Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 May 1996

Vote 30: Marine.

I welcome the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, and his officials. I have circulated a timetable. Is it agreed? Agreed. We will terminate the meeting not later than 5.15 p.m. and, hopefully, before that. I call on the Minister to make his opening statement.

The Estimate calls for expenditure of £59.4 million by the Department of the Marine in 1996. It represents a significant commitment of additional resources to the marine sector by this Government.

Before commenting on the Estimates proper I would like to update the committee about the Strategic Management Initiative which is under way in my Department, as in all Departments, together with a number of other important developments which are within the ambit of the Marine Vote.

Development of SMI is continuing within my Department and work on this front will be complemented by the initiatives announced earlier this month as part of the Delivering Better Governmentprogramme. The Department of the Marine will, like other Departments, publish a strategy document this year. This document will set out the key objectives of the Department as well as the challenges to be addressed and opportunities to be pursued in the period ahead.

Work on the Department's overall strategy is underpinned by work on the definition of divisional level objectives and programmes and the refinement of internal management processes. There is a firm commitment to carrying the SMI process forward and I believe that this process will lead us towards an optimal use of resources and the highest possible levels of customer service.

EU-led investment programmes are now laying a foundation for future growth in many sectors of the economy, and the marine is no exception to this. In the past year substantial progress has been made under the investment programmes, most notably the development of the fisheries sector under the operational programme for fisheries, port investment under the Transport OP, the development of the inland fisheries sector through the tourism angling measure of the OP for Tourism and coastal protection works under the OP for environmental services. I will be expanding on these later.

Deputies will recall that a fundamental review of marine policy was announced last year with the aim of developing a comprehensive policy framework for the marine sector. Public consultation is a central element in the policy review process. A general invitation to make written submissions was issued and four major public seminars, focusing on marine tourism and leisure, marine industries, marine food, and marine environment, safety and transport were organised by my Department in conjunction with the Marine Institute. The large attendances and the lively discussions at these seminars was clear evidence of the belief in the potential of our marine resources.

The final seminar was held in April and the Marine Institute is now preparing a report summarising all the issues raised in the course of public consultation. This report will have a key input into the policy review process. My aim is to formulate a substantive policy response to the review process in the form of a strategic policy framework for the marine sector in the early part of next year. The central objective of this document will be to set out an integrated policy framework for ensuring that the full potential of Irish marine resources is realised.

Following the tragic loss of life in recent fishing vessel accidents I established a fishing vessel safety review group. The immediate and shared concern of the industry and authorities alike is to ensure the highest safety standards in the fleet. I have asked the group to provide a thorough "no holds barred" review of the safety status of the fishing fleet. I expect the group to report to me shortly. Any necessary action on all fronts will follow without delay.

The report of the salmon management task force is being finalised and will form the basis for a comprehensive strategic blueprint for the future management of the wild salmon sector. I intend to publish the report as soon as this can be arranged and I would like to have it debated by one of the Oireachtas Committees. The remit given to the task force was to propose practical strategies for the management of wild salmon stocks in line with policy objectives for the resource. In that context national salmon policy must take account of all the issues critical to the conservation of wild salmon stocks and to the maximisation to the economy, on a sustainable basis, of the value of the wild salmon resource.

An ongoing review of national shipping policy has been undertaken in recent times. The strategic objective of the review is to enable Irish shipping companies to meet international competition under comparable cost conditions without compromising on safety. The review has now, I am pleased to report, begun to bear fruit. Recent initiatives are designed to boost confidence in national shipping, help it overcome some of the competitive disadvantages currently facing it as well as strengthening and consolidating the indigenous maritime skills base. These moves are of critical importance for an island nation vitally dependent on maritime transport for the functioning of its economy.

The recent measures approved by Government are, I want to emphasise, initial ones in the development of the sector and will be supplemented in time with additional supports if a sustainable case can be fully argued based on a greater levelling of the international playing field and the establishment of stable and supportive frameworks for shipping at national and EU level.

In this context, a significant advance was signalled recently following publication of the EU Commission's communication Towards a New Maritime Strategy, which was drawn up with a view to reassessing Community maritime policy and which proposes to map out a future Community shipping policy. I welcome the document and find myself in broad agreement with the parameters which it lays down for the formulation of a new policy aimed at increasing the competitiveness of the fleet, creating greater job opportunities for EU nationals and at securing the Community maritime skills base.

The initiatives include, first, a subsidy scheme for the shipboard training of Irish marine cadets at Cork regional technical college to become merchant marine engineer and deck officers and ratings. The new scheme will involve payments of £55 per week to cadets from Cork regional technical college for the duration of their onboard ship training. The majority of the cadets from the regional technical college complete their training on board UK ships as the Irish fleet cannot provide sufficient placements for trainees. However, Irish cadets are finding it increasingly difficult to get placements on UK ships because of a financial incentive offered by the UK authorities and confined to their own trainees. This reduces the cost of placements of UK cadets vis-�-visIrish nationals. The new scheme introduced by the Government will restore the competitiveness of Irish cadets and ensure the future viability of their training at Cork regional technical college. Incidentally, there is a 100 per cent placement in jobs after they complete their course at Cork regional technical college.

Second, on foot of my initiative, the Minister for Finance sought and obtained Government approval for changes to the Finance Acts in relation to leasing which will extend the range of financing options for Irish ferry and cargo operators, in the process making effective equity available to the sector for new investment. The EU Commission in its strategy document on developing an EU maritime capacity, places particular weight on the need for incentives to Community ship operators to upgrade environmental operating standards of vessels. This will allow Community fleets to capture market share in the context of a planned tightening of control of third country and other fleets which currently operate to unsafe and inadequate environmental practices. The Commission considers that Community shipowners should be given incentives to upgrade safety, environmental and efficiency standards. The proposed relaxation of the leasing rules is a step in that direction which will also enhance the employment prospects of national/EU seafarers.

Finally, I have also secured the agreement of the Minister for Finance to consider during the year the imbalances which affect the cost of employing national seafarers. At present, for example, Irish seafarers make greater tax contributions than do their counterparts on both EU and non-Community flags. Officials of the Departments of the Marine, Finance and Social Welfare together with industry and the social partners will examine and report on a range of factors affecting seafarer competitiveness.

The marine sector has a valuable and growing contribution to make to the Irish economy. It is generally acknowledged that aspects of the sector remain underdeveloped and suffer from structural weaknesses. Tackling these difficulties and thereby allowing the marine resource to reach its full potential can be achieved through the provision of relevant and effective programmes. The Estimates demonstrate the Government's commitment to that development.

The administrative budget outlined in subheads A1 to A7 covers the salaries of the staff of the Department, ranging from scientific researchers at the Fisheries Research Centre, engineers engaged on harbour construction, marine surveyors engaged in the enforcement of shipping safety requirements and head-quarters staff engaged in the formulation and implementation of programmes.

Administrative budget expenditure supports all the other programmes of the Department. The budget has been under pressure in recent years arising particularly from new marine safety, environmental and other programmes. Administrative budget expenditure will increase from £9.9 million in 1995 to £10.3 million in 1996. The increased resources of £168,000 allocated in 1996 reflect the pressures to which I have referred.

Expenditure under the marine safety and shipping services programme, covered under subheads B1 to C, increases from £9.5 million in 1995 to £10.5 million in 1996. The Irish Marine Emergency Service is responsible for the operational control and co-ordination aspects of all marine emergency response, including search and rescue, sea and coastal pollution, shipwreck and casualty response. A provision of over £7 million has been made for the service. The major part of the allocation is for the IMES medium range search and rescue helicopter service, equipped with state of the art search and rescue technology. Based at Shannon until the end of April 1996, it has flown 637 missions and saved 414 lives.

The question of who should operate the service on the expiry of the existing contract on 31 December 1996 is under consideration. I intend to be in a position to put proposals to the Government on this matter within the next couple of months. In considering all the options available to meet our future search and rescue helicopter needs, my objective is to deliver the highest achievable standard of reliability, quality and level of rescue service while ensuring the best value for State resources.

The question of search and rescue cover on the east coast is currently under review. I recently accepted the recommendation of an interim report that the requirement for an all-weather 24 hour search and rescue helicopter service could be met on a short-term basis through the provision of an Air Corps Dauphin based at Baldonnell Aerodrome. Expenditure under the programme also includes grants to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the volunteer rescue service provided by the IMES coastal units. The programme also provides for further upgrading of the coastal radio stations. Progress on the Loran C radio navigation system must await the outcome of legal proceedings.

Subheads D1 to E deal with harbour development and coastal protection. Expenditure from the Marine Vote on the harbour development and coastal protection programme will be £4.9 million in 1996. The bulk of investment funds in ports, however, is channelled through the public capital programme — about £40 million in 1996. Harbours are a vital aspect of our economic infrastructure and getting the policy right underpins and facilitates development in all sectors of the economy. The development strategy which underpins the current port development is focused on improving competitiveness and expanding the capacity of the internationally traded sectors of the economy.

