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

My sense is that we must analyse hard-headedly what is achievable. In other words, one should ask in a way that maximises one's chance of achieving something. Park the income issue for the moment and look at the narrow scheme the Minister introduced. He said it is €1.5 million and it comes out of current resources. I would imagine that he will not go back to the Cabinet for money until he spends the €1.5 million. I say this as a member of the Opposition. Therefore, the first challenge is how to tweak the scheme within the parameters that have been set to at least draw down the €1.5 million. If we end up at the end of this year and it is still €337,000, we will wonder why we did not just confine ourselves and get what was on the table, the €1.5 million that the Minister found in his Department to give.

In that regard, the first barrier I discovered was that the lobster men do not have receipts for the original pots. That is why there are only 150 applications. Perhaps in other parts of the country they have receipts, but it is fair to say that many pots were bought on "DoneDeal".ie and in all sorts of different ways. That is quite legitimate, but no receipts were kept over that period. It seems that any scheme to help lobster fishermen with pots, and both we and the witnesses have made the case for them, must get that condition removed. It is not there for the shrimp, so there is a precedent. It is always good to work with a precedent with Departments.

The second issue is that at 1,500 the numbers are too small to make it worth people's while. I recommend to the committee that we increase that number, but not to a point that would put it way above the €1.5 million. If we start doing that we will end up with all of nothing.

Third, the 40% grant is very low grant aid. If one has lost the thing, it is not as if one is buying something new. One is replacing something that was there. If one is buying something new, I would give one a 60% or 40% grant. That is fine, because it is something one never had before. In this case, one is only going to end up with what one had before, so I would say it should be increased.

By taking this minimalist approach, as it were, my sense is that I am not making myself a hero here but giving the witnesses hard-headed advice. I have a good idea of the parameters the Minister laid down in the original document he gave to the committee. I believe that would maximise the chances of at least not leaving €1.2 million behind. It is already on the table but the fishermen cannot get their hands on it because the conditions are too onerous.