-election last year. It was announced seven times since then. However, he started the ball rolling.
Deputy Browne asked about small harbours and the competitiveness of commercial harbours. I agree with the thrust of the Deputy's question about small harbours. Since I started travelling around the coast and meeting Deputy Sheehan and other representatives I have become convinced that sums of money — not large sums — spent judiciously on small harbours would yield a dividend locally. Sometimes that dividend might be more tourist than fishery related and that could create problems for our Department in justifying the expenditure. I will be seeking more money for small harbours. Small judiciously placed investments in small harbours would yield a good pay back locally. I have made a few such investments and I hope to make more.
With regard to the competitiveness of harbours, part of the investment strategy of EU funding for our harbours is based on the premise of reducing costs to users by up to 15 per cent. Competitiveness is very much to the forefront of both the investment strategy and the harbours Bill, which resulted from the Culliton and Moriarty reports. We are seeking higher competitiveness in our ports and lower costs. Following inquiries in Dublin Port, I have been advised that quite a lot of the industrial commercial traffic which went through Larne is now using Dublin. I am surprised if the same volume of traffic is going from the Deputy's part of the country through Larne, and he may wish to check on this. I believe that this tide has been turned, but the only way that it will finally is through improving our competitiveness, and we are anxious to encourage this in every way.
Deputy Smith raised the important question of linking environmental works — primarily road works — with port development. Our ports have been so starved of investment over the past 50 years that this has hardly been an issue, but now it has become one. The INTERREG programme is devoted to the east coast ports because of the links with Wales. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, and myself have had very close discussions and I pay tribute to him in that he readily agreed to a transfer of the original allocation between our two Departments when I was able to demonstrate the added return on investment in harbours rather than roads in a couple of specific situations. He is conscious of these linkages. When planning the primary roads systems, the National Roads Authority has, as part of its brief, to be especially conscious of the transport requirements of shippers and so on. Some developments are taking place, but they are probably not as good as they should be. It is a valid point to raise now that we are, for the first time, putting a large amount of European money into our ports.
On the issue of coastal protection, which a number of Deputies raised, including Deputy Smith and Deputy Sheehan, the sums of money are inadequate, but they are vastly greater than the sums previously available to us. It is only a start. We have invited all of the local authorities to name their absolute priorities. Most of them have done so and we will endeavour to support some of these schemes. The east coast, especially along County Wexford, is probably the most vulnerable because of the structure of the coastline. Serious problems also exist at Bray and closer to Dublin. This is the second area — of small harbours and coastal protection — where I will seek additional funds in the years ahead.
Deputy Sheehan suggested that there was an apparent ignoring of the problems in County Cork, problems which I am also conscious of. We have referred to a number of the programmes, but which are under the heading of a number of other schemes, and they are under consideration in the context of available resources. These include the Cork priority schemes and I will meet the Cork County Coastal Development Committee on 22 May 1995. I could not go to the meeting empty-handed.
The Minister could make an announcement before he arrives.
On the question of marine research, there is such an increased emphasis on research in the operational programme that I ask Deputy Smith to accept that we are heavily committed to it. I attended the Martin Ryan Institute at UCG last Friday, and I was heartened and amazed at the extent of what is going on there. It represents an investment of £6.5 million, 50 per cent of it from GPA — a magnificent gesture — and the remainder from EU funding. This has created, under one roof, all of the disciplines involved in marine research and it is a very valuable resource. When one adds to this the fact that the new marine institute is headed by Peter Heffernan, who attended the Martin Ryan Institute at the outset, together with the other activities taking place in UCC and in the other universities, there will be an important co-ordinating role for the marine institute, because there is always a danger that people will be doing the same things in different places. We are very conscious of this, and of the need to get pay-back from the research. We are at the beginnings of a decent research programme and the Deputy is correct to refer to what he saw in Denmark.
Will there be linkages with universities in Europe?