The capital allocation for commercial ports in the Estimate provides for some small grants towards capital works, including feasibility and technical studies at ports which have a funding difficulty. A major port investment programme of £130 million to £140 million for the period to 1999 is under way. This programme is being funded from ports' own resources, borrowings and EU aid. Priority is being given to investment in the strategic ports of Cork, Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Rosslare, Waterford and the Shannon Estuary.

In the context of port development I am pleased to report that the Harbours Bill, 1995, has been passed by the Oireachtas. The Bill provides for the setting up of commercial State companies to manage and operate the ports of Arklow, Cork, Drogheda, Dublin, Dundalk, Foynes, Galway, New Ross, Shannon, Waterford and Wicklow and a State commercial company to operate Dún Laoghaire Harbour. The new legislation will enable the ports to operate as truly commercial and self-sufficient enterprises free from undue regulation.

The reorganisation of the commercial sea ports together with a continuation of EU aid for port development will give the ports the flexibility they need to operate as truly commercial enterprises and will greatly improve their efficiency and effectiveness to the benefit of exporters, the agricultural and industrial sectors of the economy and the tourism trade. The main thrust of the new legislation will be to relax ministerial control while increasing accountability for operational and financial performance. Essential preparatory work with a view to establishing the 12 new commercial port companies in January 1997 is under way in the Department.

Coastal erosion is recognised as a serious and growing problem. Under the Operational Programme for Environmental Services, 1994-99, £5.1 million is being made available to help deal with the problem of erosion. The aim is to address in as comprehensive a manner as possible the most urgent erosion problems identified on the Irish coast. The primary objective is the preservation of the State owned foreshore, local authority owned property and tourist amenities, including the beach and dune systems and the ecosystems they support. Preservation is the objective where this can be undertaken at an economic cost.

The Department of the Marine is working with coastal local authorities on the management of the entire coastal zone. The £890,000 allocated in 1996 will be used to fund coastal protection works, for example, at Killiney Beach in County Dublin, Ardgroom in County Cork and maintenance works at Rosslare Strand.

Marine research is covered under subheads F1 to F3. A provision of £5 million has been made for 1996, an increase on the figure of £4.5 million in 1995. This increase demonstrates the Government's commitment to marine research and development in line with the overall commitment to support the drive towards innovation in Irish enterprises generally. The marine resource holds promising potential for development, employment and wealth. There are exciting challenges and opportunities opening up for Irish marine research and industry. I am committed to ensuring the necessary research capability is in place to underpin the sustainable development of the national marine resource.

The Marine Institute was established in 1992 and has statutory responsibility to undertake, co-ordinate and assist marine research and development that will promote economic development, create employment and protect the marine environment. The institute has been developing a wide ranging agenda to establish and drive forward national marine research priorities and to promote the development of domestic expertise in marine based industries and enterprises. As part of the continued establishment agenda the Department's fisheries research centre and its scientific staff have become part of the institute since 1 January last.

Under the research measure of the operational programme for fisheries over £8 million has been committed to marine research. The measure is being administered by the institute on behalf of the Department. The initiatives under the measure include the provision of an enhanced research vessel capability. The first ever purpose built national research vessel has been commissioned and will be delivered early next year at a cost of £1.7 million.

The initiatives also include the provision of marine research and technological development infrastructure at key national centres of marine research expertise, a national survey of marine resources and support based research into fisheries and aquaculture R&D, marine food and marine technology. A first round of 27 projects is successfully under way. The continued level of funding for the Marine Institute and the ongoing assistance to the State owned salmon research agency will further enhance capacity to develop our natural marine resource.

I will deal now with sea fisheries and aquaculture development, subheads G1 to I3. Expenditure under the sea fisheries and aquaculture programme will be £14 million in 1996 and is significantly supported by EU Structural Funds. Following the integration of Spain and Portugal into the Common Fisheries Policy new fishing vessel control and reporting measures have applied since 1 January 1996. Since that date 40 Spanish vessels have legally had access to the Irish box. The situation is being comprehensively managed and controlled. We have achieved a significant increase in surveillance activity in recent years and this has been enhanced considerably by the introduction of dedicated aircraft capability.

In 1992 there were 492 boardings and 85 detentions. By 1995, the number of boardings had almost doubled to 936 and the level of detentions had dropped to 55. These figures clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the combined efforts of the Naval Service, the Air Corps and the Department of the Marine. That being said, I remain very concerned to ensure maximum compliance with EU fisheries rules by all vessels, including flagships, operating in Irish waters and I expect no less a commitment by the authorities in other member states. The 21 detentions to date this year underline the need for constant vigilance. Stringent enforcement and control, coupled with effective management and conservation of the fisheries resource is vital to ensure the continued protection of fish stocks.

Expenditure by the Department under the surveillance programme for 1996 will be £850,000. This is primarily directed at fully implementing the new arrangements for entry/exit reporting. Under the new EU co-financed surveillance package a uniquely favourable level of aid has been made available for Ireland in recognition of the disproportionately heavy surveillance responsibilities which we carry for EU waters. Our commitment to technical conservation measures has been instrumental in pushing this issue to the top of the EU agenda. It will be a priority for me during the Irish Presidency to progress the introduction of enhanced conservation measures EU wide.

The operational programme for fisheries is supporting targeted development of the fisheries sector as a whole up to 1999. The programme is designed to deliver an integrated approach to developing and enhancing the fishery sector's contribution to the national economy. The programme provides for a total investment of £140 million of which the EU is contributing £62 million.

The programmes includes restructuring and modernisation of the fishing fleet in conformity with EU targets and to increase the take up of under exploited fishing opportunities, investment in new aquaculture projects and modernisation of existing facilities, development of infrastructure and facilities at the main fishery harbour centres and at local fishing and aquaculture harbours, ice plant projects at key fishing ports, new processing facilities, equipment and installations and upgrading of existing facilities to ensure high added value, development of markets for fish and fish products and expanded training programmes to support employment in the fisheries sector.

Continued EU and State support for this investment is critical to delivering on the overall economic and jobs potential of the fisheries sector. Since the programme got under way it is clear that there is an appetite to use available funding quickly and effectively. Spending programmes are very well advanced on all fronts and the industry's case for additional resources under the programme is fully supported by me. I will be working in the context of the midterm review to get that additional funding.

I am committed to the provision of the necessary strategic infrastructure and facilities to support increased landings and activity generally in the fisheries sector. A further £3 million will be invested this year in fishery harbours. I am also committed to make every effort to secure additional funding to address the chronic underdevelopment of our fishery harbours. Projects for 1996 include works at Castletownbere, Dunmore East, a major study into the harbour development needs at Killybegs and investment in Ardgroom and Roaring Water Bay to support the local aquaculture industry.

The continued development and expansion of the aquaculture industry is a key objective for jobs and economic activity in coastal areas. Under the operational programme a total investment of £36 million is under way in new projects and the modernisation of existing facilities. To date 29 investment projects in aquaculture have been approved under the programme and I expect to approve a further round of investment shortly. I have recently received Government approval for the drafting of a new legislative framework for the aquaculture industry. This is a major and urgent priority to underpin further sustainable development in the sector while taking account of other users of the resource.

I will deal now with subheads J1 to J5. The total financial allocation to the inland fisheries sector in 1996 will amount to almost £14 million. Of this over £9 million will be provided in grant aid to the central and regional fisheries boards. The next four years is a significant period in so far as investment in our inland fisheries resource is concerned. Almost £23 million has been secured under the tourism angling measure of the operational programme for tourism, the INTERREG programme and the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in order to promote and develop our angling resource in the period to the end of 1999. Some £3.5 million of this investment, which is funded by the EU and the Exchequer, will take place during 1996. The emphasis under the tourism angling measure is to upgrade our coarse, game and sea angling resources to the highest international standards with resultant benefits for angling tourism and revenue.

Among the projects approved to date under the tourism angling measure are the River Moy catchment development plan which is likely to have an investment in the region of £2.5 million over five years. There is also a major investment of over £1 million in the western lakes to address the decline in wild brown trout stocks on Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra.

Another important national project is the sea trout rehabilitation programme. In this context I am pleased to say that the ongoing implementation of the recommendations of the sea trout task force, with the co-operation of fisheries and aquaculture interests, has made a significant contribution to addressing sea trout declines. The sea trout monitoring and advisory group is overseeing that implementation and I am firmly convinced that the committed strategies now in place will continue to pay dividends.

A prerequisite to the preservation, notably of our valuable wild salmon resource is the provision of an effective protection and surveillance capability both on land and out to the 12 mile limit at sea. The fisheries boards and the Foyle Fisheries Commission have statutory responsibilities in relation to protection of our fish stocks in co-operation with the Naval Service, the Air Corps and the Garda authorities. Progress in recent years in the detection and prosecution of those engaging in illegal fishing, and in particular in illegal drift netting for salmon, have been considerable. Funding for fisheries surveillance has been secured in recent years from the EU and has been matched in full by the Exchequer. The total funding under the 1996 surveillance package for the inland fisheries sector will be almost £700,000. A further large seagoing patrol vessel will be operational for the main season in 1996 which, together with the two vessels that commenced operations in 1995, represents a significant commitment of financial and human resources to the protection of the salmon resource.

