Deputy Healy-Rae wishes to comment before our guests speak.
Mussel Industry: Discussion with O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Limited.
I thank the Chairman and committee members for allowing our guests from Cromane to attend. There are significant problems with mussel dredgers and so on in that area. I call on Mr. O'Driscoll——
The Deputy should leave that to me.
——to address the Chairman.
I welcome Mr. Michael O'Driscoll, Mr. Danny O'Sullivan, Mr. Paul O'Sullivan, Mr. Arthur McCarthy, Mr. John Rahilly and Mr. Robert McConnell, who are present to make a presentation on the mussel industry in Cromane, County Kerry. Before they commence, I wish to bring to their attention the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. O'Driscoll to make his presentation.
Mr. Michael O’Driscoll
I thank Deputy Healy-Rae for introducing us. We thank the joint committee for meeting us regarding the plight of the mussel industry in Cromane, County Kerry. Members have copies of our submission which summarises the problems. However, I would like Mr. McConnell who is a surveyor, and a number of people from Cromane's agricultural sector to add to the submission, if the Chairman agrees.
Yes, but Mr. O'Driscoll should be as brief as possible.
Mr. Michael O’Driscoll
I will be brief. Does the Chairman want me to read out the background?
Yes, so the committee can have the main points.
Mr. Michael O’Driscoll
Cromane's fishery traces its origin to the late 19th century when local fishermen consigned mussels to the British market. The fishery was self-perpetuating in the early years through natural spawning, seed settlement and growth.
The fishery continued as a public resource, exploited by 30 small vessels, until 1979 when the mussel fishery order came into being. In the interim, Bord Iascaigh Mhara constructed a purification plant to facilitate entry to the United Kingdom market of mussels which had to comply at that stage with stringent microbiological criteria. BIM actively engaged in exporting until 1963 when policy forced it to adopt a purely advisory role in marketing. Local exporters continued to supply the UK market with mussels purified at the BIM facility, and three processing plants carried out cooking and canning operations at Killorglin until 1970. Transplanting of mussel seed was carried out annually by local 20-foot vessels to ensure continuity of supply. The fishery developed from an exploited wild stock to an extensive cultivated resource.
Dredgers first came into play in 1987 and have carried a significant part of the transplanting burden since. The mussel fishery order of 1979 gave exclusive rights to the local co-operative over extensive mussel beds within the harbour for control, management and development purposes. The co-operative still retains the order and that gives an opportunity to the locals to manage and regulate the fishery. The co-operative has relinquished its marketing role and now concerns itself with management of the resource through allocation of production ground, managing the relay of mussel seed and organising predator control programmes. Mussels are also cultivated outside the area of the order in sites licensed by the Government for aquaculture. BIM has been actively involved in development over the years and continues to invest in marketing, technology, education and research.
Currently, Cromane's exports are only of live mussels, mainly to France and the Netherlands. There is a plan to cook mussels locally and sell them to regional outlets throughout Munster.
On the Cromane mussel fleet, we have eight dredgers, a number of which are non-compliant, and 20 smaller vessels. Approximately 60 people are involved in mussel cultivation. Production annually is 3,000 tonnes but there is a potential for 5,000 or even 10,000 tonnes per annum. The first sale value is €3 million per annum.
Our submission is concerned with the activities of Cromane mussel dredgers operating on licensed aquaculture ground within waters designated as partly smooth. Mussel producers face many problems, a number of which have been created by seemingly over-stringent regulations.
We seek to have the following issues considered by the committee. First, dredgers are required under Irish law to be licensed as sea fishing boats to engage legally in owners' licensed aquaculture area. This contrasts with the situation in the Netherlands, the UK and Northern Ireland where sea fishing boat licences are not required in similar circumstances. Irish legislation prevents unlicensed dredgers from legally carrying out the following essential operations highlighted in our submission. In other words, these dredgers cannot produce mussels. Their owners cannot carry out the tasks invested in them through the mussel fishery order and aquaculture licence. We submit that the requirement for a sea fishing boat licence to operate in licensed aquaculture ground is not sustainable. It is also contrary to the principle of harmonisation which should prevail throughout the European Union. I emphasise that the activity does not relate to sea fishing. There is no exploitation of a public fishery resource. The activity is purely aquaculture.
