We now to turn Vote 30 - Marine and Natural Resources. I welcome Mr. Thomas Carroll, Secretary General of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. Perhaps you will introduce your accompanying officials.

Thank you, Chairman. I am accompanied by Sara White, Assistant Secretary in charge of the fisheries area in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Joe Ryan, principal officer in charge of the sea fisheries administration division and Brendan Buckley, HEO in our finance division. Another official, Brendan Hogan, is en route and he is assistant principal in the finance division.

You are all very welcome. We are joined by Mr. Tony Gallagher and Mr. Niall McSweeney from the Department of Finance.

Paragraph 28 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

VOTE 30

MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

28. Fishery Harbour Centres - Collection of Debts

The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources is responsible for the control and management of Fishery Harbour Centres. The day-to-day management of each Centre is carried out by a Harbour Master. The Centres are located at Killybegs, Castletownbere, Rossaveel, Howth and Dunmore East. A Fishery Harbour Centres Fund is maintained to record all moneys received and expenditure incurred in respect of these harbours. .

Revenue to manage the five harbours is raised locally through the charging of harbour dues for the use of facilities, through rentals received for leased properties and by way of an annual grant paid by the Department.

During the audit of the Fishery Harbour Centres Accounts for the year ended 31 December 1998, it was noted that total debtors had increased from £414,601 at December 1996 to £693,450 at December 1998. The average time period for which debts were outstanding had increased from 149 days to 289 days.

It was also noted that outstanding harbour dues constituted 75% of the total debtors and that there was a poor and varying performance between the different Centres in relation to the collection of these dues. At 31 December 1998 the average period for which harbour dues were outstanding varied from 130 days in Howth and Rossaveel to 573 days in Dunmore East.

Financial details on the overall level of debtors and income for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 plus the level of harbour dues outstanding and income for each Centre for 1998 are as follows:

Table 17

Level of Debtors relative to Income 1996 to 1998

Table 18

Harbour Dues for 1998 by Centre

In response to my inquires concerning the high level of debts outstanding the Accounting Officer stated that the extent of harbour dues outstanding between 1996 and 1998 was attributable largely to a campaign of withholding dues organised by the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation at Killybegs Harbour Centre. Payment of the withheld dues was pursued by the Department and £291,215 was paid over by the organisation in August 1999. The effect of this payment was to reduce from £518,984 at the end of 1998 to £388,568 at the end of 1999 the amount outstanding in respect of harbour dues as outlined in the following table:

Table 19

Harbour Dues Outstanding at 31 December 1999

There was scope for improvement in the overall position in relation to collection of harbour dues and the position at certain harbours required particular attention. The current standard procedures for dues collection were being reviewed with a view to effecting improvements in efficiency. In addition, clerical support has been or is being provided for the Harbour Masters at Killybegs and Castletownbere. Consideration was being given to the provision of similar support for the Harbour Masters at the three other Fishery Harbour Centres. Arrangements were in train also for the recruitment of a temporary Assistant Harbour Master for Dunmore East.

Harbour dues constituted the bulk of the Fishery Harbour Centres' income. Their income was, therefore, substantially determined by the levels of harbour usage and the dues accruing in respect of such usage and the efficiency of dues collection. Steps to improve the collection of dues would ensure that available income was maximised and would be accompanied by continued rigorous control of expenditure to ensure the viability of the Fishery Harbour Centres going forward.

The position in relation to debt collection generally in this area was under review and any further action identified as necessary to effect the necessary improvements in the position would be taken.

There is just one paragraph on Vote 30 - Marine and Natural Resources. There are five fishery harbour centres operated by the Department - Killybegs, Castletownbere, Rossaveel, Howth and Dunmore East. During the course of the audit of the accounts of these centres I noted that there was a gradual deterioration in the collection of outstanding debts. At the end of 1998, nearly £700,000 was uncollected and over £500,000 of that related to outstanding harbour dues with Killybegs posing a particular problem. The position in Castletownbere and Dunmore East, although lesser in scale, was also unsatisfactory. The situation in Killybegs improved in 1999 as a consequence of a pay over by the fishermen's organisation of withheld harbour dues but the outstanding amounts in the other centres have increased by the year end.

The Accounting Officer agreed that there was scope for improvement in the collection of harbour dues and outlined some measures being undertaken to maximise the collection of some outstanding debts at the centres generally. I do not know the extent to which these have been successful but I have no doubt the Accounting Officer will be able to up date the Committee in this regard.

