Mr. Richie Flynn:

This is a big ask, as there were a lot of questions. I will not get to them all, but let us pick the ones that are most relevant. The others can be picked up later.

We would very much welcome Deputy Ó Cuív's viewpoint on a better system based on the model used by An Bord Pleanála, which is what we thought we were getting with the 1997 Fisheries (Amendment) Act, to which he and other Deputies in the House were party, and to which I was party as well, in seeing through the system and in talking through all of its various ins and outs. That did not happen for a combination of reasons. I would point primarily to Ireland not being able to deal with Natura 2000 across a range of issues. Aquaculture was only one of many areas that it was not prepared to deal with on the habitats directive. Also, the eye was largely taken off the ball about manufacturing in general, and the food sector in particular, during the good times.

I recall beating a path to the doors of many public representatives only to be told about the benefits of the construction sector and others over going out and trying to earn a living from the sea. I think anybody involved in fishing, processing or aquaculture would share my view in that regard. When a refocusing eventually took place, the same public representatives began to ask questions as to why there were so many licence applications outstanding. It must be remembered that these applications were for renewals in the main.

I return to Deputy Thomas Pringle's point about the prerequisite to have a licence. Of course, having a licence should be a prerequisite in obtaining a grant, with a lot of other things. In the past, however, one could not seek a renewal. Where one could not do so, one was granted protection by the Minister under section 19 of the original Act. One continued to operate, to be inspected, to complete the various forms and pay one's licence fees. Effectively, one had a licence because one was working as a licensed operator who was playing by the rules. In addition, the conditions of one's licence still stood. The one exception was that one could not draw a grant to continue to replace essential equipment. Anyone who deals with boats and equipment in a maritime environment will be aware that it is necessary to either repair existing equipment or replace it with new equipment. In many cases, one must constantly invest just to stand still. If one has plans to develop, has customers coming to one's farm saying, "I would like to buy 100 tonnes this time next year," and one has not been able to make the necessary investment, one will be obliged to just shrug and say, "I cannot do it." If these customers ask why that is the case, one will have to provide them with an explanation as to why the Department cannot process one's licence application, etc. Customers such as those to whom I refer have already walked away. We lost a great deal of that business in the past ten years. I know the people in Scotland very well and they were completely mystified as to why we could not make progress here.

We were stuck on all sorts of points. Whether it is finfish or shellfish, all of the talk about grant aid fuelled development is simply unfounded. There have been no grants provided, as I think I made clear at the outset. As a result of the licensing system in place, we have not been able to access capital grant aid for many years. As a result, the business has been left to stand on its own. This is a fantastic product and we should be earning whatever we can from the market. We accept this. However, from the point of view of there being a level playing field, very successful and much larger Scottish companies - what would be considered large companies here are dwarfed by their counterparts in Spain, France, Holland and the United Kingdom - have access to 40% grant aid. We do not receive such grant aid, which leads very much to a queering of the pitch for SMEs in Ireland. SMEs involved in the export trade should be getting a fair crack of the whip if the rules state this is allowed.

I represent people who have real farms and deal with real fish and shellfish. These individuals are managing their concerns, but they wonder about what they are going to do. They are trying to find markets and dealing with real businesses. It is for them that the plan should be catering. I was afraid that we would become involved in a long discussion about whether a farm that did not even exist should produce 5,000 or 7,000 tonnes. Since the issue of Galway Bay was first raised, I have tried to take every available opportunity to emphasise the number of people who have spent the past 20 or 30 years of their business lives involved in this activity. I accept that we should have a strategic plan, but these are the important individuals from my point of view. I make no bones about it; that is my job. I represent these guys - the real people.

When it comes to questions about whether the figure should be 5,000 or 7,000 tonnes, my view is very simple: if one is long enough in this game, one knows that one does not start with the top figure and say, "That is where we are going and that is what the farm should produce." One tests the site and discovers the environment and what can one do within it. There is no one size fits all; that is the bottom line. The various parts of the coast are extremely different. It is like saying one is going to grow the same amount of grass on the Burren as one grows in the Golden Vale. As Ms Dubsky and everyone else is aware, that is the difference. What one finds underwater off our coasts is just as diverse as what one finds on land. It is not possible, therefore, to adopt a one-size-fits-all policy in this regard.

The concept of recirculation is brilliant. I have seen many recirculation farms in the past 20 years and met many of those who designed, built and are using them to farm all sorts of species. Those to whom I refer are very good at what they do and their methods have improved a great deal in the interim. This is not a new technology and those involved in the business would not be unfamiliar with it. However, it was not invented to replace marine farming. That was not the point of it. Recirculation was invented to conserve water. It was designed to allow a farm to be put in a place where one could have control over the size of the fish, particularly those fish, including turbot and barramundi, which required warmer water. I refer to any fish that would grow outside the natural cycle. The variations in temperature of both seawater and freshwater do not suit an awful lot of fish. That is why they migrate. Recirculation is required in the case of some fish, for example, abalone, which is a shellfish, because the technology makes it possible to control the temperature. That is one reason for using it. We have learned that freshwater recirculation is relatively simple. but it remains quite expensive because it requires a great deal of energy. Seawater recirculation is a different ballgame altogether. It comes down to the chemistry of seawater versus that of freshwater. Seawater is a very aggressive liquid. Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the engineering, one cannot compare like with like.

Those of involved in the industry are not Luddites. I do not want a message to go out that we are opposed to recirculation systems. However, we have to base it on economics. If it is going to cost €40 million to €50 million to establish a farm that could, perhaps, replace one third of current Irish production, one would have to seek the money from a bank, provide matching funding and factor in to one's accounts paying back one's loan during the years. When would one actually start to make a return from the business? There have been many experiments involving recirculation technology across the globe, but, in total, less than 2,000 tonnes of salmon have been produced through the use of this technology. We produce 2 million tonnes of salmon; therefore, 2,000 tonnes is a very small amount by comparison. We have to monitor matters closely, but I want to know what the figures are. I am not going to go around saying this is the answer to everything. I want to know what the figures are and whether this technology can be used in Ireland. If it can, we need to know what method of recirculation would be involved. I know that can be done by means of the use of freshwater recirculation technology, namely, that it produces a better smolt. This would allow us to have greater continuity of supply during the year and put larger fish out to sea where they would spend less time. That would be a really interesting way to move forward.

Major investment will be required. I am sorry Senator Michael Comiskey is no longer present. There used to be a fantastic facility on Lough Allen in the constituency in which he lives, at which really good smolt were produced. However, Leitrim County Council decided to close down the facility a number of years ago. The facility was a model for what is required in this regard.

We need good freshwater capacity for the salmon industry.

I hope I have answered all of the questions asked.