Second, the introduction of safety regulations for sea fishing vessels in 2005 appears to have signalled the forced obsolescence of a number of Cromane dredgers. This has serious consequences for the owners and for the industry. Dredgers qualify for sea fishing boat licence on compliance with strict safety requirements followed by the issue of a certificate of compliance. The dredger fleet described in our submission operates in the smooth waters of Castlemaine harbour. The vessels do not go to the open sea and work exclusively within a mile of the shore under favourable weather conditions. Safety regulations are overly stringent for vessels operating in these situations. Dredger owners cannot afford the huge cost of purchasing or upgrading vessels to comply with the standards. EU countries, including Northern Ireland, the UK and the Netherlands, have appropriate safety standards in place for mussel dredgers operating in smooth waters.
We accept the necessity for realistic safety standards and boat registration requirements as apply in other member states. Independent professional judgment needs to be considered on safety issues. It must be borne in mind that men who progressed from 18 ft. or 20 ft. punts to invest in second-hand Dutch dredgers for safety reasons and greater efficiency now find that their dredgers are no longer in compliance. Further development of the resource is dependent on the activity of dredgers in reseeding, tending of grounds and dredging for market. EU legislation from 2004 prohibits the grant-aiding of sea fishing vessels, including mussel dredgers engaged solely in aquaculture. The cost of new and good second-hand dredgers is prohibitive without grant aid. The EU measure restricts the scope for investment in the sector. The industry will be greatly hampered as a consequence. A restructured dredger fleet is essential for the continued development of the resource.
I wish to delete the remainder of my submission, as the information is not entirely correct. Mr. McConnell can outline the correct, up-to-date position. I thank the Chairman and members for their attention.
Mr. Robert McConnell
I will discuss the code or safety standard, called the Torremolinos Protocol, which is being applied to the Cromane mussel fleet. It is a standard for sea fishing vessels. However, these boats do not go to sea; therefore, the Torremolinos Protocol does not apply to them. Approximately four years ago the Department and the Marine Survey Office, in their wisdom, stated they would not grant fishing boat licences to these boats unless they had certificates of compliance, COPs, for the Torremolinos Protocol. That made them redundant because the COPs could not be obtained. My reading of the Torremolinos Protocol is that it does not apply to these boats. It is a little like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the nut in this case being the small amount of safety equipment the boats require. The Torremolinos Protocol is the sledgehammer in that it is designed for oceangoing or seagoing boats. Cromane is an area of smooth waters. As the vessels are not at sea, they are not required to be in compliance with the Torremolinos Protocol. In other states such as the United Kingdom the MCA states any boat going to sea must have a COP but boats operating inshore and on licensed beds are only required to meet the requirements for boats of less than 15 m. That is what we would agree to. Obviously, the condition of the boats, their range and safety equipment are important but requiring them to meet the conditions of the Torremolinos Protocol is excessive, at best.
Personally, I believe there might not be a legal basis to detain the boats. The application under the Torremolinos Protocol states it applies to sea fishing boats only. Section 2 of the application states exempts boats which are fish carriers. That is what the mussel dredgers are, effectively. They carry seed from one side of the beds to another. The Torremolinos Protocol is not applicable in that case. Nevertheless, the boats have been tied up for four years and the Cromane industry is suffering as a result.
Mr. Danny O’Sullivan
Prior to 1975 we were using small boats or punts, as we called them. In 1975 we bought a 9 m vessel and in 1979 a 12 m vessel to replace it. They were both new and wooden. In 1987 we bought a 24 m, second-hand, steel Dutch dredger in Holland. In 1990 we applied for aid for a new vessel. This was approved by BIM but the Department refused to send the application to Brussels for EU funding. We have correspondence to that effect.