Mr. Carroll, would you like to make a brief opening statement in response to the Comptroller and Auditor General?

I certainly would, Chairman. There are system and resource problems of an ongoing nature in the management of fishery harbour centres but there are also fundamental underlying problems and I think we have to address those two issues. At the moment the fisheries harbour centres are managed as an integral part of a central Civil Service Department. They have a commercial function in many respects and the organisation is fragmented at present. We have a local harbourmaster in most cases without any clerical backup. They used to have clerical backup up to the mid-1980s when staff ran out and they lost their clerical support. We are reviewing that in some cases and have made some changes there.

We have an accounts branch located in Castlebar. It is separate from the fishery harbour centres and the Department. The fishermen are billed locally by the harbourmaster. Invoices are sent out from our accounts branch which bills the fishermen. If, after a certain period of time, they are not paid, they are sent to our central fishery harbour administration division which would then try to get the fishermen to pay. If they do not, it goes to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor which, ultimately, will bring proceedings. There is scope with some changes in internal procedures which we are making to reduce the length of time it takes to collect bills. My own assessment is that this may improve collection by maybe a couple of months at the most but it will not fundamentally address the central issue. There is political agreement on this issue that the whole management of the fishery harbour centres has to be taken out of the Civil Service framework; it has to be replaced by a commercially focused streamlined organisation which will be able to handle these things much more professionally. That will require changes in the law, in management structures and probably the setting up of a new organisation.

At the moment the fact is that under the law as it stands if a fisherman does not pay, it would take possibly 18 months to go through our systems, including the legal system, to actually get that person, perhaps with a small invite, to the stage of being taken to court. That is the only remedy that is open at the moment under the legislation. We do not have the power to refuse entry to a port. We do not have the power to impose any penalties, such as interest penalties for non-payment on time, etc.

To address the underlying issue here, we have to make fundamental changes and these will require policy changes. The Minister has over the past few months been actively engaged with the Department and the fishing industry organisations and users' groups in the fishery harbour centres with a view to recommending a new structure for the management of fishery harbour centres.

There is consensus that the organisation should be fundamentally transformed and relocated outside the Civil Service framework and be moved towards a commercial operation but the precise form of that, whether it should be tied on to a existing organisation such as, say, Bord Íascaigh Mhara, whether there should be individual harbour companies for each port or whether there should be one harbour company to manage the five harbours, has yet to be resolved. We will, and can, make improvements within the existing system but in reality they will be only marginal improvements. The ultimate solution lies in fundamental change of the structures.

Why are those five harbours the fishery harbours? What is their background and history compared with those of all the other harbours throughout the State?

The background there is that in the early 1960s, as part of the first programme for economic development, a study was carried out of the Department of Fisheries and the requirements for the development of fisheries in Ireland. At that time most fishery harbours were either unmanaged or just landing places with no particular management. All were run by harbour authorities in the same way as other harbour authorities - the Deputy will be aware that there are still some harbour authorities around the country for commercial operations. There was a lack of investment and a lack of focus. It was felt that, to facilitate the development of the fishing industry in Ireland, a number of key centres should be picked and prioritised. At that time the decision was taken to give them priority, to take them under control at national level. At that stage it was the Office of Public Works which was to run them, put in investment and fuel them to create a critical mass and a scale for the development of fisheries rather than having a fragmented approach and small harbours all over the place where one would never get the scale necessary to underpin a long-term drive in the industry. This strategy has worked to an extraordinary degree in places like Killybegs, in particular, where there are the most landings of any fishing port in Europe. Therefore in some respects it has worked. Other harbours have been less successful. Killybegs has developed because of the development of the new pelagic fisheries - mackerel and herring.

Pelagic?

The oily fish - mackerel, herring, horse-mackerel. They are high volume, low value species. Other harbours have developed quite well. Rossaveal, for example, is now scheduled for a major investment to regenerate and develop the fishing effort on that particular zone. Castletownbere is a fine fishery harbour.

I should mention that it has been decided in principle that in the new structure Dingle harbour will be included as a priority harbour within the new management structures and treated on the same level as Killybegs, Castletownbere, Rossaveel and Dunmore East.