I believe so. There are two questions which I wish to pass to Deputy Gilmore, one with regard to water pollution, and the other with regard to Deputy Clohessy's question on trout. With regard to Darby's Point, £180,000 has been allocated this year.
I thank the Minister.
I have just announced it. Deputy Finucane referred to the question of linking roads to the ports. This is an important consideration, especially with regard to secondary roads which would not come under the National Roads Authority. It is an issue which requires careful consideration. The Deputy also referred to the harbour investment programme and the fact that there was not much allocated to it this year. It is not part of the Estimate as it is included in the public capital programme.
Deputy Byrne raised the issue of coastal erosion in County Wexford, which I addressed earlier, and I will be seeking more funding. With regard to fishery harbours, and especially Duncannon, I visited the harbour the day I went to Kilmore Quay and I would be sympathetic to the situation. Hopefully it will be included in a programme at some stage. How long more does the Deputy think I will have?
If he promises me what I am seeking, the Minister will have a year.
I was impressed with Duncannon, but, unfortunately, I have visited 20 or 30 Duncannons and it will be impossible to do them all quickly. Obtaining additional resources for small harbours will be on my priority list, but I could not be more specific than that, for example, I could not advise if it will be in 1995 or 1996.
I will remind the Minister.
I am sure the Deputy will do so. No Deputy from west Cork has had such attention from a Minister as the Deputy has had from me.
He could wear out his welcome.
That is true. With regard to the commercial harbours, Deputy Gilmore will shortly visit New Ross in response to an invitation some time ago, and he is hoping to make some announcements which hopefully will meet some of Deputy Byrne's aspirations. The Deputy referred to the live animal trade. I met with the IFA last week in the absence of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, who was away, and I am aware of its concerns. It is a delicate issue. These two companies have had much hassle and difficulty. We are encouraging them and talking to them all the time and are hopeful of the result. We are anxious to lower the temperature and get the issue out of the public arena somewhat. I am guardedly optimistic. It is a critical issue.
Absolutely.
Deputy Byrne also spoke about drugs, and if I have a greater conmmitment to anything beyond my two Departments it is to this issue. I am anxious to contribute in so far as I possibly can. It is a cancer in our society and if we do not get on top of it it will certainly get on top of us, whether it be a Government comprising Members of the Opposition or this Government.
Prevention is the only effective solution.
The problem with the Bantry dredging, to which Deputy Sheehan referred, is that whereas the money was provided in 1994 by the previous Government——
There is no point in saying that as the work was not carried out.
It was not carried out then or since because of a significant problem arising out of the polluted sediment and the difficulties of dealing with it. The matter has been examined for some time and we are anxious to undertake the work as it badly needs doing. Deputy Gilmore has two questions, one on water pollution for Deputy Smith and the other on trout for Deputy Clohessy.
Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore): On the question of water pollution, the primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Water Pollution Act rests with the Department of the Environment. Having said that, the first signs of pollution in a river or lake will probably manifest themselves when there are problems with the fish. We are very conscious of this and we maintain contact with the Department of the Environment where problems arise in relation to water pollution or where we identify, through the fisheries boards, that problems are arising.
More recently, we have encouraged the Department of the Environment to accelerate the making of water quality management plans, or to encourage local authorities to do so. If we are investing considerable sums of money in the development of angling — both the ongoing annual investment of about £13 million and the tourism angling measure which amounts to £19 million — we want to make sure that the water is free of pollution.
In relation to the question raised by Deputy Clohessy on sea trout, this problem has been going on for quite some time, since the end of the 1980s. As the Deputy knows, a task force was established under the chairmanship of Dr. Ken Whitaker which reported in the middle of last year and made a number of recommendations. We have reconstituted the monitoring group which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of those recommendations under the chairmanship of Professor Emer Colleran from University College, Galway, a former president of An Taisce. This group has begun its renewed work in that area.