In 1996, we secured a second-hand mussel ship which was 31 m in length. We were forced to do that because we could not get the new vessel. In 2004, we were informed of the new regulations that were to be implemented. In the meantime, however, we had spent approximately €240,000 to upgrade the vessel. We sought information regarding smooth-water vessels working in our own farm, etc., but the response was very unclear. In 2005, we re-applied for aid to construct a new vessel under the 2000-2006 development plan but were told that there was no money. Funds had been withdrawn and there was nothing from Europe to help us. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves, although we have done everything possible to avert it. On numerous occasions we went to Holland to try to find a vessel we could work with, but we do not seem to be getting anywhere with the MSO for the moment.
Mr. Arthur McCarthy
I wish to follow up by referring to page 3 of Mr. O'Driscoll's submission, which mentions punts. We find ourselves in a situation where we can use punts less than 6 m in length, with outboard motors, but we cannot use the dredgers. That situation is difficult to comprehend. The regulations are stringent and completely unworkable in a smooth-water scenario.
I now call on members of the committee to put questions, but I would ask them to be as brief as possible.
I thank members of the delegation for attending the committee. I know the area where they operate quite well as I spent my young years on the back strand at Glenbeigh and Rossbeigh. It is a unique area.
If the mussel fishermen had been able to forge alliances with the fishing industry nationally they would probably not have been ignored for as long as they have been. That is the problem — they represent an isolated case in respect of the unique area in which they operate. Their submission makes absolute sense. My colleague Deputy Sheahan is far more familiar with the details of it. I propose that this committee should pursue the submission with the Department and the Minister concerned.
I take the analogy that it is a "sledge-hammer and nut" situation. Obviously, the industry is a viable one and it would be a shame if it were lost for the want of a common sense approach to regulation and safety. While no one is suggesting that safety should be compromised, the matter must be resolved. It is regrettable that the situation has continued for so long because such a practical issue requires a hands-on approach to resolve it. I find it difficult to accept that the Department could be as intransigent as it is in dealing with the matter. I have read the correspondence from the Minister of State. We need to cut through a lot of the fog surrounding the issue in the Department by bringing some of the officials before the committee to deal with it.
I welcome the delegation. Having been involved in the fishing industry myself, I am aware of the area and the type of water depths and currents prevailing. The fishermen are operating in a shallow bay and do not go further than a mile from the shore at any time. In my opinion and the opinion of anyone with experience of fishing, the vessels being used are quite safe.
What is at issue is six vessels and the need to spend €1 million on each in order to bring them into compliance. It would be virtually impossible for the owners of these vessels to come up with that kind of money. Were those who purchased their dredgers between 1999 and 2004 informed of what was likely to happen? People in certain circles had knowledge in this regard but those before the committee today were not forewarned.
I understand UK-registered boats have, as a result of less severe interpretations of the EU directive, been fishing in the area for the past two years. The Irish Naval Service is patrolling Cromane harbour to prevent local vessels fishing there. However, there is nothing to prevent UK-registered vessels from doing so.
Why is the Department insisting on sea fishing licences for the dredgers in Cromane Bay? I am informed that in France aquaculture licences are sufficient. If our guests can confirm that sea fishing licences are required, there will be a need for departmental officials and the Minister to come before the committee to explain why there is such an anomaly and why the people of Cromane are being discriminated against.
This small industry has been very good for the people of Cromane and provides them with their livelihoods. Now, however, those involved in it are being persecuted because they are trying to better themselves.
I welcome our guests and compliment them on their presentation. They made a good case. The enforcement of the 1999 EU directive from 2004 led to the collapse of the mussel industry in Cromane which is situated close to the area in which I live. As our guests stated, the vast majority of licences have not been renewed and there is a major difficulty. Action will have to be taken to resolve the issue.
The vessels used by our guests are also used in other European countries. I see no reason they cannot be used here. The Minister should put in place some form of grant aid scheme to enable our guests to upgrade or replace their vessels in order that the issue might be resolved. In addition, the mussel fleet should — as is the case in other European countries — be moved from the sea fishing sector to the aquaculture sector. As a result, those involved in it would not be obliged to comply with the EU directive to which I refer.
