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

First of all, I would like to apologise because the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine is sitting at the same time as this one and, as agriculture spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, I will have to try to be in two places at once. This is an issue that arises occasionally in the Houses.
To go back to the beginning, do the witnesses agree that the two issues the Department must consider when deciding on the distribution of licences are sustainability and the public good? Everything is predicated on these factors. The Minister must ask whether a licence application is sustainable, as reinforced by the EU habitats directive, and in the public interest. This industry has been very underdeveloped in Ireland and we did not realise our wealth, so I take it the witnesses agree that we must aim for a diverse and growing industry. We must seek new products, added value and different types of seaweed to add to the wealth because, traditionally, Arramara was a low-added-value, bulk processor of seaweed. Do the witnesses agree that sustainability is a criterion?
Over the past three months I have become convinced that the status quoof an unregulated sector is not sustainable. Does anyone believe the status quocan continue? Harvesters were poorly informed because they harvested without a licence, which has been illegal since 1933. Despite this, factories, including Arramara, were happy to buy the harvested seaweed and accept it was the harvesters' to sell. The factories were in a better position to check the law than the harvesters. There is a suggestion that only the harvesters were mistaken in their behaviour and factories should thus have the right to harvest now. I accept harvesters had no right to the seaweed in the first place but, equally, factories had no right to buy it from them. Do the witnesses accept that they bought goods from people who were not in a position to sell those goods because they did not own them? The harvesters sold seaweed to factories either on the pier or direct to the factory door and the factories paid a price. If harvesters acted illegally then so too did the factories.
I was surprised to hear talk of PRSI, taxes and so on. The simple fact is seaweed harvesters were liable for PRSI and tax like any farmer or self-employed person and means testing, was also a factor. We introduced a special exemption on means testing to allow the harvesting of a certain amount of seaweed without loss of full social welfare allowances, but it was taken into account. It is questionable to say the State did not know because tax auditors could easily have checked whom the factories purchased seaweed from. I assume all of the witnesses kept proper records of those from whom they bought seaweed. It is a travesty of justice that seaweed harvesters are being singled out as having acted illegally, and I have seen how they have had to account for themselves. I would hate to think any State company did not keep proper records.
Is it viable to take seaweed from offshore islands such as the Aran Islands, Inishturk or Inishbofin for processing on the mainland? If not, are people there seeking licences to exclusively harvest seaweed? Should a limit be placed on the maximum that can be granted to any one industry? Should we say no single group or person can get the sole licence for a period?

What period of time does Mr. O'Sullivan think would be the proper length for the licence?

I have the impression that BioAtlantis is proposing that the processors hold the licence. It seems to be putting the argument that if the processor does not hold the licence it cannot go to the bank. There are big processors in the farming industry but they do not own the cows. The malt processors do not own the barley. Why is seaweed harvesting so different? I was involved in the timber industry. The processors do not own the timber but they get money from banks. Why is this industry unique, as a renewable resource-based industry, such that the processor must own the base for production?

I have heard a great deal about harvesters this afternoon. Have any of the witnesses examined whether they or the harvesters own the seaweed? Many farmers have appurtenant rights to seaweed. How many of the witnesses have checked that the State owns the seaweed where they want to harvest or how much is in private ownership? One still needs a licence but one could get the licence and not be able to harvest because a farmer has appurtenant rights to the folio.