I thank you for your invitation today. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the Estimate. If Deputies have questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability.

I thank the Minister for that detailed explanation of his Estimate. We have been relieved of undue effort in relation to questions since he provided many answers in his statement.

Unfortunately, our party spokesperson is unavailable and it has been left to me, a person who has always lived on the coast and who has a particular interest in this area, to speak on the Estimate. I commend the Minister on his work to date in the Department of the Marine. We have had many arguments and I have no doubt we will have many more. However, his heart is in the right place and he has a good understanding of the marine.

As I said to Ministers from my party when in Government — and I have no doubt we will be again — the Department of the Marine does not get the attention it deserves. The Department's potential in relation to job and wealth creation exceeds the status it has been given by Governments — that is not a reflection on the present one. If I can do anything to uplift the Department, I will do so.

We have problems with the fleet, fishery harbours, safety and the availability of fish stocks. I support almost everything the Minister said in that regard. As regards recent incidents, including the sinking of the Carrickatine off County Donegal and the drownings off Howth and Dunmore, the consensus among the fishing community is that the fleet is not what it should be. We find ourselves buying second or third hand obsolete trawlers from abroad. We are trying to compete with other people’s leftovers. Everybody would agree that is difficult at the best of times.

As regard fishery harbours, most harbours which have been upgraded have fared reasonably well. I am delighted that Kilmore Quay has had a major uplift and I thank all those concerned. It will be a wonderful asset to the area, particularly in relation to berthage, safety and job creation on and off shore. It will encourage fishermen to buy bigger and better trawlers capable of competing. Many small harbours are in need of attention. Some were built during the Famine and few improvements have been made since.

I would like to refer to Dunshannon, about which the Minister is probably tired of hearing. I am delighted to hear he will visit to the county and Dunshannon in the near future. Perhaps he will announce his proposals for Dunshannon today. It and many other small harbours need to be developed. If they were, they would undoubtedly more than return what it cost to develop them. The development of small harbours is essential, and not only in County Wexford. While I know there is a limit to funding, I ask the Minister to take this on board because it would be money well spent. We pay a lot of lip-service to job creation but this is an area in which jobs could be created.

Last year was terrible in terms of safety at sea. As I said in the Dáil and elsewhere, all too often I must walk the shores of County Wexford and County Waterford looking for survivors and seldom finding them. I have sympathised with too many widows, girlfriends and mothers. It is a dangerous and high risk business and blame cannot be apportioned to these people who must go to sea each day.

Although the fleet is not adequate, that is not the only cause for safety problems at sea. We must ask if our search and rescue services are sufficient. I am sure it will be suggested that we can only have what we can afford. Given the increase in commercial fishing, in the number of leisure craft and in shipping, it is essential that we upgrade our search and rescue operations. There have been moves in this direction in the past year. It may have taken a drowning for these moves to be made but, whatever the reason, I am grateful we are moving in the right direction. It is hard to put a price on the life of a young man working for his family and country.

We probably do not have a sufficient number of spotter planes and helicopters; we certainly do not have a sufficient number with night flying equipment. While there has been an improvement in this area — I acknowledge the Minister's interest in this — I ask that the entire coast be covered on a 24 hour basis, particularly in winter. While I will not go into the drownings which occurred and what might have happened if we had had other equipment, I am sure Members will join with me in saying that we owe a great debt to those involved in the search and rescue services, including volunteers.

Communities along the coast are remarkable in that an unbelievable number turn out to help when there is a problem offshore; people take days off work without pay. I would like to commend all those people and those from the Department of the Marine, the coast and cliff rescue service and the lifeboat service, which does a marvellous job. It is unfortunate that they are called out so often. Those who man the lifeboats deserve special praise. I am pleased that the RNLI provides smaller boats for inshore search and rescue between lifeboat stations. It is a good policy and I hope it will lead to lives being saved.

Two people were drowned three years ago this September in an accident 50 miles south of Hook Head. It was claimed the boat, the Orchidee, was rammed. The bodies were eventually found, but to this day nobody knows what happened. The other boat involved was French and I understand there is to be an investigation in France in the near future. I ask the Minister to ensure a representative from Ireland attends the hearing. Despite many requests from myself and others, it is not yet clear whether the Department of the Marine intends to send a representative. This is more serious than an accident and Ireland should be represented to ensure we get the whole truth.

Naturally, only maritime counties face the problem of coastal erosion. It is a particular problem for counties along the east coast and especially County Wexford, the shoreline of which — like its people — is soft and gentle. It is basically sandy and last year it was devastated by the easterly winds. As I said, the Minister will see this at first hand in the near future.

The Minister mentioned that ongoing works will continue in Rosslare. This is essential. I play an occasional game of golf in Rosslare and, even in my time, a number of holes have disappeared into the sea. I am not making a case for the golf club but for an entire village which is very tourism orientated. A plan is in place in Cullenstown, a smaller village along the south coast of County Wexford, to prevent coastal erosion. Unusually, money is available and a contractor is ready to start work but it is being held up because the Department of the Marine has not yet granted the foreshore licence.

An application for the licence was made last September and since then much land has disappeared from the south coast of County Wexford and, on a facetious note, my constituency is much smaller. People living in the Cullenstown area see the land disappearing. The sea is coming ever closer to their houses but, because two objections were made by an individual and a wildlife organisation, the Department appears to feel it ought to listen to them and ignore the local community.

It is crazy that, when work is ready to start, the foreshore licence is not granted. Wexford County Council, the premier body in County Wexford made up of elected members, agrees it is urgent the foreshore licence is granted before houses and property are lost. I do not suggest objections should not be heard, but surely it has reached the stage where we should regard humans as an important species; others suggest birds and animals should take precedence. Some strange things are going on there and I appeal to the Minister——

We are not discussing the affairs of Wexford County Council. I gave the Deputy enough latitude and I ask him to wind up.

Coastal erosion is a large and important part——

There is more than coastal erosion in Wexford.

I said it is all around the coast and I am sure the incidents I related are repeated many times around the coast. The way to make a point is to home in on a particular aspect.

As I said the Department of the Marine is not regarded as highly as it should. There are probably greater prospects for job and wealth creation in marine resources than in many other areas.

Having taken note of the points raised, perhaps the Minister will reply after the next contribution from Deputy Clohessy whose area included harbours, coastal erosion, etc.

Fortunately, my county is similar to Deputy Smith's and only the upper reaches of the Shannon touches it. I compliment the Minister on his sensible statement which covers a wide area. The Minister is from Dún Laoghaire, a constituency with a huge harbour and many leisure craft amenities.

The Department of the Marine has a wide remit. The Estimate shows that the Department's responsibilities cover marine rescue, coastal radio, harbour development, inland fisheries, marine fisheries, etc. I wish to deal with the sea fisheries industry and to highlight the chronic underdevelopment of this area of the economy. As Deputy Byrne said, the seas contain vast resources. It is a huge area with prospects for much more employment.

Ireland is an island nation and one would expect that a country surrounded by hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean would have a well developed fishing industry and a thriving fish processing sector. Sadly, we appear to have neither. The latest figures from the Central Statistics Office show that approximately 7,700 people are engaged in sea fishing. However, a closer look at the figures show that only 3,200 are classified as regular fishermen and the rest are engaged only on an occasional basis. This means there are more full-time workers in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry than in the entire sea fishing industry.

This position is mirrored in the fish processing industry. The most recent industrial data available relates to 1992 and the figures show that just 2,000 people were employed in fish processing activities, a small figure for a big industry in an island country. It is remarkable that we as a nation have failed so miserably to exploit the full economic and employment potential of one of our most valuable natural resources.

There was a dramatic increase in reported fish landings at Irish ports by Irish registered vessels in 1994, the most recent year for which detailed statistics are available. The total landings rose from 179,000 tonnes to 293,000 tonnes, an increase of more than 60 per cent. This is largely attributable to new high capacity vessels which recently joined the Irish fleet. These vessels, many of them in the super trawler class, can fish up to several hundred miles from their home ports and hold substantial tonnage of fish on board.

The main growth was in mackerel and horse mackerel. Landings of these two species increased by more than 100,000 tonnes in 1994. I am concerned that, while landings increased by 113,000 tonnes in 1994, exports only rose by less than 19,000 tonnes. It appears the real level of landings may be overestimated in the official statistics. How can the Minister explain the difference between the two figures? The gap can hardly be explained by increased domestic consumption because the people of Ireland hardly ate an extra 100,000 tonnes of fish last year.

This increase in landings is doing little to boost the fortunes of the processing industry. The industry is still relatively unsophisticated and the bulk of our output is exported with little value added. Some progress has been made in developing the added value side of the business in recent years but we still have a situation where added value products, such as prepared meals, are imported, mainly from Britain, while our exports are concentrated in low value products.

