Charles Ward: Grants, EU rules and unfair fuel support
Charles Ward speaks to a committee about persistent failures in grant systems and problems with the proposed fuel support scheme. He highlights how application design, EU state aid rules and flat-rate payments are disadvantaging small inshore fishermen and rural applicants.
Charles Ward and colleagues explain that some grant applications are made deliberately easy for preferred schemes, while others become excessively difficult. He recounts prior complaints about two generations of systems and says the wording of new proposals was adjusted to align with EU sustainability and climate adaptation policy.
Ward describes meetings with Commissioner Costas and feedback from the department and civil servants. He explains the change in emphasis toward climate adaptation and the constraints posed by state aid rules and the cap on basic income support for farmers.
Ward raises specific concerns about the supplementary estimates for the fuel support scheme, arguing a flat-rate for under six metre vessels is unfair. He points out cost differences between buying fuel in bulk and at the pump and warns that smaller full-time inshore fishermen are being penalised by size-based payments.
The address calls on the committee to consider criteria that reflect full-time dependency on fishing, not just vessel length, and to ensure any bad weather or fuel payments target those actually affected. Ward urges policymakers to revise wording and payment rules so supports reach the intended recipients.
Grant system failures and application design
Charles Ward and colleagues explain that some grant applications are made deliberately easy for preferred schemes, while others become excessively difficult. He recounts prior complaints about two generations of systems and says the wording of new proposals was adjusted to align with EU sustainability and climate adaptation policy.
EU engagement and state aid concerns
Ward describes meetings with Commissioner Costas and feedback from the department and civil servants. He explains the change in emphasis toward climate adaptation and the constraints posed by state aid rules and the cap on basic income support for farmers.
Fuel support scheme and vessel-size discrimination
Ward raises specific concerns about the supplementary estimates for the fuel support scheme, arguing a flat-rate for under six metre vessels is unfair. He points out cost differences between buying fuel in bulk and at the pump and warns that smaller full-time inshore fishermen are being penalised by size-based payments.
What this means for coastal communities
The address calls on the committee to consider criteria that reflect full-time dependency on fishing, not just vessel length, and to ensure any bad weather or fuel payments target those actually affected. Ward urges policymakers to revise wording and payment rules so supports reach the intended recipients.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Noel Grealish
Noel Grealish: Don't Penalise Players for Politics
Ged Nash
Ged Nash: Finance Bill ignores PAYE workers, favors hospitality
Holly Cairns
Holly Cairns: Every woman deserves continuity of maternity care
Robert Troy
Robert Troy: Why Ireland Cannot Tax Away Fuel Hikes
Thomas Gould
Thomas Gould slams government over failing finance bill
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy: Council Rent Hikes Threaten 20,000 Families
Transcript
So, John, do you think, we're talking about this smart, simple, moving forward, do you think that it was, on all your years dealing with this, it's been designed to fail? This is constantly happening, this. Well, anybody I've met has had trouble with it, so we've raised it with BAM before, with the previous. And how long back would you have been raising this with them? We're going back three or four, this is the new, this is the second generation, when we were complaining about the last system, we're on to the new system. And they updated it? It's worse. And it's worse, okay, okay, right. Okay, I'll move on. Are there any differences between the proposals and the previous ones you presented to the committee, and if so, what are they? I'll let Michael answer that one, maybe he's... Yeah, Derek, thanks, Deputy. There is a few differences, definitely, yeah. And the first question there that you asked to John about the difficulty of the system, I'd just like to point out something, that if you apply for a grant, like an SCI grant, to improve the birth rating of your home, or get one of those geothermal heat pumps, or something like that, you can go through it in seconds. But whereas, when it's, if it's something they want you to do, they can make the grant application very easy, if it's something they don't want you to do, the grant application becomes extremely difficult, and people give up. But on your second question, Deputy, there are a few differences in it, alright. We got information back from the department regarding our first document, that it just wouldn't fly, basically, that the wording of it, we had to go down more the sustainability route, going forward, and more towards the climate adaptation route. And they basically said, because of the cap, the basic income support that farmers are getting is going to be cut over the coming years, so they're not going to start another industry on that. So therefore, we changed it to suit what we think the upcoming EU policy will be. And we ran it through the EU Commission as well there the other day, myself and John were over with Commissioner Costas, and explained our situation to him, which regarding state aid rules, and that Minister Dooley is saying, and our other state officials, that because of state aid rules, that it can't be implemented, an actual financial support package for insure, for Deputy Costas assured us it could be, in exceptional circumstances, once he gets it in writing from the department. So basically, taking everything into account, and we got feedback from previous civil servants as well, we came up with this document. There's not a whole lot of difference. The difference is in the wording to suit the EU and government policy on climate adaptation, I suppose is the answer in short, Deputy. Okay. I'll move on. Tomorrow we're going to consider supplementary estimates proposed in relation to the fuel support scheme. Is there anything you think this committee should take into consideration before doing so? Your opinions, please. I think one issue could be the flat rate for under six metre vessels. I don't think it's very fair that just based on size, we've been discriminated against previously for other issues due to size, and I don't think it's fair that a vessel should be just given a flat rate just based on size. If you burn more fuel, you should be allowed to. And definitely for when you come to the smaller vessels, I don't know if it will be possible or not, but when you compare the cost of fuel for a large vessel buying it by the tonne compared to smaller operators that have to go to the petrol pumps to buy it, where at one stage green diesel was nearly the same price as white diesel at some petrol pumps in the last while, it's totally... The difference between buying it by the tonne and buying it at the pump could be another 30, 40 cent at times. So the smaller vessels are definitely being impacted more severely. Yeah, so you've got the opportunity when you're there. If you're... You can buy it, let's say you can buy it off to Harbourmast or something, you've got a bulk buy situation. If you ring the diesel company and say, I want a lorry load, 30,000 litres, you will get it a lot cheaper than John McNary who wants... Yeah, going up the load, yeah. Okay, Michael. Yeah, just the exact same as that, the last three or four schemes that Minister McConnell came up with for Minshore, it was different for over eight metre boats to under eight metre boats. I fell under the under eight metre category and I'm a full-time fisherman, but a part-time fisherman alongside me with an 8.2 metre boat got more than me, even though he had... He was only at it two months a year. I'm at it 12 months a year and I'm a full-time fisherman and I get less because of the size of my boat. You know, our value to coastal communities should not be decided by the length of our vessel when an awful lot of us are full-time in the smaller vessels. That's something that has to be looked into because it bosses discrimination, really. Okay, so Michael, you believe then that it should be on, as you were saying, your friend is doing it for two months of the year and you're doing it for a full year, so every application there should be detail within that should be considered moving forward? Well, definitely for the size of the vessel. If you're an inshore fisherman, you're an inshore fisherman. We should all be entitled to the same thing. Like, I understand that there are full-time inshore fishermen that have had to get part-time jobs, you know, but for that, if you're referring to the criteria we put down there in this submission where we said people with full-time jobs, what we're saying there is we were told that we would lose credibility as well by looking for the same, like if we were looking for a bad weather payment for some fellow who has a fishing license but he's not fishing in the winter anyway, that wouldn't make any sense. You know, so for, you know, the bad weather payment, it would have to be based on people who are affected, regardless of the size of the boat. It is the fishermen that rely on fishing for the winter, you know, that are dependent on fishing for a living that gets the payment. Thank you both.