asked the Minister for Tourism, Fisheries and Forestry arising out of his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 83 of November 20, 1986 that £175,000 by way of grants, has been granted by Bord Iascaigh Mhara out of their mariculture grant scheme for 1986 to a company (details supplied) whether or not he has seen a document for private placing under the business development scheme, indicating that Bord Iascaigh Mhara approved a total of £365,227 by way of a grant of £117,409 and a loan of £234,818 to the company involved; if he will explain the discrepancies in the figures; if a copy of the document was seen by Bord Iascaigh Mhara prior to its circulation and that the figures printed therein were approved; and if he is satisfied that such a large sum of money (£365,227) out of a mariculture grant of £500,000 should be paid to one company, when according to Bord Iascaigh Mhara at least 20 other applications have been received for grants for similar projects.
Written Answers. - Mariculture Grant Scheme.
I have seen the copy of the document which the Deputy recently sent me. I understand that BIM had not seen the document. I have also been informed by BIM that the difference between the grants which have actually been approved by BIM and those which are stated in the document to have been so approved may be explained as follows.
The expenditure programme which was originally approved by BIM for the company in question amounted to £1,030,981. When the company submitted their application to the EC, for grant-aid the expenditure programme was revised upwards to £1,174,094. BIM then indicated that they would consider an additional 10 per cent grant of £14,311 towards the additional expenditure planned by the company subject to the overall parameters of the Mariculture grants scheme. The grant of £117,409 referred to in the document appears therefore to be made up as follows:
|
£ |
|
|
Amount of grant originally approved by BIM |
103,098 |
|
Proposed additional grant under consideration |
14,311 |
|
Total: |
117,409 |
I understand that a short-term repayable grant of £71,902 was also approved by BIM but that no loan amounting to £234,818 as alleged in the document was made. I should add that under the mariculture grant scheme the total financial facility granted to any one company cannot exceed £175,000 and this upper ceiling will also apply in this case.
Apart from the foregoing I am not in a position to comment on the figures quoted by a private company in the document referred to.
As the Deputy will appreciate grant payments are made retrospectively on certified expenditure and are phased, as is the company's programme, over a number of years. Thus grants in this case, as in most cases, do not normally fall due to be paid within one calender year.