The revenue from the five boards is made up of various things - harbour dues, the use of facilities, rental of property, etc., and by an annual grant paid by the Department. Is that annual grant payable for the day-to-day running costs or is it for capital investment?

All capital investments in fishery harbour centres which are owned by central government are funded by the Exchequer - 100%. By way of clarification, there are other harbours such as Kilmore Quay and, at present, Dingle where capital investment would be financed ultimately by the Exchequer but it is done using 75% from the Exchequer and 25% from the local authority.

In the fishery harbour centres the objective is to break even on operational costs. There is a subsidy of £75,000 per annum towards operational costs.

Is that £75,000 for each?

No. The finance of the harbours is managed through one fund, the solidarity fund, and the £75,000 is not attributed to any particular harbour; it goes to defray any deficit or to increase any surplus within the fishery harbours fund.

I was looking for this in the Defence budget but I could not find it, but it is ironic that the Department was penalised under the prompt payment legislation. It is ironic that the State must be the suckers. Nobody will pay the State but the State must pay everybody.

There are various prices here for the value of a hectare of mature timber. In 1991, one of Mr. Carroll's predecessors stated that the book value of State owned timber was about three or four times its actual value. I think the logic behind the statement was that it was more or less inaccessible and we had been planting on the worst land in places where nothing else would grow, etc. For commercial reasons, it could not be harvested. Does that statement still apply or has there been a change of policy since then?

This is an entirely separate issue from the one we are discussing. Do you want to take this now, Chairman?

I apologise. I thought I could ask general questions.

I will allow the question.

The question has been raised here before by Deputy Ardagh. The question of the valuation of woodlands is extremely complex because due to the life of timber - it is 40 years for conifers and 80 or 90 years for broadleaf trees - one must make assumptions about future prices, depreciation and losses. It is very complex and, as I understand it, there are multiple ways of doing it.

All State forestry is effectively vested in Coillte. Coillte produces commercial accounts. In the notes to those accounts, Coillte will explain its valuation methods. No doubt there is room for argument about this and one could get different sets of valuation methods which would give different perspectives but I doubt if there would be any grounds for a statement that the book value on the estates would be seriously at odds with the real value, however one would measure that. The Deputy has raised a very big issue and it deserves a study in its own right. There is no easy answer to it. The long-term price of timber is a very complex issue.

Besides those issues, which are moveable feasts, I was concerned at the time at the value which was based on the acreage we had planted and the type of tree and so on. However, the point Mr. Carroll's predecessor made was that the legislation at the time provided only for land which could not be used for agricultural and a variety of other purposes and also accessibility. We have moved a long way from that but much of that forestry is maturing now.

I do not know the specific answer to the question to what extent is the cost of extraction from varying terrain and whether that is factored into the valuation method. I will have a look at the data and I will send the Committee a note on it. I would only mislead the Deputy if I gave him any other answer.

I presume that the Department of Finance has figures which outline how much timber the State owns.

Coillte produces annual corporate accounts.

I am interested in how accurate is Coillte.

I refer to the certificates we have for our millennium trees. I am trying to get my family to visits ours. If it is cut down in 20 or 30 years, will we get the paid? Is the certificate the title deed?

I do not have direct responsibility and do not have great knowledge of this particular scheme which is run by the millennium committee quite independently of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. I followed the debate in the newspapers. I am not quite sure what will happen.

You will recall a famous by-election when temporary trees were planted.

I refer to the question of sea trout which concerned all of us a number of years ago. I am reading the useful chart and figures which have been provided. Has there been a major improvement? We were informed sea trout would be wiped out. The question of sea licences remains and there is a difficulty in that regard. There is an improved broad catch in all six rivers in the south-west. What is the general picture? Is it improving?

The general picture shows an improvement but it is a mixed picture. There are some areas where evidence of recovery, particularly in the west in the Connemara area, is disappointing. We have discussed this issue at the Committee on a number of occasions. It is a complex issue. We have an ongoing rehabilitation programme covering restocking, rehabilitation and management. Approximately £1.3 million per year is being spent on monitoring and management programmes. These programmes have been in place for the past five or six years and there is major stocktaking going on at the moment on the impact of those programmes. We are working towards, in the next six months or so, developing on the basis of the stocktaking a whole new sea trout recovery programme. That is in the pipeline. It is not a totally good picture and there are still serious concerns.

