Debate contribution: Fishing Industry: Capital Investment
Debate contribution by Mr Tom Buchanan on .
- MLA
- Mr Tom Buchanan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Fishing Industry: Capital Investment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4237626
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank all Members who took part in today's debate on much-needed capital investment in the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. The motion sets out the important part that the fishing industry plays in the economy and highlights the impact that rising costs are having on the industry and the fishermen and their respective families. It also outlines the practical and financial support that is required to enable the industry to continue to develop by being in a position where it can take advantage of new fishing opportunities, including through investment in the modernisation of its vessels. A vision was set out in the fishing and seafood development programme report of May 2021, which was first commissioned in 2019. Page 30 of that report sets out very clearly the vision of the programme and its objectives and recommendations. I will remind the House of some of issues in that report. The vision is:
"Northern Ireland’s fishing & seafood industry is fit for the 21st Century. It will be prosperous and sustainable; able to take advantage of new fishing opportunities and green growth. It will be supported by improved fishing infrastructure that also enables growth in the Blue Economy and contributes to thriving coastal communities."
That vision is still in the document, but it has not yet been realised. There are three objectives. The fishing objective is:
"Fishing operations are sustainable in economic, environmental and social terms: sufficiently profitable to invest in a fleet that can operate efficiently, attract crew and reduce its carbon emissions."
The blue economy objective is:
"Northern Ireland grasps future opportunities in the existing and emerging sectors of the Blue Economy."
The harbour objective is:
"Northern Ireland’s fishing harbours are developed to support the needs of the fishing industry".
Those objectives are in the document, but they have not been delivered. The recommendations were to enhance the capacity of Ardglass to provide security for fishing and processing businesses; develop Kilkeel as a potential Irish Sea hub for the fishing and maritime economy by increasing port capacity and shoreside facilities; and invest in Portavogie harbour estate to allow it to take advantage of future blue economy opportunities. The proposed investment was £73 million for Kilkeel, £20 million for Ardglass and £5 million for Portavogie. However, to date, the vision, the objectives, the recommendations and the proposed financial spend still form part of a paper exercise that not been delivered for the hard-pressed fishing industry in Northern Ireland today. While my colleague the previous AERA Minister successfully sought permission for an outline business case to move forward the important work of carrying out the technical and environmental studies to unlock that investment and get construction under way, it is regrettable that, due to budgetary and other pressures, that preparatory work was delayed and could not be taken forward.
Let us hope that the restoration of the Executive is not another false dawn for an industry that depends so much on investment as it seeks to move forward. The representatives of the fishing industry must get a clear understanding from the Minister on the current state of those plans, and they need to know whether integrated consultant teams have been or will now be able to complete the relevant technical studies and whether proper investment will be in place to allow the development work to commence.
The long-term ambition of the Department and the Minister must be to release the major capital investment that is required for the development of our harbours, with a multi-year budget cycle that will enable our fishing and seafood industry, like all other businesses in different sectors, to have certainty and be able to plan as they go forward. I will mention some comments from Members who took part in the debate. I know that the Member who made the winding-up speech on the amendment covered a number of those. My colleagues mentioned that the fishing industry is a thriving sector. They said that there was a concern about the labour shortages and spoke of the need for the Minister and the Department to fight for the industry. That is the important issue: the Minister must take on this battle and fight for the industry. The resilience of the sector was mentioned, as was its frustration at the lack of progress. It is an industry that does not want to stand still; it wants and needs to move forward.
We heard that harbours are at the heart of the towns and that the present uncertainty is taking its toll on the industry. I give way.
760 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.