While we import fish, excluding shellfish, at an average price of over £1,400 per tonne we export it at an average price of £600 per tonne. Almost one quarter of our export tonnage was accounted for by fresh mackerel, sold mainly to British and European markets for an average price of £170 per tonne. Half of our export tonnage was accounted for by frozen mackerel sold mainly to non-EU countries, such as Russia and Japan, for an average price of £290 per tonne. Our processing industry does not concentrate sufficiently on the high value end of the market and as a result we are losing out substantially on the employment potential of this industry.

Part of the problem is that there does not appear to be a clear Government policy for the development of the sea fishing industry. Killybegs is the country's main commercial fishing harbour with up to 2,500 vessel movements per year, yet the harbour is in a poor state and in need of substantial investment to bring it up to an acceptable standard. With no proper planning there is a lack of confidence in the industry. This means people will not invest in new vessels and industrialists will not invest in additional processing capacity.

A number of years ago the Government brought forward a comprehensive plan for the development of the tourism industry. Clear targets were set in terms of visitor numbers, foreign earnings and new employment. That programme has been a tremendous success and the tourism industry is booming. Why can we not have a comprehensive plan for the development of the sea fishing and fish processing industries, with clear targets in terms of total landings, export volumes and new jobs. This is a sector with great potential for development and we should do everything to exploit it.

The recent Harbours Bill was very interesting. The development of our harbours is of great importance. The Channel Tunnel, which gives Britain an outlet to the European market, puts Ireland at a disadvantage so this country should utilise its harbours to the best of its ability and make life worthwhile for the people living in those areas. With regard to safety at sea, as Deputy Byrne pointed out, serious accidents have happened. Some of them may have had nothing to do with the safety of the ships concerned but it is vitally important that safety is at the top of the agenda with regard to our sea fishing vessels.

It is good to know that when vessels put to sea there is a rescue service available if they get into difficulty. I compliment the Minister on making every effort to ensure that all areas of the country are covered and that people can be rescued as soon as possible.

I also compliment the Minister on his views on the wild salmon industry and its value to the tourist industry. Some years ago only a small percentage of the salmon that reached our shores managed to go upstream. Members will be aware that every salmon caught in the inland waterways means a great deal of money for the tourism business. Let us look at what happened to Castleconnell. The fishery industry there died after the introduction of the Shannon scheme in the 1930s. Even the spawning beds were destroyed. Some years ago, however, the ESB carried out a study of the Shannon and recreated the spawning beds. I am delighted that some of the largest catches, in weight, have been caught in Castleconnell. I urge the Minister to follow that policy and ensure that the rivers get their fair share of salmon.

With regard to agri-business in the west, the Minister should be more cautious about giving permission for the installation of fish farming cages. It is a huge business and employs many people but for some unknown reason cages have been installed in tourist areas. The Minister should exercise greater care in deciding the locations for fish cages. There is a real conflict about this issue; the principal concern should be the preservation of scenic and amenity areas. Not long ago the infestation of sea trout with lice was blamed on the salmon farming industry and it caused much irritation among the people concerned. Salmon farming offers great potential for employment in remote rural coastal areas and I ask the Minster to ensure that the location of cages does not interfere with the local tourist industry.

I thank Deputy Clohessy for his usual constructive contribution. I join him and Deputy Byrne in paying tribute to the air and sea rescue service and the ILA, which I have seen operate at first hand in my constituency. Great tribute is due to the Department and the Minister for developing these services. There is no spokesperson for the Independents. Deputy Smith was delayed and is unable to join so he must make his contribution under the sections.

I apologise for the delay but I had no notice of the meeting. Unfortunately, I am not a serving member of this committee. It was no fault of the Chairman. If the matter had been managed in the same way as the Department of Defence Estimate yesterday, I could have contributed.

I always value the Deputy's contribution as spokesperson for the main Opposition party, but the responsibility for notifying the spokesperson does not rest with——

It does not rest with the Chairman.

——me or with the Minister; it rests with the Deputy's colleague, the convenor of the Opposition. The Deputy should speak to his convenor. Can the Minister reply to the points that have been raised and I will call Deputy Smith under the sections.

Deputy Hugh Byrne referred to recent tragedies and the quality of the Irish shipping fleet. I established a fishery vessel safety review group whose chairman is Mr. Donal O'Mahony, a retired secretary of the Department of Transport. Members of the fisheries industry and other experts serve on the review group which is due to report to me later this month. Its purpose is to investigate the entire area of safety and make suggestions with regard to what can be done to improve the situation. I eagerly await that report. Some unpleasant things may have to be done if the group recommends that certain actions be taken. This will be a challenge for everyone.

As Deputy Byrne stated, a high value must be placed on individual lives. Regardless of whatever action is taken, however, people often take risks where they should not, sometimes for understandable reasons, and at other times, we cannot understand their actions. I am conscious of the need to improve safety standards as much as possible, in respect of fishery vessels, pleasure craft, etc. I accept that a person's life cannot be valued in monetary terms. I await the report of the review group in this regard.

I have had discussions with the Irish Fishing Federation and others in relation to the modernisation of the fleet. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see every fisherman leaving port on a new boat. We are looking at ways to provide assistance to those who wish to purchase new vessels. I ask Deputies to carefully consider this matter.

Deputy Clohessy referred to how modern is the pelagic fleet and how large are the landings. In the white fish sector, we are confined to quotas within a total allowable catch. It is all very well to state that people should purchase new vessels. However, even if they receive grant aid, they must make repayments. I do not wish to see people placed in the predicament of investing in a new vessel and then unable to make their repayments because they are restricted by the quota of fish they are permitted to catch. This matter must be debated and discussed within the industry; it is not something which can be dealt with by Government or Members of the Oireachtas. The reality is that fish stocks in many areas are being depleted due to over-fishing and conservation measures are being taken as a result. The overall tonnage capacity in Europe is too high and steps are being taken to reduce it or buy it out.

A situation will eventually be reached where a new boat's capacity for catching fish might be far greater than that of an older vessel being sold off by its owner. Such a boat will cost money and the purchaser must be able to make repayments. They must ask themselves whether they will be able or permitted, within the quota system, to catch a sufficient amount of fish to meet repayments and to make the business viable. Every fisherman is a private sector businessman. The State does not own their vessels. Fishermen must trade in the same manner as any other business person. It is not merely a question of buying everyone a new boat. There are many issues which must be discussed. I am not stating that people should be encouraged to set sail in difficult weather conditions and fish, a good distance from shore, in boats that are not suited for such conditions. I believe that much debate and discussion must take place in connection with this issue.

The same applies to fishery harbours. During Question Time I discussed fishery harbours with Deputy Smith. When the operational programme moneys were divided I was astounded that the Department's share was cut. The Department has little money available for the development of major fishery harbour centres and piers and harbours, and there is no denying that money could be used very effectively.

The Department of the Marine was established eight years ago and I compliment the former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, who was responsible. It was a wise action because our marine resources had been ignored for many years. In the past, responsibility for the marine fell under the remit of the Department of Agriculture and nothing was done about it. Now, however, we are attempting to pick up the pieces. I am conscious of the time constraints, but this is a very interesting discussion.

If the Minister wishes to stay until 8 p.m., the committee will facilitate him.

No, I merely stated that it is an interesting discussion.

With regard to search and rescue, I established a committee which submitted an interim report about the east coast, and a 24 hour service involving a Dauphin helicopter has been put in place at Baldonnel. The committee will give its final report within the next month and we must await its recommendations. There is no doubt that the problem relating to the east coast must be carefully examined because of increased traffic in the Irish Sea, etc. Some years ago, a 24 hour search and rescue service was provided for the west coast. In conjunction with the British authorities, we are doing our best to cover the east coast. Traffic is continually increasing — which is a good thing, if it is Irish traffic — but we must be careful about certain traffic in the Irish Sea.

I agree with Deputy Clohessy that enormous potential exists in the area of fish processing. I have visited modernised fish processing plants, many of which are only now getting off the ground. By the end of the operational programme in 1999, we are aiming to double the numbers involved in the fish processing industry. The Department of the Marine is encouraging those involved in the industry to develop new marketing approaches, quality assurance methods, etc. The Department recognises and is conscious of the industry's potential to create wealth and employment.

Deputy Clohessy also stated that there is a need for a fisheries policy. I agree. As I stated earlier, more than 1,100 people attended a series of four seminars we organised with the Marine Institute. It is intended to gather relevant information and to produce a Framework Document from which we can operate in the foreseeable future. We must put a plan in place and set targets in terms of development. On previous occasions I listened to Members' suggestions and took action in that regard.

The Government recently approved the drafting of badly needed legislation relating to aquaculture. The Department has received over 500 applications for aquaculture licences. As a result of a number of court cases, the existing legislation was found to be inadequate. New licensing and appeals structures — similar to those relating to planning — will be established where applications can be assessed and the applicants have recourse to the right of appeal. With the Marine Institute, the Department is also preparing a coastal zone management system. We will consider the entire coastline of Ireland and designate areas which are suitable for different types of marine activity. I hope the relevant legislation will be placed before the Oireachtas as soon as possible.