Mr. Carroll mentioned the northern area. Is there any significance in the fact that no returns for rod fishing are available for five rivers? Is there an ongoing row there?

This leads to another issue. The rest of the information systems and the information necessary to feed those management information systems for the monitoring of salmon and sea trout stocks, catch and effort up to now have been very basic. We have counters in 22 rivers around the country but there is not a scientific method of doing it in many places which has led to the adoption of a whole new management information system which is being introduced as we speak and which is not uncontroversial in its own right, that is the tagging of all wild salmon and sea trout caught by drift net, draft net or by rod. If that system works it will generate——

Sea trout are almost comparable with salmon. Will sea trout also be tagged?

Yes, these systems are working very successfully in North America. It is costly and complex to do it when one thinks about it, tagging individual salmon and whenever one is caught bringing the information together hoping it is reliable. It will be difficult but it should be infinitely better than the existing system which can be intermittent and anecdotal. That system, hopefully, should bring about a fundamental improvement in our ability to have the management information on which to devise proper strategies and to know what really is going on because many people - and this is natural - will have agendas on how they interpret figures or what figures are produced. Real time information for fisheries management of this nature should improve substantially the basis for decision making, analysis and debate between all the parties involved.

The Central Fisheries Board is involved in the programmes under a separate subhead. When we examined development programmes and funding under INTERREG II in this area two or three years ago it was a disaster zone in terms of the amount which had not been expended on fisheries and tourism development. Has the position improved? A sum of £358,000 was spent under INTERREG II on the programme. Has there been a general improvement? A new chief executive officer was appointed at the time but the message we received was disastrous.

It has improved substantially due in good part to the efforts of this Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General in a very valuable report prepared some years ago on the inland fisheries sector. On foot of that report we brought in new legislation 18 months ago which has reformed fundamentally the structure and management of the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards. We also streamlined the management of the tourism angling measure as it was known at the time. Concern was expressed by the Committee that this money would not be spent and when it was spent it was not necessarily spent on the right things.

There was a substantial refocus of those programmes, particularly towards some fish species like coarse fish which probably were not getting their adequate share. Virtually every penny of that programme has been spent. A few hundred thousand is outstanding which will be spent in the wrap up. We are very pleased again with the very useful work by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee that that programme has been turned around very effectively.

Most of the activity in my area is geared for the tourist angler and on a national basis it is geared towards fly fishing people.

I have noticed throughout Cork and Kerry in the past two to three years that almost no stream can be fished by humble worm fishermen like me, of whom I understand there are about 100,000 in the country. Is there any concern in the Department for the angler who does not fly fish and who never had the privilege, equipment, time or ability to do so? Everyone other than fly fishing people will be pushed out of fishing. Almost all these people learned to fish with a small rod and worms. It appears we will make fishing an elitist sport. While one can obtain a permit to fish on almost any river, it can be obtained only if one fly fishes. It is similar to golf and pitch and putt. If one is a fly fishing person, one will obtain a permit, but one dare not go near the river if one is not. I understand there are about 100,000 worm or live bait fishermen and I became aware of that figure during the rod licence dispute. Many of them may fish as part of a society or club in their pub or job. I have a keen interest in those fishermen and it appears they are being driven off the river and out of existence. Do people have the right to allow fly fishing people to fish but not worm fishermen? This seems to be the standard on almost every river which contains fish.

There are a few profound issues in what the Deputy raised. From my understanding, it is not part of national policy to crowd out the local recreational fishing person. The headings on the programmes include the term "recreational angling". It would be a policy objective that angling would be a widespread pastime for everyone. It enhances the quality of life for communities and individuals. What is happening in other walks of life - the Deputy mentioned golf - is that, as the amenity or activity involved becomes more valuable and commercial, clubs and owners who did not previously exercise their rights begin to do so. It is like golf clubs. At one time anyone could join a golf club if he or she had the money and the connections. Now it is very difficult.

The other issue the Deputy raised was particular angling techniques. We must examine the methods being used from a conservation perspective and depending on the level of stock. I am not an angler and am not an expert on particular methods, but we respond to concerns from the fisheries boards or angling organisations from time to time that particular methods in certain areas would devastate or decimate stocks. I do not believe there is any strategy to discourage fishing methods for the sake of excluding certain people. That would not be the rationale for the decisions taken. It would be more related to the level of the stocks or the conservation needs in a particular river.