There is also a scientific working group which is made up of scientists drawn from the fisheries research centre, the Central Fisheries Board, the aquaculture side and so on. They review and study all of the various data and monitoring which is carried out in this area. They have completed their work for 1994 and have submitted their report to us, which we are in the process of publishing — it is with the printers and will be published shortly. The report for 1994 has a number of encouraging aspects. It shows that there has been a very significant reduction in lice in salmon farms and some modest recovery in sea trout stocks. It is very early days and we should not get wildly enthusiastic yet about the degree of recovery, but there is some.
It is worth noting that there is a very considerable financial commitment to the rehabilitation of sea trout stocks. The annual cost of the entire monitoring exercise, when one takes into account all the effort which has been made and the cost of implementing the recommendations of the Whitaker report, is running at about £1 million. In addition, under the tourism angling programme, £1 million is being provided specially to assist with the rehabilitation of sea trout stocks. There is a very considerable investment of time, resources and energy in this problem.
I take the point that the Department of the Environment is primarily responsible. As the Minister probably knows, there are a number of catchment areas which have very significant fishing potential and which form part of fairly global schemes in terms of access to Cohesion Funds. These overall funds are agreed, but drawing them down has become a headache in terms of the official bureaucracy seeking programmes and sectoral economic analyses. A promise of support from the Department of the Marine, in the context of the fishing potential, would be helpful in trying to ensure that funds which are already in the National Plan are dedicated to the provision of tertiary treatment and other sewage treatment facilities around the country.
We tend to regard sewage treatment and industrial effluent as the only problems associated with the pollution of inland rivers and some coastal waters. However, there is also a significant problem associated with intensive agriculture. Contact between the Department of the Marine and Teagasc, and general planning in that field, will be essential for the future if we are to combat some of the factors which are already causing problems in lakes and inland rivers.
I forgot to answer two questions which Deputy Browne asked. On the question of early retirement, there is a proposal from the EU on early retirement which has not been agreed and some member states are opposed to it. We are supporting it and we are working with the Commission and other member states to bring that about. We are concerned that there should be adequate funding for that. It is in the pipeline and that is about as much as I can say on it.
With regard to the money which we are likely to get for this surveillance package, I cannot tell the Deputy the amount yet but I can tell him that the Department of the Marine and the Department of Defence have been in close discussion about this in recent weeks and months. They are going to meet the Commission within two weeks and I will have a separate direct meeting with the Commissioner, Mrs. Bonino, prior to the Council meeting so that we will lay the ground as well as we can. I cannot give any more information on that.
In reply to Deputy Michael Smith's question on the water pollution issue, the lead Department in relation to the draw down of Cohesion Funds and so on for sewerage treatment schemes is the Department of the Environment. Clearly, if there are cases where assistance from the Department of the Marine would be helpful, we will be more than willing to provide that assistance.
We have had a very interesting discussion on that section. I ask members to co-operate in making up the time which we have lost. We will now take subheads G.1 to G.13 which relate to sea fisheries and aquaculture development.
I have two brief questions on that. In relation to sea fisheries, I note in the Minister's statement that 24 vessels were detained. Can a conviction on all 24 be anticipated? I come from a fishing community and there would be tremendous support for such convictions. Any discouragement which can be applied, no matter how strict it may seem, will be greatly supported by fishermen. The Minister is at great pains to suggest that there is no discrimination in terms of which fleets might be looked at in regard to illegal fishing activity. We know what he means by that but the Spanish do not have a very pleasant record. When we supported them in their fight against Canada, their response was to fish in our waters. The following week several trawlers were apprehended. As Deputy Browne said, it is well known that our fishing fleet is not adequate. We have a long way to go, but if we are to take advantage of our waters which are, as so many have said, a gold mine, we must give this matter more priority in Cabinet and try to improve our fleet so we can compete.