I join in Deputy Clohessy's comments on the Harbour Bill and pay tribute to the Minister of State. I had the pleasure of playing a part in a number of stages of the Bill, particularly on Committee Stage, as did Deputy Michael Smith and Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, and we enjoyed the debate. It is a good Bill which was greatly strengthened by the debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas.

We are taking subheads A to E, F to I and J to P. Members will have an opportunity to speak on each and I ask them to confine their comments to the subheads under discussion. We will begin with subheads A to E.

Thank you for your forbearance; I am sorry about the mix up. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the Estimates in detail because it affords the committee an opportunity to hear an update from the Minister of the current position in a wide range of policy areas.

As the Minister said, we have neglected our marine resources and it is only in recent years that any attempt has been made to redress that imbalance. It will be necessary to have some dramatic change in Government views, primarily those of the Department of Finance, on the requirements essential to the development and upgrading of this resource. I do not think — in fairness to this or any previous Minister — that a pro rata increase in line with inflation will do anything serious to ensure this resource, which was badly neglected in the past, will be developed.

It is hard to know the historical reason for this. When one looks at the layout of towns on the coastline, it is almost as if a Viking aggressor was coming up the river or across the sea. The common fisheries policy, where our catch is out of proportion to our waters, and the general EU approach to fisheries, which allows for a reasonable degree of common ownership of waters, have meant we have not been able to conserve that resource in the way we could have if there was more national ownership and responsibility at local level.

We frequently have to make cuts and changes to tonnage. I appreciate the point made by the Minister in relation to the purchase of new boats and ships. While countries with bigger catches and resources continue to put new fleets into the waters, we do not have sufficient tonnage to go too far down that road. Nevertheless, something reasonable must be done in the area of white fish and grant aid from the Department, welcome as it is, will not be able to deal with it. The resources available to the Department under the operational programme are not sufficient. It is easy to talk about that but we have to face up to the reality.

I welcome the Minister's statement on the heads of the Bill. However, in my experience, even if the heads of the Bill have been approved by the Government, he was very optimistic about its early introduction. I hope that will be the reality, but it is not what we are used to as it can take a long time to draft legislation. I differ somewhat with my colleague, Deputy Clohessy, on this point because there are many planning objections to developments, and not just in relation to aquaculture.

In coastal regions there is little alternative employment to aquaculture projects, which we have all visited, with opportunities for downstream processing, transport, services and so on. We have to find a balance. It is not possible to keep everything in its present state. We have peak lands because the country was once afforested. The human personality, in its experience and judgment, makes many changes to the landscape. While we conform to good planning law, as the Minister said, efforts to designate some areas have been more successful than others. There is also stricter management of disease and other problems. We are a long way from the Scottish or Norwegian experience and this legislation is very necessary if we are to catch up with them.

Will the Minister be in a position to publish the Price Waterhouse review soon? The Harbours Bill was very welcome and has given a good commercial orientation to many of our harbours. However, it would be wise to have a subhead under which some of the smaller ports and harbours would be developed over a five or ten year period. A mix of conflicting interests, including marine leisure and piers, must be taken into account in the designation of areas suitable for aquaculture. These sometimes conflicting developments must be married in order to sustain and develop marine potential.

Reference has already been made to marine safety, which we must continue to improve. The Minister said some of his proposals might be unpopular. At least one them will involve expenditure on the part of boat owners. There are now much more modern and sophisticated systems for identification. There is considerable expenditure on surveillance and rescue, some of which could be avoided if proper identification and more modern systems were used. Needless to say, we encourage the Minister to do that.

In regard to coastal erosion, according to reports about one third of our 2,500 miles of coastline is in different stages of erosion. It is a massive cost. The programme provides about £5 million over five years. I am not interested in the politics of this — everyone knows it is totally unrealistic to think anything sensible could be done about it with the existing level of resources. Neither is it credible to suggest the resources could be made available to deal with all those problems at once. Negotiations with the Department of Finance, local authorities, FÁS and local communities must be undertaken in the next five to ten years to reduce the costs.

Recently we had major casualties with bream in Lough Derg. It is a big tourism area in a county not renowned for tourism, in which massive investment has been made by hotel and bed and breakfast owners. It is big set back at this stage to have thousands of bream decaying on the shoreline. Local authorities in the adjoining counties and the Department are investigating the cause of the problem and why it is confined to that species. The cause seems to be environmental, which is very broad. What information does the Minister have on that problem?

The Department of the Environment has financed, under the Cohesion Fund, a number of tertiary treatment developments. There are negotiations with the farming community regarding the reduction of fertilisers and with Bord na Móna on peat silt problems and ancillary problems causing eutrification of the lake. This problem appears to have spread very quickly and needs to be addressed. We could criticise the Spanish, however, we will give them a rest and proceed to the subheads.

I am sorry, Deputy, that you did not get notification of the meeting. We made the arrangements two weeks ago. We will ensure that both convenors are reminded to contact the spokespersons in the Opposition parties in future. I appreciate the problem you have raised regarding coastal erosion. It is not a matter of millions but, probably, billions of pounds. In reply to a recent Parliamentary Question I was advised that responsibility for the protection of private property rests with the individual rather than the State.

The convenor who is absent also has an interest in coastal erosion. It is a problem in the Cork area, especially in the constituency I represent. We hear much about Ballycotton. The issue there was raised with the local authority, the Department of the Marine and the Office of Public Works. However, we are all being fobbed off. I do not blame the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, for this. The same situation arose with regard to other Ministers in other Departments.

Nobody appears to be responsible for coastal erosion in harbour areas. Small coast roads which were built in the 1800s are being lost because of the ravages of the sea and rising tides. It is a national problem which must be addressed. Deputy Michael Smith mentioned that 2,500 miles of coastline are involved. Given this, £5 million is inadequate to address even the smallest part of the coastal area of east County Cork.

I ask the Minister to consider the Ballycotton area. Ballycotton village, which is located on a small peninsula, is in danger. If there are high winds and heavy gales it can be cut off from the mainland. At present the road is under threat from erosion due to subsidence, as are some private buildings.

The State must take responsibility for what is a national problem. It cannot say it is a private matter for property owners. The problem is not of their making because it is caused by the ravages of the sea. The French are spending millions of pounds on the protection of their coastal areas. While they have a big economy we should note what they are doing in this regard. Our coastline is extremely valuable, especially in the eastern part of the country. There is excellent land for growing crops such as potatoes and carrots, which are not in plentiful supply here.

This should be addressed as a national problem. Perhaps there could be an all party approach to get to grips with it for once and for all. Much of the problem arises from works that were undertaken in the last century and the early part of this century. Under famine relief work, break-walls were built and timber barriers were put in place and these have eroded over the years. In many instances, for example in Youghal and further along the west County Cork area, they have been uprooted because of decay and have not been replaced.

I am prepared to take the Minister and any of his officials around this area to enlighten them as to what has happened. Whether we like it or not, much of this work was done when concrete walls were erected. Given that concrete rots, these walls have decayed. In addition, small coastal roads on the seashore are being washed away. These roads were amenities in the summer months.

My former leader, Mr. Haughey, established the Department of the Marine. He was one of the most farseeing politicians in modern history. Much of what he did is only coming to fruition now, whether it be the National Treasury Management Agency or the Financial Services Centre. Recently the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Department of Equality and Law Reform were established. These have been modern developments given that we inherited most of what we have in this area from the time when another power was established here.

Harbours are the responsibility of many bodies. Local authorities have responsibility for them, as do the Department of the Marine, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Enterprise and Employment. It is time they were placed in the one Department, preferably under a really modern transport Department. Other than that, they should all be transferred to the Department of the Marine. In the commercial area the two flagship ports appear to be Rosslare, for roll on and roll off, and Waterford, for lift on and lift off. They appear to be under the Department, where they have been innovatory and successful.

When problems with harbours arise in my local authority area time is spent attempting to ascertain who is responsible. Debate is now taking place in the House on changes in the Department for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht regarding the Office of Public Works, which has a role in respect of harbours. Problems arose in Youghal when the harbour wall fell and it took three days to ascertain that the Office of Public Works was responsible for the wall.

While these policy matters may not be of relevance to the Estimate, I am pleased to put them on the record. The are relevant in a modern context.

The majority of points raised by Deputy Ned O'Keeffe and Deputy Michael Smith would be more effectively addressed under subheads F and I. The question of harbour developments is also relevant to subheads A and E. I propose to move to subheads F and I and I call on Deputies to comment. The Minister can then reply to questions under both headings.

Are we finished with subheads A, B, C, D and E?

No. We are finished with subheads A to E for the purposes of this session, but we will move to subheads F and I and then the Minister will reply to both sections.

I wish to make some remarks regarding subheads A to E.

Please proceed.

Are we taking the subheads now?

Yes. We have completed your party's contribution. I allowed a second speaker. Please address your remarks to subheads A to E.