Perhaps Mr. Carroll will take on board the opposite view to that which he has just stated. What I outlined is happening and that is a fact. I argued this on a television programme during the rod licence dispute with others who were all fly fishing people and who all had reserved or preserved areas on rivers. No consideration was given to the ordinary working man and I use that term deliberately. People with less finance will fish using a worm for which they can dig. It is not that they do not want to pay, rather that they generally do not have the time or the expertise. They are being driven out, whether it is part of State policy or the policy of regional fisheries boards.

A certain snobbery is attached to it. I deliberately compared fishing with golf and pitch and putt. One could say the same about wine and experts in that area. There is a degree of social snobbery. While people are entitled to do what they like, I do not want State funding used to put local schemes in place, to improve rivers and to make banks accessible only for a large notice to be erected stating that only fly fishing will be permitted. Many of us present have fished from the age of three on and it has invariably been worm fishing. I have been happy to be out on the banks of rivers in all weathers and to learn aboutnature.

Worm fishing people are being driven out. They cannot fish on many of the rivers on which I fished. The availability of State funding may be helping to drive them out. I hope not, but perhaps Mr. Carroll will bear it in mind when examining the allocation of funding and what people do where they decide to restrict fishing to one type. I have paid my subscription to the South-Western Fisheries Board for as long as it has charged it and no one disputes that certain baits are not allowed. However, some intellectual deciding that his type of fishing is superior to another type has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with snobbery.

Will that issue be taken on board in spending money? Mr. Carroll may recall a few years ago, when certain people in golf clubs thought ladies were not good players and were not equal to them in status, that such attitudes were taken into account in allocating funding. Will the same approach be taken where fishing with worms, the poor man's fishing, is concerned as against the more affluent type? It can be viewed socially or in other ways but it will be seen in the background from which people come. The issue is about affordability and I do not want such people put out of business, especially by the use of State funds. Perhaps that can be taken on board.

Has the lock been cleaned as promised?

Not to the extent promised but we will deal with that with the Central Fisheries Board. It is the expert on carp.

Has it improved?

It has improved slightly but the fish were not returned as promised. Sin scéal eile.

What I wish to ask may already have been dealt with. I had to attend a funeral and could not be here on time. On marine safety——

No, it has not been covered.

To what extent has the optimum been reached in the provision of necessary facilities to ensure marine safety and the safety of seagoing vessels and to provide the necessary safety, back-up and rescue services in the fishing and pleasure craft industries?

That is a major question and I will answer it as best I can. There are a number of streams to it. I will focus first on the rescue services, the recovery side. The helicopter infrastructure has developed rapidly in recent years from having virtually no coverage to the point where the Department, through the coastguard, which is a division of the Department, has medium-lift helicopters in Shannon and Dublin. The Air Corps has a helicopter in Finner and had one in Tramore until that very tragic accident there. We are actively considering with the Department of Defence, which has plans to acquire two medium-lift helicopters, perhaps through further interim private provision, at the acquisition of another medium-lift helicopter which would be located in the north-west or the south-east. Within a reasonably short period of time, and in accordance with international standards for call-out times and so on, we should have an adequate helicopter service.

When does Mr. Carroll expect the service to be up to the required international standards?

We probably need these helicopters at present but it is a question of where one supplies them.

There are gaps.

There are gaps in the south west and the north west. Last July the Minister for Defence announced the acquisition of two new medium-lift helicopters. A working group from my Department and the Department of Finance is looking at how to bring this together and how to match the private services and the Air Corps services. We are talking about having in place a top class, full coverage service within the next 12 to 18 months which would be up to international standards. We are not far off that at present.

One regularly hears in the case of tragedies at sea that it was unwise to put to sea at the particular time. To what extent can the service monitor the situation to reduce such accidents to the minimum?

One can divide the response in terms of safety into a number of headings. There is the response when something happens. There is the whole question of what we call safety culture - safety awareness. It is commonly accepted that, particularly in some sections of the fishing industry, the safety culture is not as high a priority as it ought to be.

On the other hand, in the marine leisure sector there is the growing use of pleasure craft. At present anyone can buy a motor boat and put to sea. New legislation is being introduced regarding safety standards for pleasure craft and a Bill providing for new legislation on adventure centres was published before Christmas. A range of legislative measure are being introduced regarding safety. An education awareness campaign is ongoing——

Will a driving licence be required for leisure craft?