As regards aquaculture, there is no doubt that a considerable number of jobs can be created from farming shellfish. I am concerned about the ASIs, SPAs and NHAs in relation to our coastline. Recently applications were made for licences to farm oysters. When I canvassed unproductively in the Minister's constituency I noticed oyster farms in certain locations. Oyster farming has been taking place for some time and it is a tradition in south Wexford and in parts of the country. The Wildlife Service is now objecting to applications for licences for this traditional activity as if to suggest that these farming practices will interfere with wildlife. I believe they compliment wildlife and that those who engage in oyster farming are as good as the conservationists.
In answer to a question I asked concerning somebody in County Wexford, but which will probably apply to the entire coastline soon — maybe this is a test case — the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy M. Higgins, who has responsibility in this area said that in circumstances where substantial investment has been made he would be prepared to allow the developer to harvest the existing crop provided he relocated to another area and vacated this important State-owned conservation area. He said he understood that the Department of the Marine would assist the developer in finding an alternative location. That is all very well, but this man lives in south County Wexford and there is no point giving him an area in Wicklow or elsewhere. I want aquaculture to be promoted and supported. These new concepts — the NHAs, ASIs and SPAs — should not interfere with traditional practices where there is a prospect of jobs being created.
Deputy Byrne referred to the number of detentions. Either there was an error in my speech or they arose in the past 24 hours. The actual number of detentions is not 24 but 27. While there is no discrimination, what the Deputy said is correct. We board and detain when we find things that are wrong. Of the 27 which have been detained this year, 12 were Spanish registered, nine were Spanish owned and UK registered and three were Irish registered and Spanish owned. Some 24 of the 27 detained were Spanish owned or registered. That speaks for itself. One was UK registered and owned and two were Irish boats.
The Deputy raised the question of improving and modernising the fleet. We must split that into two halves. In terms of the pelagic fleet, the large boats fishing mackerel — the McHugh's of this world — we have some of the most modern boats in the world in that area, particularly those fishing out of Killybegs in the northern waters. Mr. McHugh's boat, the Veronica, would be the flagship, but there is a substantial number of boats of that quality and size.
The position as regards the white fish fleet is different. We have an ageing fleet of boats which are not as efficient as those of some of our competitors. We have target grants towards upgrading and improving the fleet. One of the difficulties of people bringing in new boats is that if somebody has a 60-foot boat, they tend to replace it with an 80-foot one. The difficulty then arises because one must buy the extra tonnage. We are locked into tonnage, which we must decrease. We would welcome new boats into the fleet. However, that is constrained by having to take out tonnage. Grants are available to upgrade boats but it will be difficult with the constraint on tonnage to modernise the fleet with bigger and better boats. We must keep working on that with the fisheries organisations. However, it is primarily a problem for those fishing white fish.
I agree with Deputy Browne about the importance of the aquaculture industry. At present over 2,000 people are employed in aquaculture mostly in areas around the coastline where there are not many other forms of employment. The importance attached to this industry is reflected in the commitment in the fisheries operational programme where £36 million has been committed for the aquaculture industry between now and 1999 with a view to increasing the numbers employed by a further 2,000. There is considerable potential, particularly in the shellfish industry.
There is a good working relationship between the Department of the Marine and the Wildlife Service. Applications for licences involve a consultative process and the Wildlife Service is consulted about licensing and about particular licences. It is fair to say that the relationships between the Department and the Wildlife Service is pragmatic as regards the location of shellfish operations. From time to time, the question of relocation arises usually in cases where there is an application for a licence and it is considered that there may be a more suitable location in the same bay or area for that operation. The licence applicant is encouraged to look at the alternative location. I am not aware of any situation where somebody in Wexford has been asked to relocate to Wicklow. suggestions on relocation are made on a pragmatic basis, within reason and fairly infrequently.
I accept what the Minister has said and I will talk to him about the individual in Wexford. I would like to ask the Minister if it has ever been considered as a penalty for illegal fishing that some of the tonnage from the trawler apprehended should be for- feited. We might then be able to gain some tonnage which is badly required.
That is an attractive possibility, but it could not be done within the law.