Our guests made a good case and I will do what I can for them. We are here to help and support them. I will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister following this meeting.
I also welcome the deputation, the members of which have come here in good faith. I have the greatest sympathy for our guests because they are the victims of regulations implemented by the Departments which have held responsibility for the marine.
Other dredger owners cannot afford the considerable cost of purchasing or upgrading dredgers to comply with the stringent standards required. The presentation states that in other jurisdictions in the European Union, including Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, appropriate safety standards are in place for mussel dredgers operating in smooth waters. In other words, the delegation believes the matter would be resolved if there was a level playing pitch.
The problem is not one of EU regulation. If Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands can impose their own regulations, why should Ireland not do likewise for similar waters, such as in Cromane Bay? This is another example of departmental red tape and bureaucracy. We need to ask the Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries to clarify the reason we do not have regulations similar to those operating in other jurisdictions. I intend to force the issue with the Minister of State and hope the joint committee will, to the best of its ability, expose the injustice faced by mussel fishermen in Cromane.
I welcome the delegation. It is clear, even to those who do not know anything about fishing, that mussel farmers in Cromane are being victimised. An anomaly has arisen in that French mussel boats receive grant aid because they come under the aquaculture heading. One could argue that those working in the mussels industry are water farmers rather than fishermen.
Cromane is unique in that mussel farmers in the area have their own seed and grow their own mussels. As such, they do not need to go out to sea to harvest, as mussel farmers in other areas must do. The delegation indicated that mussel fishermen in Cromane do not travel beyond one mile from shore. As one who knows the area well, I believe the distance is significantly less than a mile. The waters in Cromane harbour are so smooth that if a boat were to sink, those on board would be able to walk ashore.
It is like a pond.
The mussel fishermen of Cromane are being victimised. Europe is blamed for all the wrongs in this country, while the Government does not accept responsibility. Having read the Torremolinos Protocol to which Mr. O'Connell referred, I understand it features an opt-out clause which allows governments to exclude mussel boats and aquaculture from its terms.
The mussel industry in Cromane is excellent. It has been suggested that 17 jobs will be lost with the closure of the coast guard station on Valentia Island. Between 50 and 60 jobs could be lost in Cromane where there are no other industries. I invite the Chairman to visit south Kerry where every restaurant menu features Cromane mussels. I have even seen them on menus in Dublin. Mussels are a natural resource on which the entire Cromane community depends.
The men before us have engaged on this issue for several years but have received little response from the Minister. The joint committee must work with them. I propose that, through the good offices of the Chairman, we invite the Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries, Deputy John Browne, to visit Cromane to see the situation at first hand.
The major problem is that these men are being seriously wronged. They have dredgers but the trouble is they are being classified as boats which are capable of fishing in the deep waters of the Atlantic Ocean. We cannot seem to convey the message that they are not fishing in deep waters, that they are fishing in a local area and that it is similar to fishing in the Lakes of Killarney. These machines are standing idle for every Minister or whoever else wants to see them. They can press the button and start the engine. The trouble is they are capable of being used for fishing in the immediate vicinity of the shore in Cromane and Castlemaine harbours with no danger to any person's life. As they are being classed as boats, they are required to conform as if they were being used for fishing in deep waters. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is the hard fact.
I thank the Chairman and the committee for the way the group represented has been facilitated. I appeal to the Chairman to follow up the matter with the Minister to see if anything can be done. As Deputy Sheahan indicated, we must bring it home to the Minister that the people in question are being wronged. They are being treated as if their vessels are used for fishing in deep water when they are only fishing in the area local to Cromane. That is the message we want to convey until we are home and dry.
I invite a brief response from Mr. O'Sullivan. We are all in agreement on the problems outlined by the delegation.