Specific regulations are being formulated. Last year there was a specific focus on jet-skis. We will be introducing age limits, the equivalent of dangerous driving charges and procedures which will enable the zoning of particular areas. This will be done through local authorities who will be given powers to do so. There will also be restrictions on noise levels. A whole range of measures are being introduced. It is one of the Department's top priorities to bring forward a range of policies, regulations and programmes to address this issue.

Sailing boats do not have engines. Are any regulations envisaged to control these boats? People can just go out in a boat and cost a fortune.

I am not sure of the precise details but I can let the committee know of them. It is an interesting area when one talks to the professional organisations. Organisations such as the Irish Sailing Association are very professional and place much emphasis on training, educating and encouraging their members to the highest standards. However, what of the opportunistic person who goes on holidays and wants to hire a boat and go out themselves? Traditionally the State did not interfere with or take on the role of regulating non-commercial safety operations.

Our safety hierarchy of needs starts with major passenger vessels which are our first priority. We work down the grid to small passenger vessels such as those on the west coast. One cannot carry passengers without a licence and there is a scheme in place to deal with this issue.

The area of owner-occupier is a different area.

There was a case in the UK where a man caused, I think, 30 marine emergencies. If there are lunatics like that around can you go out and——

Hoax calls are——

These were not hoax calls.

He was an habitual disaster.

Are there no regulations or powers at your disposal to stop that sort of thing?

If a person is in trouble, one has to deal with it. However, the question is how to prevent it. One cannot base laws on mavericks, one has to seek to protect the normal, average person.

Clearly there are no urgent, imminent proposals to deal with this area.

It has been one of the major priorities of successive Ministers for the past number of years to review every area of marine safety. We are probably more advanced in our thinking and analysis and in the laws coming forward than any other European state.

Chairman, will we have an opportunity to come back to this area later? There are many other questions but I do not propose to delay today's meeting.

Chairman, I could let the committee have a comprehensive note which would summarise the current marine safety agenda. It is a wide-ranging agenda.

Deputies are concerned about safety but as members of this committee we are concerned about the cost to the Exchequer. Avoidable marine emergencies are the problem.

Chairman, could that include a possible reference to the use of Irish waters by crafts such as oil tankers, which are not necessarily always to the highest specification and which have a potential to cause great damage and result in great cost to the State? Is it possible to come back to this issue at some stage in the year, Chairman?

I was going to suggest that we consider whether it is necessary to return to this issue when we get the notes from the Secretary General.

Mention was made of serious concerns regarding sea trout, some aspects of the re-stocking and so on. On what are those concerns based?

The Deputy is aware of the debate which has been running for a number of years.

Yes.

Much time, effort and investment have gone into this area. There has been a general improvement. There have also been improvements in certain areas in sea trout stocks but not in others. Our concern is to stock-take, to review what we have done, to re-focus and, in particular, to get value for money. Much scarce staff, time and high quality scientific effort is going into this issue and we have to ask whether the programme has been effective, if it is the best use of the moneys involved and should we re-focus? The emerging message is that we need to re-focus.

I have one more brief question. Does the Department have evidence from areas such as the north west that the acidification of waters from large-scale afforestation is having an effect? There are some indications from the north of Scotland that coniferous forests are causing acidification to such a high extent that fish fail to reproduce.

In the afforestation programme there are strict guidelines in terms of grant aid and permission being given relating to fish habitats and the impact on water quality. In the past few months we have produced a new set of very modern guidelines relating to forestry and water quality. I am not aware of any concern - we would receive such information from the fishery experts, fisheries boards and official associations - about the impact of forestry in Ireland on fishery habitats.

Is the port infrastructure keeping pace with the development of the economy or could there be blockages? Are we in danger of having insufficient capacity in a few years if the economy continues to grow?

We carry out ongoing capacity studies of ports. There may be sufficient berthage and quay space to accommodate an enormous number of ships and tonnage at one level but the key issue in current trade patterns is that everybody wants to use such space at the same time. Therefore there tends to be crowding at peak times, a typical infrastructural problem which can also be found in terms of electricity, gas, etc. The biggest area of concern regarding port capacity is Dublin Port and linkage with the city. This concerns the use of Dublin as our principal port for the entire country. I have seen some ministerial papers on the matter and the increasing emphasis in policy is to try to see if we can take account of these issues more directly and influence the pattern of usage of ports, particularly Dublin Port, to get a better balance from the overall economic viewpoint.

