Vol. 502 No. 5
3 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the strategy he intends to adopt to ensure appropriate funding consistent with the Bord Iascaigh Mhara report is obtained under the operational programme for the years 2000 to 2007. [8025/99]
My strategic objective is to ensure a sustainable and vibrant future for the Irish seafood industry and the communities it supports, backed up by the necessary level of funding to underpin investment post 2000.
I am pleased to have the full backing and commitment of BIM in the task of delivering on that strategic objective for the sector. The BIM plan for 2000-2006 is an invaluable input into the challenging task ahead to deliver a sustainable future for, and with, the industry and coastal communities.
The fleet, processing, aquaculture and ancillary service sectors already support jobs for 16,000 people in areas where there are few alternative employment opportunities. The sector is worth £300 million per annum to the national economy and seafood exports are now valued at some £250 million. The achievements to date underline the significant potential for further growth in this indigenous natural resource based sector which will deliver jobs and growth, particularly in peripheral coastal communities.
Our existing development strategies have been focused on the modernisation and renewal of the fleet, the continued growth of the aquaculture sector, expansion in onshore processing and the development of fishery harbours infrastructure and aquaculture landing places. My own commitment, and that of the Government, to the development of the sector is clearly underlined in delivery last year of funding support and tax incentives for the whitefish fleet renewal programme supporting up to £60 million investment in the fleet. I also achieved, in the context of the budget for 1999, a major increase in Exchequer funding for fishery harbours and aquaculture infrastructure development. There is still much to be done and the immediate challenge is to position the sector firmly to deliver on its recognised economic potential and development needs into the next millennium, with EU Structural Funds support.
While listening to the Minister's response I was reminded of the BIM report, some of which he quoted verbatim. I welcome the BIM document. It serves to focus our minds on the negotiations from 2000 to 2006. This is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to maximise the level of funding, given the Objective One status—
This is Question Time.
—and the areas in transition. On the question of the proposed funding of £200 million, £44 million national funding, is the Minister optimistic, in view of Objective One status and the areas in transition, about maximising the funding? Under the previous programme the fishing community received only £75 million for the marine sector which was totally inadequate. Is the Minister optimistic that the targets set by BIM are sustainable?
From the fishing industry point of view, it would be helpful if most of the west were to remain eligible for Objective One status. The BIM targets are what I would wish for. I would want us to be clear about what we can do, our potential and what we must do. We are entering the negotiations on the Structural Funds on that basis. The amount of Structural Funds globally will not be as great as on the last occasion. We would not be doing our job if we did not put on the table the possibilities and the potential for the fishing sector generally. That is what we have done. We then have to examine how best to fund the sector subsequently and to bend all our policies and instruments to achieve those targets. Obviously, the discussions on the Structural Funds will be an up-front part of the negotiations and we will try to maximise the allocation for the fisheries sector.
Would the Minister agree statistics show that the western counties are most deprived, have many disadvantages and contain the most peripheral communities? Surely it is realistic that the proposals the Minister presents at EU level recognise that these areas represent a unique case. It is regrettable that certain peripheral coastal sectors of Kerry and Clare are not included in the Objective One region but that argument is long lost now.
The Minister has an excellent chance. Does he agree that BIM has lifted the bar a little high for him to jump to the £200 million figure? It is a good aspiration, but there is a big gap to bridge between the £75 million and £200 million figures in order to progress the marine industry.
I appreciate that, but we are at the beginning of a process. We would not be doing our job if we did not set out what we believe to be the potential. One might set a lower target and make it easier to reach it—
I am delighted they set it high.
—but I have never done that and I do not intend to do it here. It would be far better to achieve a percentage of a high goal than achieve a lower goal. That is the Deputy's point.
On the discussions generally, the policy debate on the draft Council regulation laying down the detailed rules and arrangements concerning the Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector and the political agreement on these main issues are set for the end of March, but the adoption of the Structural Funds regulation, including the framework regulation on Structural Funds for fisheries, is set for early April. The key agreement on the Council regulation laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding the Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector is set for the Fisheries Council on 10 June. While there will be a discussion of the general principles at this stage, it will be along the lines of making a detailed recommendation for 1 June. That is when that will be completed.
There is a major opportunity for the development of the different aspects of the fisheries sector, particularly in the west. The BIM report is accurate and correct. It lays down the kind of development which can take place. It also pinpoints strongly the fact that one can develop pro cessing in inland towns. It is not only coastal communities who will be involved, but inland towns in areas which currently fare badly. Despite all of the investment, there is little going into these inland areas. It was mentioned earlier today that processing successfully takes place in Roscommon.
I was disappointed with the recent ESRI report which did not recognise the potential in the fisheries sector. It is inaccurate in many aspects. We would have conveyed our views on that to avoid the perception that the fisheries sector is not one for investment, because it is. The potential is there. A mistake was made many years ago and we will not make the same mistake again. I certainly will not do so and I welcome what Deputy Finucane has to say about it.
That concludes Priority Questions.