With regard to subhead B1, the coast life saving service is very important but when talking about training, equipment and volunteers, I understand that the major inland water-ways are excluded. I live between two of the largest lakes in the country, Lough Corrib and Lough Mask. Lough Corrib is in excess of 30 miles long; it is an expansive waterway and there is need for equipment on both lakes to provide a proper rescue service. A number of lives have been lost on both Lough Corrib and Lough Mask. I ask the Minister to indicate whether he would be willing to consider applications for voluntary life saving services on the lakes as being eligible for assistance under that subhead.

There is also a huge problem with other harbours. We seem to be getting caught between an ever increasing number of agencies and Departments in dealing with this issue. Most people consider Dún Laoghaire, Dublin, Cork and Rosslare to be the busiest ferry ports in the country. Rossaveel, Kilronan, Doolin and Inisheer and Inishmaan, like most islands, have a greater turnover of ferry boats because, in many cases, landings take place by the hour. However, every time we apply to the Department of the Marine for money for these harbours, we are told they can only be considered under fishing criteria. This has been a particular problem in Inishbofin and in Cleggan, the port which services it. We must make clear who is responsible for these harbours; we also must ensure that they will be recognised as commercial harbours, that ferry operations, whether they be outside or within the State, will be recognised as deserving landing facilities in relation to the number of boat landings and that the number of tie ups will be considered as well as passenger numbers.

If nothing is done there will be a big accident at some ferry — we already had one at Bear Island — in a harbour, perhaps Kilronan, Cleggan or Inishbofin. When that happens — whether it is because one cannot land at Cleggan pier and must off load onto boats, which is illegal, or too many boats arrive at Kilronan pier and there is a major accident — there will be a huge outcry asking why this matter was not tackled and money provided. It would be better for us to get ahead of that problem.

I support some of Deputy O'Keeffe's points on coastal protection. The money being provided is ridiculously small. However, I disagree with him on one point; it is irrelevant whether the land we are protecting is good or bad. A farmer's farm or the road to his house is his property, whether he lives in Munish in Carna, Ballycotton in County Cork, Inishmaan on the Aran Islands or Rosadilisk in Connemara. It is his livelihood.

We have a serious situation on the west: water supplies are endangered and people are literally losing large percentages of their farms and a small amount of money spent on the farms on Inishmaan could save some of the remaining farmland. However, it only gets between £10,000 to £20,000 every year, that is only funny money. It is not enough to do anything worthwhile. A local community council could do better if it tried to collect the money.

There is need for a proper commitment to coastal protection and to tell the public that all we are providing for the whole island is £890,000 and to stop sending in applications because they will not be processed. There is only a nominal coastal protection scheme a drop in the ocean and the 90 per cent of people who have asked that coastal protection works be carried out in their areas can forget about it. It would be more honest to tell these communities that they will get no compensation and that there is no scheme to take preventative action if their farm or road washes away. This figure of £890,000 will not do much to battle coastal erosion.

Can the Minister explain the expenditure on the Loran C system and the current position with regard to new legislation, if that is contemplated, in relation to Loop Head? Will any other harbours benefit, other than Cork, Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Rosslare, Waterford and the Shannon Estuary, from the increase in the Estimate for commercial ports improvement?

One area of contention is wild salmon fishing. I live close to the river Blackwater, which many regard as one of the best salmon fishing stretches in the world. There is a shortage of salmon there because they are not coming through the Youghal bridge at Waterford. Does the Minister have any plans to improve accessibility so the salmon can travel up river? Much of the blame for this is being put on monofiliment nets in the outer harbour.

The Loran C matter is currently at a standstill. We must wait the outcome of two cases in the Supreme Court, one on the planning and the other on the challenge as to whether An Bord Pleanála was right in taking certain matters into account in deciding the planning appeal. That matter is being challenged so we cannot do anything about it at the moment.

What is the Minister proposing in the Estimate?

The money is in place in the event of clearance being given; it has been in place for the last number of years but it will not be used until a decision is made. The Price Waterhouse report should be with us in a couple of weeks. It took longer than I expected. One often steers in a different direction after reading an interim report.

The Department is in close contact with the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board on the matter of bream in Lough Derg. Originally, we thought this could have been a fish health problem because bream was the only fish being affected. However, preliminary investigations by UCG suggest that this is not the case.

There are ongoing coarse fish disease problems in the Shannon catchment area and much of it is down to bad water quality. We have asked the board to commission a major coarse fish health review. The Department of the Marine has offered to help in any way it can and I think this is what the regional fisheries board should do, that is, commission a major coarse fish health review. We will keep the Deputy updated on the final outcome of the investigations carried out by UCG.

In response to Deputy O'Keeffe and Deputy Smith, having seen many small harbours around the country I am also concerned because there is much potential in these areas. However, I am not a great believer in centralising these matters — I do not mean that the Deputies suggested they should be centralised. By and large, local authorities have ignored small harbours and piers and this is a shame. It should be made an issue at local level because that is where the potential will be exploited. The local people and the local authority should decide for what the small harbour will be used rather than an organisation in Dublin. I think that is the way forward. Undoubtedly local authorities should be getting assistance from, say, the Department of Tourism and Trade for the tourism potential involved, and perhaps we can also help if it comes under our responsibility, so they can combine assistance from different areas to get this resource up and running.

They do not want to hear about it.

It is their responsibility.

I know. I am not being political about this.

The Minister could give the money to local authorities to do this.

I am sorry, this is the Vote for the Department of the Marine. These are not under our ownership and it is not our responsibility.

Someone has to fund them.

May I finish? There is no point being aggressive about it.

We hear the same thing every year.

Please, we have had a decent discussion so far.

Deputy Ó Cuív has just arrived.

The problem in the House is that there are so many committees a Member has to be four places at once.

The Deputy should please address his remarks through the Chair or I will have to rule him out of order. I do not want to do that, as I know you are interested in small harbours. However, every Deputy at this meeting — indeed, every Deputy in the House — is equally interested in the subject. Will the Deputy permit the Minister to reply?

I can only speak for the area for which I am responsible and that includes ports and we are endeavouring to do something for them in the Harbours Bill, which set up commercial State companies to manage the ports on a commercial basis to make them more effective and efficient. There is also a substantial investment programme through EU aid. In that area we are doing what needs to be done, whether that is in respect of Cork, Dublin or Waterford. We are looking at the structure for fishery harbour centres at present because up to this the major centres like Killybegs, Rossaveel and Dunmore East have been managed from the Department. We are considering local structures based on the ports scheme, setting up a management structure locally so there can be forward planning with assistance from the Department.

Unfortunately, those who drew up the operational programme decided they would allocate £5 million to coastal erosion, which is what I have inherited. We asked local authorities to prioritise what they think is important in their areas and we will grant aid to as many as we can.

They do not tell us that.

Each coastal local authority received a letter and has submitted its priority list. We must allocate the money in accordance with the priorities set by the local authorities because it is their responsibility, we only grant aid them. As Deputy Smith said, it is a pity local authorities did not set up community schemes at a relatively cheap cost to do something even as a stop gap, because that would be better than nothing. I have visited communities which are prepared to row in and help, whether by way of FÁS schemes or community programmes sponsored by local authorities.

Some of that infrastructure was provided in the last century but is now decaying and rotting through the action of breakwaters and rocks.

If I can get additional funds in the review at the end of 1996 I will be only too pleased to allocate them. We will do it through the local authorities in accordance with their priorities and I presume authorities will discuss it with their members.

The salmon task force has produced a report which has just been presented to the Minister of State with responsibility in that area. I have looked at the report also and I think it should be discussed at committee level, to hear what steps people think should be taken. That is a good way forward. Undoubtedly the value of a wild salmon caught in a river by a tourist or an angler is far higher than one would receive for it on the commercial market. I think it would be extremely valuable if the committee undertook to discuss the report so that we could hear what people think. In this business one will please some people but not others and priorities must be set. The salmon task force review report is an independent assessment of the position and we as legislators should look at it. We can arrange that, Sir.

Deputy Ó Cuív asked about ferries to islands. As he knows, this is a matter for the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. The operational programme money was provided on the basis that we would improve our trade prospects with other member states in Europe, so the money is assigned to external matters. I have seen the two ferries operating in Rossaveel. A potential opportunity is being lost — people should be able to wait at the ferry terminal in comfort. It should also be possible to buy Aran sweaters, meals, etc. while waiting for the ferry. I think this could be commercially viable. There is plenty of money available in the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and from other sources and if people came together to provide a community initiative something could be done. We cannot stray into the area of another Department's responsibility — it is a Gaeltacht matter.

Can the Minister confirm, that the non-Gaeltacht islands and the piers outside the Gaeltacht do not come under the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht? Can he also confirm that Rossaveel specifically does not come under that Department?

We are responsible for Rossaveel as a fishery harbour centre and have spent a considerable sum there in the recent past. When it comes to the ferry service we will co-operate in terms of foreshore licences, etc., to provide landing areas for ferries or any other assistance we can give but it is not our responsibility.

Whose responsibility is it?

The Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht because it is serving the islands.

That Department will deny it.