The Minister could make a name for himself.
I could. The new fines which came into force in the past two years are a maximum payment of £250,000, forfeiture of catch and equipment and, in extreme cases, foirfeiture of the boat. However, that has not yet been tested in the courts. I would be enthusiastic about having it tested in the case of a presistent offender; in other words, if one skipper on the same boat consistently offends.
Would the Minister investigate the suggestion about moving tonnage?
I will make inquiries because it is a novel suggestion, but I do not think it is legal.
I move to subheads J1 and J2, Inland Fisheries.
I wish the Minister and Minister of State well in their positions. The Minister stated in his speech that inland fisheries is a valuable resource. The Cavan-Monaghan constituency has many lakes and rivers. Although this is not a traditional tourism area, there is a great opportunity to develop the lakes and rivers and make them an attractive destination for tourists. While trout and coarse fishing is central to any development in that region, following an arterial drainage scheme a cross Border initiative was taken, to stock rivers with salmon and a salmon hatchery was also suggested. This was a great opportunity to draw down funding under the Inland Fisheries operational programme where such opportunities are limited. The inland waterways are an obvious area for development. I mentioned the development of the River Blackwater for salmon fishing and this could be done through the Dungannon development body. Long leases are required to provide stiles, etc., but until now, a ten year lease, which most people wanted, was difficult to get because of occupiers' liability. I hope that situation has changed.
The £19 million Estimate provides a great opportunity to develop our potential. However, much work must be done to clear shrubs and improve access to lakes. A few years ago bed and breakfast accommodation was scarce in the lake districts of Cavan, but that has now changed as it has in Monaghan. This attracts visitors to the area.
Other speakers mentioned pollution which is a serious problem in a number of catchments in my area, particularly the Erne catchment. In 1993 Monaghan County Council secured £100,000 and Teagasc undertook an examination of this area. Its report found that the poultry and mushroom industries contributed significantly to pollution. The council has sought aid so that waste could be used to generate electricity. Recently I visited a plant in England where this is working effectively. The council has also asked the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to provide money to solve this problem.
Pollution seems to be a problem in which, what is everybody's business is nobody's business. If one wants to generate electricity, one must contact the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Tourism and Trade. Departments will try to pass the problem to some other Department which is supposed to be better placed to deal with it. Pollution destroys fish and water supplies and Departments should co-operate with each other to solve this problem.
Money is being spent on treatment plants and in agriculture underground tanks are used in my region where rivers have improved over the past couple of years as a result of the 1988 funding for pollution storage and equipment. The pollution was so bad in a river beside where I live that fish or waterhens could not live in it. However, that has changed and fishermen are now able to catch good fish there. It is important to tackle the problem of pollution.
As the Minister said, there is a great potential to develop fishing as a sport for ourselves and for visiting anglers, particularly from Great Britain, who come in large numbers and pay a reasonably cheap price for their holidays. We should make the best possible use of this resource.
We have departed from national principles for two days and I have listened to a number of my colleagues concentrating on their constituencies. I have two final questions about the Inland Fisheries operational programme and the angling tourism programme. I want to know the Minister's views on the River Suir and Lough Derg catchments and the type of proposals under those programmes. He may have told me a month ago that announcements would soon be made. I presume these are imminent.
As regards Deputy Leonard's questions, a number of exciting cross-Border initiatives are under way in the area of inland fisheries. The Foyle Fisheries Commission has been in operation for many years. We are planning, together with the Northern Ireland authorities, new legislation which will widen the role of the Foyle Fisheries Commission. Approximately two months ago I launched the cross-Border angling guide which is a joint initiative by the Northern Ireland fishery board and the eastern fishery board to promote angling in the five major catchments which straddle the Border. The enthusiasm from tourist interests on both sides of the Border was impressive. Tourism interests on both sides of the Border, see great potential in angling tourism. This is the first initiative of its kind where both authorities have co-operated to promote angling in the Border area. Funding for cross-Border initiatives comes from the operational programme and INTERREG and the Northern and Eastern Fishery Boards have benefited.
