Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is something of which the Department and I are aware. I know over the past two to three years some other member states had fuel subsidy schemes. It is not a route I chose to go down. We did other schemes that were not available in other member states and which we very deliberately put in place to support the various sectors. I referred to that Brexit adjustment model scheme, the one in which boats had to have been fishing at least €1,000 of fish in a year or to have been actively fishing for 30 days. That was one scheme I ran last year and the year before. It is not something that would have been available in other member states. Tie-up schemes were available for those fishing quota species last year and the year before too. Again, that is not something that would have been available in other years. There is no doubt that, post the invasion of Ukraine, there were massive spikes in fuel prices and we put supports in place for wider society for these as well, which have been removed gradually over a period. Fuel prices today and just in the past short while are similar to and in line with what they would have been prior to the invasion of Ukraine. They are back to where they would have been. The heaviest part of the heavy fuel hikes have been over the past year or two.

Speaking generally on the fuel subsidy as a mechanism of support, once you start doing that, it is a very difficult process to step away from because fishing takes place that is totally dependent on it. It is a route which is a challenging one to then step away from. Other members states that went down that route are finding that as well. We provided other supports instead, particularly the tie-up scheme for the inshore fishers fishing for quota species, which was a much more appropriate way to do it. The way that worked was that one third of boats could be tied up at any one time but the same level of quota was available. For every three boats, one would tie up but the other two went out and caught the full amount of fish. They caught the fish the boat that was tied up would have been fishing but the boat that was tied up got paid for staying in the harbour for that month. It went in three-month rotations and the next month other boats were tied up.

It meant that if you had been out and were catching more fish you had more income, which covered your costs. It probably would have been a better way to address the fuel challenge at that time.