I suggest the Deputy contact the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, who has responsibility in that area, to see what can be done.

He will say he has no money for it and no responsibility or competence in the matter.

What about the Minister, Deputy Higgins?

He certainly has no competence in it.

That is a matter for another day. If the Minister says his Department has no responsibility for that, it is not part of our agenda today.

He has responsibility because all of Rossaveal is under his Department. One cannot go in and set up——

I have responsibility for the fishery and harbour sectors but not for ferry services.

For any activity. Parking cars is not fishing but the Minister still has responsibility for car parking on the piers.

We are not here to discuss parochial issues. We are here to discuss the Estimates and if the Minister says he does not have responsibility for something it is not part of the Estimates.

I mentioned harbours and services to non-Gaeltacht islands which do not come under the Department of the Gaeltacht. I asked if the Minister had responsibility for Cleggan and Boffin islands and other islands that fall into the same category.

The local authority has responsibility for such areas. The Deputy might shake his head and disagree; he asked me a straight question and, as Minister for the Marine, I must give a straight answer but it does not necessarily follow that I agree with that answer. However, if he asks if I am responsible and I say I am not, he should accept that. I am not entering into a debate as to whether I should or should not be responsible.

We are getting bogged down.

If the Deputy wants help the interdepartmental committee set up under the Taoiseach's Vote might be the place to get such help. We are dealing with the Estimates.

I know everybody wants to get their contributions into their local newspaper or on their local radio station. We have given the Deputy a fair spin so we should move on.

May I clarify another point? We are trying to get to the bottom of the Estimates.

The Deputy will not do it this way; he will get to the bottom of nothing. We will move on to the next question for the Minister.

Under subheads G.2. and G.3.——

The Minister will deal with the questions listed for him. The Deputy is becoming totally disorderly and has disrupted the meeting since he arrived.

I was asked about the coastal life saving service and whether it applied to the lakes; it does not. The Estimate is based on coastal requirements. We are not responsible for rescue on inland lakes.

It would probably be the Office of Public Works or the Garda. It does not come under the responsibility of IMES so it is not part of its structure. Again, it might be something that should be looked at. The Deputy will appreciate that this is a new Department and certain areas were allocated to it. As time moves on, it will become more obvious that certain responsibilities should be moved and certain things done to make it more efficient. However, there is no point giving us more responsibility without transferring the money to do the job. If I had sufficient time I would love to co-ordinate more tasks and be given the staff and structures to do it because it does not make sense at present.

I do not disagree with the Minister. He does good work. He mentioned coastal erosion and community schemes. I understand a community scheme was used in many areas of my constituency to construct breakwaters and other structures in the years following the Famine and in the early years of this century. The Minister should take the lead in suggesting community schemes for those areas. Unemployment among unskilled and semiskilled workers is a real problem and much of this work could be done by unskilled workers. That is the nature of the work. Saving our coastline would be an important memorial to the Minister and it would never be forgotten because people are very concerned about this issue. I urge the Minister to take the lead and make this suggestion to Government. The problem of coastal erosion must be addressed.

I am not interested in centralisation. However, as Deputy Ó Cuív pointed out, nobody appears to be responsible for harbours or ports when problems arise. They are passed from Department to Department.

The difference is that people are responsible but they are not doing anything about it.

However, I cannot pin them down. I can pin the Minister down and he is forthcoming and helpful, but when I leave the House who can I approach?

If the local authority is responsible for a harbour, it is a matter for the local authority to make the case that we are wasting a valuable resource and, whether the Department of the Environment will fund development or responsibility and funds for such development are transferred to the Department of the Marine, let that be debated. However, the initiative must come from the local authorities.

I do not often make a comment from the Chair, but as a member of two local authorities I agree with the Minister. One half of the local community wants it transferred to a Department and the other wants it to remain under the control of the local authority. If it is under the control of the local authority, it is the responsibility of the local authority. That is the answer to the point raised.

With regard to subheads G.2 and G.3 — I am sorry to take out my frustrations on the Minister — I am pleased with the allocation for Derryinver and its continued funding. Some money is allocated by the Department to small fishery harbours. I am a member of a local authority and the Dáil. The local authority gave me a list of 50 piers in County Galway that are its responsibility and no money is allocated for them. When one tells the county manager that something should be done about that, he will say that there is no money. If an application is made to the Department of the Marine——

He is wasting his time. Why not make the application to the Department of the Environment, which is the responsible Department?

May I explain my point? When the application is made to the Department of the Marine — as was the case of Derryinver — in some cases money suddenly appears out of nowhere. I am curious to know how the piers were picked — later we will come to the question of dredging — because, presumably, they all come under local authority control.

We are getting into parochial areas. The Deputy is trying to dictate to me how to conduct this meeting, as he usually tries to do, but he will not do that. If the Deputy wants that information he can put down a Dáil question to the relevant Minister or put down a notice of motion at his local authority. That subject has been discussed and completed.

May I ask a specific question? There is a new subhead in the Estimates, G.3 — Maintenance and Dredging of Harbours for Fishery Purposes. There was zero outturn for 1995 and an estimate of £1 million for 1996. Can the Minister confirm that the money is being spent on piers in the charge of local authorities? Were the local authorities asked to make submissions regarding the spending of that money? What criteria were used in selecting the piers at which this dredging will be carried out?

If the Deputy had asked the question in that way before, he might have received an answer.

The 1995 provision for maintenance and dredging of fishery harbours was included under subhead G.1, Fishery Harbour Development; it relates mainly to maintenance and dredging of fishery harbours. Prior to 1996 this provision was included in subhead G.1. The policy objective is to protect and preserve existing infrastructure at selected local harbours where fishing activity has an important socio-economic role, especially in remote coastal areas.

I understand that this can be confusing for Deputies. Major fishery harbour centres at Killybegs, Rossaveal, Castletownbere and Dunmore East are directly under the control of the Department of the Marine. We are looking at them in terms of the possibility of putting in a local management structure to be run on a commercial basis.

Dingle is not designated a major fishery harbour centre. It is run by Dingle Harbour Commissioners. I do not know the history of this, but Dingle wants to become a designated fishery harbour centre. If we did that tomorrow morning we would be taking direct control of Dingle into the Department of the Marine — the very thing I do not want to do. We are examining ways and means. Dingle is a major fishery centre but it is not designated as a fishery harbour centre. There are other selected centres — Kilmore Quay, mentioned by Deputy Hugh Byrne, is a perfect example. There is a high level of fishing going on there and it required modernisation and updating. Union Hall is another harbour where there is a level of fishing. The Department moved in there because it was part of the development of a fishery harbour.

The Minister has given us sufficient information on that.

The smaller harbours are under the control of either local authorities or port authorities. For example, in my own constituency, Bulloch Harbour and Colimore Harbour were the responsibility of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. Do not ask me how that arose.

As chairman of a harbour authority and a member of two local authorities, I know it is a complex issue. When you start to get into each small harbour around the coast you would want a history book rather than an Estimates meeting to discuss them. The matter has been discussed sufficiently.

One final point.

When is this going to end?

It is of vital interest. We have 50 harbours. The pattern of fishing on the west coast is changing dramatically because there has been a big increase in shell-fishing, aquaculture, inland and inshore fishing. Old harbours need to be refurbished. I accept what the Minister said but there is a need for a subhead dealing with small harbours. The Minister should put £600,000 aside — matched pound for pound by local authorities and local communities — to be spent each year refurbishing harbours that will have a huge economic contribution to make. This is particularly so on the west coast where there are many such harbours which are vital to our inshore fishing, mariculture, aquaculture and shell-fishing. If the Minister provided that money he would get a hundredfold return for his money.

That money should be obtained on a pound for pound basis from the community, the local authority and the Department. Let each local authority then make its application on its own financial commitment.

The Deputy has made a suggestion which is probably more appropriate to a Second Stage debate than an Estimates meeting.

We do not have such a debate.

I will ask Members to note the point he has made. We will now move on to debate subheads J and P.

Before you move from small harbours, may I say a few words?

We have gone through small harbours until we are blue in the face. I am taking the final section but, because our convenor had to go on another mission at my request, I will allow another minute to you and to Deputy Leonard. I wish to take subheads J and P because we have only 15 minutes in which to conclude. Are there any comments on subheads J and P, Inland Fisheries and Other Services?

In 1994 the then Minister, Deputy McCreevy, announced funding under the operational programme and under INTERREG for fishery development. Since then, according to a parliamentary question, £15 million came from the operational programme and less than £4 million from INTERREG. Last October the Minister allocated about £4.5 million under the operational programme for 38 projects. Since then I have persistently tried to find out when INTERREG funding will be made available for the Border counties. I tabled parliamentary questions and sought an Adjournment debate to which a reply was given in January by the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore.