There has been much investment in ports, including Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Foynes ports. Greenore is developing as a private port. Development is largely market driven at this stage. The volume of State money available for future investment is not great and we will be focusing on matters such as logistics.

Do we have sufficient capacity?

At the moment we have and I think we have for the foreseeable future.

One of the infuriating things in relation to Dublin Port is that all the lorries seem to come in and out at peak traffic times. Is there some way this can be managed?

There ought to be and there is close co-operation between the corporation and Dublin Port. Recently the Minister announced in order to get some order in the matter that he is setting up a study of transport logistics into Dublin Port and a number of ideas have been raised. It is suggested, for example, that empty containers are being brought to and from the port and that if containers could be pooled at one location outside the city the number of trips could be halved. The question of oil depots in the port has also been raised. In many other cities oil is pumped through pipelines to outer city areas which stops the necessity of oil lorries to come to and from the city centre. The Minister is setting up a specific study to examine such issues.

I wish to move to issues concerning the continental shelf and oil and gas reserves. What is the up-to-date position in this regard? Have we enough gas to meet future needs? Are there any big oil finds?

We have no oil finds currently. We have one gas discovery at the Corrib gas field off County Mayo and Enterprise Oil is in the process of going through the regulatory framework to develop it. Its objective is to bring the gas on shore in early 2003 - it is a tight timetable. The gas field is smaller than the Kinsale gas field and in international terms is not a major find by any means. This year we have commitments to five offshore wells, if my memory is correct. Beyond this, the pipeline is pretty empty. The Irish offshore is still very much unproven, does not have high prospectivity in international terms and despite what is seen in many quarters as very generous fiscal terms, we have not reached a stage of proving the existence of any significant hypoderm zone.

How many people are now dependent on gas supplies? How many years' gas supply do we have?

We are now linked to——

To the grid, I know.

So gas supplies are assured for Europe for the next 20 or 30 years. The question is whether we can replace them by indigenous supplies - that is the policy question. There is an intermediate policy question about the timing of the building of a second interconnector, which is a logistics issue.

There is currently one interconnector and if anything goes wrong——

It is a question of capacity given the growth in the gas market.

Along with capacity, another issue is security.

Yes, there is a safety and security dimension.

I want to ask about the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission which is of particular interest to the committee because the accountability of the North-South bodies will be imminently considered. How does the Department relate to this new North-South body. I know it separates into the Irish Lights Commission and Foyle and Carlingford. Is it too soon to——

Currently only the locks agency of the body has been established. Work is still ongoing on the lights side of it. The governing and accountability structure of the locks agency is through the North-South Ministerial Council meeting in sectoral format. Our Minister and his counterpart in Northern Ireland would meet at least twice a year and consider the reports of the agency. I am not quite sure how the role of this committee and the Dáil in relation to it will be resolved - it is a generic issue concerning all North-South bodies. There is an overlapping authority between both jurisdictions and I do not know how this will be managed at the level of this committee.

We will soon be having discussions with the public accounts committee in the North on the subject. We may return to this issue later.

Okay.

Tell me about the internal audit function of your Department.

It is a newly established function in the Department. It was not a major function until the new Department of the Marine and Natural Resources was created in 1997.

There is an internal auditor.

Yes.

To whom does that person report?

That person reports to the assistant secretary in charge of finance among other things. The assistant secretary also chairs an audit committee on which there is a representative from another Department. That committee reports to me.

Has the internal auditor direct access to you?

Absolutely, yes.

Has the internal auditor direct access to all areas of the Department without having to give notice?

Absolutely.

On the issue of this coming under the assistant secretary in charge of finance, our experience tells us it is far better to make it independent of that function in order to avoid conflicts of interest. I would like you to consider that; you do not have to comment on it at this stage.

I will do that.

What do you propose to do about lengthening the time for collecting fees, etc?

We are doing two things. We are changing the systems internally and are looking at the resources dedicated to this issue although this will not make any fundamental difference within the existing legal and management framework. The only workable solution to this issue and many others which arise would be the establishment of focused, commercial structures outside the Civil Service framework. A ministerial decision has been taken on that and the objective is to introduce legislation in the coming year.

The committee will expect progress to have been made on this matter when you come before us next year.

