Vol. 509 No. 5
27 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the success, if any, he has made to date to secure approval for his Department to ensure a significant increase in the levels of support to the marine and aquaculture industry from £75 million of EU and Exchequer funding, or 1 per cent of all Structural Funding over the period 1994 to 1999, to at least £200 mill ion in line with BIM's Seafood Industry Agenda 2000 to 2006. [20371/99]
The Government is finalising the national plan for the period 2000-06. In the context of the negotiations on the allocations of moneys within the national plan, I am working with my colleagues to ensure the fisheries sector is given a high priority to ensure a sustainable and vibrant future for the seafood industry and the communities it supports. 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 2000-06 is an invaluable input into the challenging task of delivering a sustainable future for 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, especially in peripheral coastal communities.
Existing development strategies have focused on the modernisation and renewal of the fleet, the continued sustainable growth of the aquaculture sector, expansion in onshore processing and the development of fishery harbours' infrastructure and aquaculture landing places. Much remains 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.
Will the Minister of State assure the House that there will no impediment to the progress of the aquaculture industry in areas outside the Objective One region? Is he aware that 60 to 65 per cent of the aquaculture industry is located outside the Objective One region? Producers outside that region are concerned that they will not receive the necessary financial assistance to develop an industry which greatly benefits the economy. For example, Bantry Bay is the Mecca of the aquaculture industry and is outside the Objective One region. Will the Minister of State assure the House that the development of the aquaculture industry in areas outside the Objective One region will not be impeded because of lack of finance?
The Deputy makes a great case for his area.
I also make it for the Minister of State's.
I have visited his area often and I am very impressed.
The Minister of State's area is outside the Objective One region.
We have grant-aided the Deputy's area well. I am sure some of that was because of his efforts and those of his colleagues. The Deputy mentioned regionalisation which is a worry to us all because my area is also outside the Objective One region. The Deputy might glean from that that I am keen to ensure the future of aquaculture in Wexford, Cork and around the coast because tremendous potential exists for the industry. I assure the Deputy that, while the impact of regionalisation has not been clearly defined, it is clear that areas in the Objective One region will receive higher levels of support. In the context of the fisheries sector, the industry is concentrated along the western seaboard, which will have Objective One status. Nevertheless, some very important fishery areas will be included in the Objective One in transition region, such as the Deputy's and mine. I am having the impact of this new regime on the fisheries sector analysed. I assure the Deputy that my objective will be to achieve the best possible deal for the fisheries sector in all regions, however that may be achieved.
I am impressed by the Minister of State's reply in so far as we will have Objective One in transition status, but that will last only until 2003. What will happen to the industry in an area of the country which has over 60 per cent aquaculture production? Will the Minister of State take steps to achieve additional funding for the industry outside the Objective One region which will match the funding available to the industry within the region? If not, I cannot see the industry outside the region flourishing. Will the Minister of State assure the House that he will seek additional funding to ensure the best production levels in aquaculture in areas outside the Objective One region?
I detect from the Deputy's question that he expects us to be in power in 2004 and beyond, and he is probably right.
That is debatable.
We will not debate it because I would also win that one.
I do not think so.
Any Minister worth his salt does not stop asking for money for his portfolio and I assure the Deputy that, because of my belief in the industry from my experience of it around the coast, including in the Deputy's area, I will ensure the potential of the industry is fulfilled.
