Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One thing I am curious about is the "big bang" approach with outsiders, as opposed to steady growth in which one deals with the issues as one grows, promoted by locals who are sensitive to local interests. I am interested in why the Department seems to be going for this huge "big bang" approach under the aegis of BIM, which is obviously subject to ministerial policy direction.

That ministerial policy direction seems to be as follows: first, the ownership is not local; second, if anything goes wrong it is a big failure; third, environmental risks are huge from day one; and fourth, it is very unlikely to get general local acceptance. This is as opposed to trying to get those who have done this at a sustainable level on a small scale to grow as their knowledge and capacity grows with the ownership staying local. The basic nature of inshore fishermen is to work on their own rather than be employees of a big multinational, which can at the turn of a switch decide the game is over and all that is left behind is the waste.

What informs the Department's approach on a policy level given that we are trying to develop sustainable rural communities where as many aspects of people's lives as possible are controlled from within the community? I am very proud of the local timber mill in my area. One of the great advantages it has had from the outset is that the general manager and minority shareholder is a Galway person and the majority shareholder is Connacht Gold. That has created a great rock of connection to the place and we know it will stick with it through hell and high water, whereas if a multinational company owned it, the mill would be the first place to close if it ran into any difficulty. I am wondering about the policy approach of the Department reflected by BIM actions.

Inshore fishermen perennially complain that where there is considerable fish farming, certain species of fish that are basically scavengers, will scavenge all the food that falls to the bottom of the sea. They then become very fat, soft and mushy, but are inedible. I do not know if the scientists dismiss this, but the fishermen swear it is so. I will need to go out with the fishermen someday to find out whether they are feeding me a lot of foolish talk, but it is certainly local perception among dedicated inshore fishermen as opposed to anglers. If there are 15,000 tonnes of fish a year and even allowing for the fantastic conversion rates they were saying they were getting, it would be strange that only 20% of that goes to the bottom of the seabed, which is still 3,000 tonnes of feed. All of that must get consumed - that is the nature of it. We all know if animal feed is left out the rats will come out of nowhere fast enough. If we are doing a development that is for inshore fishermen I am concerned that they themselves complain it interferes with their very basic livelihood.