A joint committee of the Northern Fishery Board in the Republic and its Northern counterpart have been cooperating for some time in developing angling in the Erne catchment. Deputy Leonard asked about ownership, tenure and access to fisheries. This is relevant because where there has been a considerable investment in inland fisheries there is a requirement that we ensure access to those waters.
Deputy Smith asked about the Suir and Lough Derg. We have made available the first £1 million of the funds allocated this year to the tourism angling programme and we expect a further announcement in six weeks, as the various applications are processed. Last November was the closing date for applications for this year and as this is the first time the programme has been run there is a learning process. The closing date for next year's applications is being brought forward to mid-September so that applications can be processed at an earlier stage.
I cannot say where the specific proposals referred to by Deputy Smith are but I will let him know.
Are there any more questions before we leave this area?
Does the Minister see BIM involved to a greater or lesser extent in the home and export market? Where does it stand in relation to An Bord Bia? There are rumours the organisations may be amalgamated, or that BIM will become part of An Bord Bia.
In relation to the Greencastle training centre and the mobile training unit, does he intend upgrading the Greencastle centre and does he realise the problems fishermen have going there for training? Does he see a need for a mobile training unit, operating in smaller harbours and ports?
The review process we commenced — with Price Waterhouse as consultants — includes a review of the role of BIM. We have no preconceived notions about what recommendations may come from that. BIM is not under threat but we have had discussions about whether it would be better if the international marketing of fish was included in the effort to market the complete range of Irish food. We concluded it made more sense to allocate the role of marketing Irish fish to An Bord Bia and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has reserved a place on the board of An Bord Bia for a person with involvement or expertise in that area.
We do not see that as excluding BIM because such expertise as this country has in the international marketing of fish resides in BIM so there are possibilities for transfer of personnel. We will need to be convinced by An Bord Bia that it has the capability to market fish internationally before we take up this option. We expect this to happen perhaps in a year or two. At the moment BIM has good people involved in that area and there have been successful initiatives in Paris.
Within our operational programme we have considerable funds for investment in Greencastle and the mobile training unit referred to by the Deputy. We also have a separate study on the maritime college, for which the previous Government authorised the purchase of a site near the naval base at Haulbowline. We set up a small group between the Department of Defence, the Department of the Marine and the Navy to examine how that facility might also aid the Department of the Marine and the fishing industry.
That would not be at the expense of Greencastle, because people there would be concerned about that. The night my predecessor left office he told me he thought there was scope on the south coast for the creation of training facilities because of the geographical distance between that part of the country and Greencastle. I do not want the Greencastle facility to feel under threat because it is the Department's first priority and receives investment.
We now move to the other services, subheads K to P. Are there any questions? If not, and if the Minister does not have comments we may conclude. He has set out the details. I thank him because he has had a busy week, dealing with two Estimates. He will take Parliamentary Questions tomorrow, and has other duties. I also thank the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, and the staff of the Department; the spokespersons, who made a tremendous contribution to the debate; the committee convenor; and the staff of the Houses. The Committee will meet again next Wednesday.
I thank you also, Chairman. We have suffered a significant loss in the public service and my Department with the departure of Mr. Gerry Hickey, the Assistant Secretary, who is leaving us for the private sector to become managing director of Irish Ferries. Their gain is our loss and I thank him for the assistance he has given me.
On behalf of the committee I place on record our gratitude for his work and wish him ever success. He may appear before us in his new role.
I wish to be associated with the thanks to Mr. Hickey. It is not the first time people in the public service have taken the opportunity to join the private sector. It is a welcome development. Credit is due to him and we wish him well. I thank both Ministers, the staff of the Department of the Marine and the convenor, who raises the temperature here and in the Dáil. If we departed in any way from your wishes, Chairman, he was responsible.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m.