This report is unusual in that there are 73 lines of expenditure in your account, 60 of which are underspent. Perhaps we should congratulate you on that but it, nonetheless, raises some questions. I note that the office premises project did not proceed and that only £389,000 was spent rather than the projected £949,000. Some £109,000 less than expected was spent on office machinery. On the development of coastal radio stations, £80,000 less than expected was spent. In regard to marine emergency coastal units, you spent £509,000 less than expected. On the Loran C navigation system, you spent £600,000 less than you expected. Some £1.3 million less than expected was spent on marine emergency services. It is unusual that so many of the figures were inaccurate and that there was an underspend in so many areas. I wonder whether your estimations are inadequate or whether there was some deficiency in the manner in which these figures were arrived at. A sum of £2.4 million was underspent on grants for the promotion of forestry structures. Some £140,000 was spent on forestry research with £99,000 being spent on INTERREG. A sum of £61,000 was spent on FEOGA measures. I have never before seen such a level of departmental underspending.

I discussed this matter earlier with my colleagues in the Department of Finance. The Vote for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources is very unusual in that it involves a large number of subheads. One will always have swings and roundabouts in small programmes. People look for more money in the budgeting process and say they can spend it. However, it can sometimes prove difficult to do that because unforeseen situations arise. I concur with the Chairman that over-ambition in terms of programme design may cause these outcomes. People are reluctant to submit realistic estimates or are over-ambitious in terms of what they think they can achieve.

Or is it just slowness in reacting? I get the sense that because of our level of economic growth, Departments do not have the necessary reflex action to keep up. There are three subheads under the harbour development and coastal protection heading. Some £2.24 million was allocated for grants for harbour improvements but only £613,000 was spent. On State harbours and Dún Laoghaire harbour pensions fund, £500,000 was allocated but only £35,000 was spent. On coastal protection, £3.84 million was allocated but only £2.44 million was spent. How can all of these subheads be so far out of line?

All these figures can be explained, particularly in regard to coastal protection and fishery harbours. A new problem arose in the year in question due to the emergence of much tighter planning guidelines. It simply was not possible to progress capital projects at the desired speed because planning and heritage guidelines, etc., made it more difficult to proceed. One had to jump through a greater number of hoops than previously.

I am not convinced about this. If one takes the example of national roads for which the Government makes huge provision, we hear the same story every year. A road due to be built by 2001 will be built by 2003. Meanwhile, we have huge bottlenecks in the economy. I see the same thing throughout your Vote. Is the Department not up to spending the money or what is wrong?

I think we are up to it.

There was gross under-spending under subheads F1 and F2 in regard to marine research. Why was the funding allocated in the first place if you did not intend to spend it? Under subhead G1 - Sea Fisheries and Aquacultural Development - only £6.7 million of the forecast £10.1 million was spent. On the fishery harbour centres fund, none of the projected £75,000 was spent. This worries me and I would like to spend more time examining the reasons behind it. Perhaps Mr. Carroll will consider the matter and write back to me within a month with an explanation and whether there will be an improvement in the current year. Perhaps he will also communicate with Deputy Durkan in regard to the matter he raised.

I will.

I do not often complain about under-spending but I am concerned about this. Do the Department of Finance officials have any comment to make?

We do not complain about under-spending either. Our primary concern is that the Estimate presented should be as accurate as possible in regard to what is likely to happen under individual subheads. As the Secretary General stated, the Marine Vote involves myriad individual subheads and while savings appeared in 60 out of the 73 subheads, the total amount of savings involved is not that massive.

It is 10% of the Vote.

Yes. One would have preferred the estimation to have been more accurate but one would have to look at each individual subhead to deduce the reasons which gave rise to the under-spending. That may become clear in a month's time. We would be concerned if Departments were generally under-spending by 10% for no particular reason.

My main concern and that of the Committee is that this under-spending is not arising due to inefficiency in dealing with urgent matters, thereby frustrating economic development and costing the Exchequer more money at a later date. If investment is not made sufficiently quickly in these projects, it could end up costing us money.

The Department submitted a Supplementary Estimate in 2000 because it did not have enough money. That was due to a variety of factors, particularly funding shortfalls.

We want to ensure that all Departments are alert to these bottlenecks and the necessity to avoid or reduce them. I will note the accounts and expect to receive the two notes within a month.

The witnesses withdrew.