Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will be brief as this has been a lengthy meeting. It appears that Acadian Seaplants would like to transplant to Ireland a model that works for the company in Canada without recognising that the system in place here is working. The seaweed forum has described it as a working and sustainable system. As such, it is not necessary to impose on the harvesters who have been employed in this area for many years the model that Acadian Seaplants would like to operate here.

Arramara Teoranta has been operating for 67 years. Perhaps the representatives of Údarás na Gaeltachta or former managers of Arramara Teoranta will indicate the number of times in the company's 67 years of operation that supply has run out, seaweed has been harvested in an unsustainable manner or production has been shut down. This would give members an indication of the magnitude of the problem that the new licensing regime is intended to remedy.

On the licences, we learned that Acadian Seaplants is applying for a licence to harvest 75% of available seaweed resources. This would give rise to what would, to all intents and purposes, be a monopoly. Clearly, the monopoly in place in Canada works well for the company given that it is seeking to secure control of the seaweed resource here.

We heard that it is necessary to guarantee supply to a commercial entity. How would harvesters be guaranteed an income under the proposed licensing regime? If they are unhappy with the regime implemented by Acadian Seaplants, where can they sell their products given that the licence will cover the entire west coast?

We heard that past performance is a good indicator of future performance. The joint committee received a submission from another company that included a product service information brochure from Acadian Seaplants, which described Irish seaweed products as inferior to its products. Is this an ethical approach to advertising? Is it appropriate to attack products from another country? Does this indicate how business will be done when the company operates here? If past performance is an indicator of future behaviour, what can the harvesters expect from their dealings with the company?

I apologise to the representatives of Údarás na Gaeltachta as my Gaeilge is not good enough to ask questions as Gaeilge. I will, therefore, stick to Béarla. When Údarás na Gaeltachta gave evidence to the sub-committee an agreement had already been reached to sell Arramara Teoranta to Acadian Seaplants. Should Údarás na Gaeltachta not have informed the sub-committee at the time that it had sold its interest in Arramara Teoranta? Does Údarás na Gaeltachta see its role as being a development agency for Gaeltacht areas? Having exited seaweed production, does it have a role in seaweed harvesting?

We heard from Údarás na Gaeltachta that it was looking for a strategic partner to come on board. Rather than entering a strategic partnership, it chose to sell Arramara Teoranta. How did the relationship with Acadian Seaplants evolve? Is there a partnership in place between Údarás na Gaeltachta and the company? We also heard that if Acadian Seaplants does not live up to the agreement in respect of existing suppliers, Údarás na Gaeltachta will have a right to take back up to 40% of the shares? Is it not the case that Údarás na Gaeltachta will have a right to acquire 40% of the shares and does acquisition not entail purchasing rather than taking back the shares? Perhaps the representatives of Acadian Seaplants will indicate whether there is an agreement in place whereby Údarás na Gaeltachta is entitled to take back 40% of the company if certain conditions are not met?