asked the Minister for the Marine the action, if any, he intends to take regarding the adverse decision by the EC Commission in relation to Ireland's 1987 applications for EC Commission grants for fisheries and aquaculture, formerly FEOGA grants.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fisheries and Aquaculture Grants.
19.
I agree with the Deputy that the amount of grant-aid awarded to Irish applications for the construction and modernisation of vessels and for aquaculture projects under the FEOGA scheme in December 1987 was disappointingly low. However, I should point out that decisions in relation to such grants are entirely a matter for the EC Commission. I raised the issue of the low grant approvals specifically at the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 15 December last and I left the Commission in no doubt as to my disappointment at the level of aid approved. The matter has also since been pursued by my officials at working group level.
I will continue to press for the maximum aid possible for the Irish fishing industry from the EC Structural Fund in the future.
I accept that the Minister was very disappointed; indeed the levels of aid were appallingly low. Would the Minister comment on the fact that, with a Portuguese Commissioner who was advised by a Spaniard, who administered the Structural Fund itself and by a French acting head of division, Portugal received 11.5 per cent of the fund, Spain 33 per cent and France 12.5 per cent whereas we received 1.9 per cent only? I am concentrating here particularly on the aquaculture areas—disappointing and all as were the boats, that matter can be taken up again — but there were many aquaculture projects on their last chance which were rejected out of hand. This is an area all of us have spoken about with a view to the future development particularly of our western seaboard. Would the Minister not agree it is a coincidence that a Portuguese, Spaniard and Frenchman who are administering this fund happened to allocate the greater portion of it to Portugal, Spain and France? What are this Government going to do about it? We cannot be polite and say we are not allowed question them, they have the discretion. This matter must be taken up at the highest level. I have asked my colleague, Tom Raftery, MEP, to table an oral parliamentary question in Europe which is down for 10 February to try to elicit the information.
I am anxious to facilitate the Deputy, but long questions and statements of this kind——
It is very important.
It may be very important but there are rules governing Question Time.
It is factual that Spain received 33.8 per cent approximately of the total aid awarded, Portugal 11.53 per cent, France 12.81 per cent, Italy 18.56 per cent, the United Kingdom 10.56 per cent and that we were the lowest. That information was made available to me prior to the meeting of 1415 December last. Before the meeting commenced at all we sought the permission of the Presidency to discuss this matter, which we did. I told the Commission and my colleagues in the Council of Ministers in no uncertain terms how disappointed we were, particularly in view of the fact that when Commissioner E Cunha visited this country with the Director General of Fisheries and the Chef de Cabinet they informed us that there were additional moneys available in the Structural Fund for which we should apply. I am convinced that aquaculture proposals submitted by this country were as good as those submitted by any other country. I do not for a moment disagree with Deputy Doyle. Even in Brussels I could not hide my disappointment.
It is important to note that eight of the projects were resubmitted. We had applied for some £3.8 million in respect of those — our total application covered 61 projects including some in respect of aquaculture, modernisation of vessels in respect of which we received £1.423 million — but what is disappointing is that those who were on their last legs did not receive any assistance. The others, which were not on their last legs, can be resubmitted. There is another tranche to be approved in March when, hopefully, the latter will be approved also. It has been a lesson for us and those in the industry. Nobody in the Department or any Minister has ever encouraged anyone to become involved in a project, whether it be in regard to a fishing vessel, a new vessel, modernisation of one, or an aquaculture project, unless they were absolutely certain that these grants would be available. We should not take them for granted. This has been a dear lesson for many people. Officials and the Secretary of the Department have had further discussions with the Commission in regard to this but at the end of the day, unfortunately it is not a question of voting at the Council of Ministers, it is a question for the Commission itself. The facts about which Deputy Doyle has spoken in relation to Portugal, Spain and France speak for themselves.
Will the Minister be demanding an explanation of the insult meted to our country by the Commission?
We have already done so.
Question No. 20. This question was tabled by Deputy Cullen but, due to a typographical error, it appears on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Pat O'Malley. The error will be corrected in the Official Report. It is Deputy Cullen's question and he may put the appropriate supplementaries.