On a number of occasions I was promised that INTERREG funding would be made available for cross-Border projects but I cannot understand why that has not been done. We have had commitments from Ministers that, because of the peace initiative, they would move some of those projects forward. EU officials stated that those programmes and other EU funding should be refocused in view of the peace initiative. However, when I tabled a parliamentary question seeking a breakdown of funding for those 38 projects I found that £76,000 was allocated to Donegal from a total of £4.3 million. Since then the Office of Public Works has allocated £238,000 to the Ballinamore/ Ballyconnell Canal. It is a disgrace that not one penny has been allocated to the Cavan, Monaghan or Louth regions from the INTERREG programme. I was promised it would be attended to but is has not.

When the announcement was made in 1994 Monaghan County Council's tourism committee submitted projects. There is no shortage of such projects which, according to a Dáil answer, are being investigated and assessed. We are told that eventually a decision will be made. It is long past the time to act. If there is any genuine desire to help that region, which we were promised was entitled to help and would be helped, that money should be made available now.

I appreciate and understand the importance of that subject to Deputy Leonard who is involved in it in Monaghan and Cavan; I was also involved in the subject. I understand the original programme submitted was not acceptable and had to be redrafted. I do not know whether there has been a development since then.

Are there any other questions under this heading?

Is the Minister in a position to give a detailed account of payments under the tourism angling programme? When can we expect to see the Foyle Fisheries Commission legislation? The Minister may give us some details on the enhanced resources for marine research generally.

On page 113, relating to inland fisheries, subhead J4 covers fishery surveillance. I notice that amount has decreased by 7 per cent. Will the Minister comment on that?

I congratulate the Minister on the initiative and drive he has shown in the Department of the Marine. He understands his job well in a Department which has not had its rightful allocation from the Exchequer for many years. For many years the fishing industry was the poor relation to agriculture and the creation of the Department of the Marine eight years ago was a step in the right direction.

I congratulate the Minister on the effort he has put into upgrading small fishery harbours around the country — a further £3 million is to be invested this year in those harbours. He has sanctioned an extension to Pallas Pier in Ardgroom. There is a thriving mussel industry in that area employing about 60 people and the Minister made a generous allocation towards the provision of a pier there. He has also given the go ahead for a new pier at Roaring Water Bay where 50 people are employed in the mussel industry.

We have only three natural industries — agriculture, fisheries and tourism — and every effort should be made to ensure the improvement of the infrastructure for the development of fisheries. I am a little disappointed the Minister did not nominate Bantry as a major port for development because it has equal status with Cork, Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Rosslare, Waterford and the Shannon Estuary. Bantry Bay was regarded as the finest bay in western Europe and at one time the British boasted it could hold its entire fleet. We do not have a decent infrastructure at Bantry and perhaps the Minister would consider including Bantry in the priority list of strategic ports. It is a hub for shipping along the south-west coast and is the finest harbour in western Europe. With the advent of major developments at Whiddy Island and the shipment of oil it would be of benefit to include Bantry.

It will not be the Deputy's fault if it is not included.

I compliment the Minister on his statement on the Bill to update the legislation on aquaculture because the aquaculture and inland fishery sectors overlap. I would also welcome a debate on salmon fishing, although I hope such a debate would be deferred until certain legal proceedings before the courts concluded because there might be difficulties for certain members.

A sum of £9 million is to be paid to the Central Fisheries Board. Will the Minister indicate whether any of this money is to be given to fisheries boards to discharge unpaid tax liabilities to the State — PAYE and PRSI deducted but not paid to the State? What steps are being taken by the Department to ensure fisheries boards which are in receipt of largesse from the State comply with tax requirements? It is wrong that fisheries boards would receive money from the State yet not pay taxes due.

With regard to subhead J1, we allocate money directly to the Central Fisheries Board which distributes it to the regional boards. We expect that any State agency would adhere to the law and pay its taxes on time. I would not condone the non-payment of taxes.

Is the Minister aware it is happening?

I certainly do not condone it.

Everybody in receipt of State largesse is under a tax clearance certificate system.

If there is any particular matter to which the Deputy wishes to refer specifically he should give the information to the Minister.

The Minister is aware of the case which involves a large sum of money.

I stated that we expect people to pay their taxes.

What steps are being taken to ensure the allocation is not paid until the money owed to the State by the recipient is paid?

It is not a matter for the Estimate because we pay the moneys to the Central Fisheries Board which in turn pays the regional boards. It is a matter for the Central Fisheries Board to take whatever steps are necessary to deal with the matter.

Has the Central Fisheries Board been instructed not to pay money until all moneys owed to the State by the boards under its control are paid?

We have asked the Central Fisheries Board to clarify in detail the allegations made.

As the matter has been raised by the Deputy, perhaps the Minister will correspond with the Deputy when he has the information?

I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on this matter——

I have asked the Minister to provide the Deputy with the information.

I appreciate that because I have been unable to get an answer.

Deputy Leonard asked about the INTERREG. We do not have direct control over INTERREG moneys. The Department of Finance deals with it.

I have established that the money is available.

A sum of £2.5 million has been allocated.

Not one penny has been allocated.

There is no delay in the Department.

Why is there a delay when money could be allocated under the operational programme to 38 projects in October 1995 yet eight months later there is nothing available under INTERREG despite requests to Ministers and to the Taoiseach?

The Deputy has asked me a question and I will give him the answer. There is no file sitting on a desk in the Department awaiting approval in respect of applications. The Department of Finance deals with INTERREG moneys and a committee evaluates applications. A sum of £2.5 million has been allocated to the two fishery measures over the 1994-99 period. A number of projects under the European Regional Development Fund measure are being evaluated.

In a written reply to a parliamentary question on 12 December 1995 the Minister indicated that a number of inland fishery projects submitted under the INTERREG programme were undergoing evaluation while arrangements for the administration of inland fishery measures under the peace and reconciliation programme were being discussed. This relates to 1995.

That is the case, but my point is that the Department of the Marine does not have a say in the allocation.

The money is there, but the Department must evaluate the projects.

A committee evaluates them.

Is it under the Minister's supervision?

No. This money is released by the Department of Finance.

To the individual projects approved after the evaluation committee reports.

After eight months?

The Deputy's query is if these projects have been approved.

The Minister's reply was that the Department is assessing them.

I am trying to be helpful to the Deputy. I will get him the information from the Department of Finance and the evaluation committee.

In his reply the Minister said, that the Department is evaluating them.

It was not just the Department.

The reply stated that "a number of inland fisheries projects submitted under the INTERREG programme are undergoing evaluation at present while arrangements for review . . ."

Evaluation is at present being carried out by the evaluation committee.

There was no mention of a committee. The Minister said the projects were being evaluated. The funding exists and I have asked MEPs to query why money under an INTERREG programme has been held up for two years.

I will query this. The system for dealing with this matter is by way of an evaluation committee.

The system should reexamined.

It is easy to raise money. I will check out the position for the Deputy and report to him.

The INTERREG money has been spent for the past ten years. I have not encountered such a bottleneck before regarding any allocation of INTERREG funding.

There has been a long delay and, although the Department of the Marine is not primarily involved, it has a relatively large say in the evaluations. As it is a marine project, will the Minister undertake to have it cleared as quickly as possible?

The Department of the Marine cannot instruct the evaluation committee if somebody submitted proposals which it did not find acceptable and returned them.

People should be told if they are not acceptable; they should not be fobbed off.

It is not us.

I am being fobbed off by the Minister's Department.

Perhaps the reply the Deputy received should have made the position more clear.

I have received a dozen replies about the issue over the past 12 months.

It is obvious from the contributions of Members representing Border areas that the entire operation of INTERREG funding is, to say the least, confusing. It often straddles two or three Departments and one must also deal with the EU. I well understand the Deputy's frustration. Given that the Deputy has raised this matter and he is a positive contributor and has a commitment to the committee, I ask the Minister to secure the information he requires and forward it to him as soon as possible.

As far as I can extract it in terms of the Department of the Marine, I will do so. I will help the Deputy in any way I can.

I was asked about the decrease under subhead J.4. This is due to the fact that this year we did not have the additional costs of funding a surveillance vessel. It is not a cut.

I was also asked about the tourism angling measure. I will arrange for the Deputy to receive a full report of the projects approved to date. Many were submitted by the regional boards and I ask Deputies to encourage angling clubs to submit applications relating to tourism. Rather than leaving it to regional boards to use all the funds, such applications would be most welcome. Local people are entitled to apply for assistance under that measure.

The problem with regard to the Foyle Fisheries Commission is that two Bills must be put through at the same time. There was some delay on the British side, but I understand that has been cleared and both Bills are with the parliamentary draftsman. In the meantime a new chief executive has been appointed to the commission and I understand this has made a major difference in terms of new initiatives and the overhaul of the entire management structure. We will see an improvement in that area.

I thank the spokespersons and all my colleagues who contributed. As the Minister will note, the committee takes its business seriously. I thank the Minister and his officials, Ms Sara White, Mr. Michael Guilfoyle and principal officer, Mr. Declan Doyle, for attending and assisting the committee's work. I also thank the committee staff for their usual efficient co-operation.

The committee will meet on Wednesday afternoon next week to discuss the Metrology Bill which has been delayed for some time.

The Select Committee adjourned at 5.7 p.m.

Barr
Roinn