Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 May 1999

Vol. 504 No. 6

Priority Questions. - Seafood Industry.

P. J. Sheehan

Question:

4 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, under BIM's Seafood Industry Agenda 2000-2006, 68 per cent of the projected funding will be spent in the Objective One region while only 32 per cent of the projected funding will be spent in the remaining region; and the steps, if any, he will take to correct this anomaly in view of the fact that 50 per cent of the main aquaculture locations are established outside the Objective One region. [11827/99]

Dr. Woods

BIM's Seafood Industry Agenda 2000-2006 proposes a total investment pro gramme for the sector as a whole of £364 million, of which the proposed EU and Exchequer contribution is £198 million, and that of the private sector is £166 million. As the Deputy points out, the BIM plan estimates spending as between the Objective One region and Objective One region in transition of 68 per cent and 32 per cent respectively. I stress, however, that these regional allocations proposed by BIM are indicative only. While I expect that they are based on BIM's analysis of existing investment trends and projections for both productive and infrastructural investment in the fisheries sector, any such allocations will be determined ultimately in light of all the regional and sectoral development objectives and factors.

It is the case, of course, that BIM's aquaculture development programme envisages a very significant increase in investment support for the sector over the period. The investment support programmes for the aquaculture sector can be expected to take due account of the spatial distribution of aquaculture development around the coast. As the Deputy points out, there is a considerable concentration of aquaculture activity in the south-west region.

The issue of how much overall public investment should take place in each of the regions remains to be addressed in the context of decisions in relation to the national development plan and having regard to all relevant factors. The Deputy will appreciate that I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of that process but I can assure him that the investment needs of the aquaculture industry in the south-west region will not be overlooked.

Mr. Sheehan

I do not agree with the Minister. It is set down in principle in the BIM report that 68 per cent of the projected funding will be spent in the Objective One region, while only 32 per cent will be spent in the remaining region. What steps will the Minister take to correct that?

The combined State and EU funding sought—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should ask a question.

Mr. Sheehan

I refer to the combined funding.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a statement.

Mr. Sheehan

The combined State and EU funding is £28 million. Is the Minister satisfied that that is enough to keep the aquaculture industry afloat? I do not think so. It is peanuts. Furthermore, the Minister has not explained if 68 per cent of the funding will be confined to the Objective One region while the south-west will get only 32 per cent. That anomaly must be corrected because over 50 per cent of aquaculture development is taking place south of a line from Aran Islands to Bannow Bay in County Wexford. That area will only get 32 per cent of the funding while the rest of the country gets 68 per cent. Is the Minister prepared to correct that? Is he prepared to offer an extra £28 million, or £5 million per year, to the southern region, which will be denuded of funds? If not, the industry will go into serious decay and collapse. There will be no future for aquaculture development if we do not get our rightful share of the cake.

Dr. Woods

I am anxious to have as much aquaculture development in the south-west as possible. The 1994-99 investment under the operational programme, for which this plan was prepared, amounted to £35.5 million for aquaculture related activities. That includes £10.99 million in EU funds, £1.9 million in Irish contribution and £17.7 million in private investment. There were 118 projects and 552 whole time job equivalents were generated. The BIM programme proposes that that level goes up in the next period from £35.5 million to £62.5 million, so there is a considerable increase in the overall demand from BIM. This is in line with development – there is already development taking place in this area – and Deputy Sheehan can be assured that I will keep this in mind when the Government is considering the national plan.

Mr. Sheehan

Do I take it that I have a guarantee from the Minister that the region from the Aran Islands to Bannow Bay will get its rightful share of funding under the BIM plan? If I can get that assurance it will allay fears in that area.

Dr. Woods

Deputy McGinley appears to be getting worried about Donegal.

Mr. McGinley

I have supplementary questions.

Dr. Woods

There is a great deal of development in the south and south-west and Donegal has many problems and needs development. I see the reasoning in BIM's proposals as well as the fact that it is dealing with the Objective One area rather than the area which is Objective One in transition. This is something we will have to do our best to deal with when the time comes. The whole sector has a lot of potential for development. The Deputy will know that in 1980 output in this sector was under £2 million per annum and that is now over £60 million per annum and increasing. We have a big backlog of projects ready to go ahead also. That will have to be addressed by the Government and the BIM proposals are part of that.