Mr. Paul O’Sullivan
I wish to refer to the licensing issue. The Torremolinos Protocol was introduced in 1999. Many of the boats in question were only introduced between that date and 2004 and received licences which were withdrawn in 2004. We had a meeting in Dublin with the MSO, the then Department of the Marine, BIM and the industry and were told all licences were being withdrawn until such time as there was an agreement to comply with the Torremolinos Protocol. We considered this to be blackmail. The Department allowed boats to be licensed between 1999 and 2004, even though the Torremolinos Protocol had been introduced.
Two UK registered boats in the same condition and of the same class as our own are fishing on our doorstep, while the Naval Service is at The Bar, at the entrance to Cromane Harbour, to make sure the Irish boats cannot fish. This is total discrimination. There is no other word for it. The point has been made that such boats are allowed to work in Holland, France and England, yet seven boats well capable of working here are tied to the moorings in Cromane.
In 2006 the Irish mussel industry was worth €32 million. The industry in Cromane has almost collapsed. We had six or seven meetings with the Minister of State, Deputy John Browne, and previously with the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to see if we could find a solution to the problem. They kept quoting the Torremolinos Protocol, that the only requirement for any boat deemed to be working near the coast concerned safety equipment, which is already in place. However, for whatever reason, they will not take up the case because they do not want to do so.
We have made several attempts to secure grant aid but have been told that the European Union will not allow the mussel industry to be grant-aided. We have gone to the Minister with the ISA and the industry with several suggestions. As far as I am aware it would be legal in Europe for either BIM or the Department to take equity in the companies involved as part of a grant aid package. BIM could also buy several fishing boats, leasing them to fishermen for so many years. The value of the boat could be written off in depreciation over so many years and then sold back to the fishermen.
On every avenue we have gone down to solve this problem, we have been turned back. If something is not done immediately, the whole industry in the area will be gone. There is no other industry there. Between Cahirciveen and Cromane, there are only two factories, both in Killorglin. It is our livelihood and what we grew up with. It is not all about money but what people grew up with and what they want to stay doing.
Mr. Robert McConnell
The industry was made aware of the requirement to meet the Torremolinos Protocol in 2004. As a naval architect, I was employed to examine the first Torremolinos Protocol applications. It was as a result of an accident on a sea-going boat. Up to that point, the mussel fishermen did not believe the protocol was applicable to their mussel dredgers. There is no legislation for work boats or inshore fishing boats. Every other EU member state has legislation for both types of boats and that is how they can apply other measures. As Ireland does not have legislation in this area, the Torremolinos Protocol has been applied instead.
The protocol applies to sea-going fishing boats. The Cromane mussel farmers are not going to sea. Even if the protocol was to be applied, the Minister is allowed make an exemption under Regulation 3.
Europe gets blamed for much. The protocol is important for sea-going fishing boats. It is not Europe's fault in this case. The power lies with the Minister and the marine survey office.
Mr. Michael O’Driscoll
Deputy Ferris asked about the requirement for the sea-fishing boat licence. This requirement is not sustainable because sea-fishing boat licences should only apply to boats pursuing public wild fisheries.
Mussel dredgers, on the other hand, do not operate in a public fish field. The State issued the mussel farmers with a mussel order and aquacultural licence, vested in the people of Cromane. They are operating in grounds licensed to them. They are not engaged in fishing but purely in aquaculture. As a farmer grows a young calf into a bullock, the mussel farmers grows seed mussel into marketable mussel. There is no fishing element to it.
The State issued aquaculture licences to the people of Cromane and then insisted they have a sea-fishing boat licence to operate in the grounds to which the State has already given them a licence. While I am not a legal person, this strikes me as double jeopardy or such like.
If the aquaculture licence were sufficient, other than the sea-fishing licence, would it be correct that it would open a whole issue regarding grant aid compliance and so forth?
We fished oysters in Tralee Bay with an aquaculture licence. Tralee Bay is far more tidal, with strong currents and deep channels. In comparison, there are flat bottomed boats in Cromane because the water is very shallow. If we could get the Department to accept that an aquaculture licence would suffice, that would get everybody over a big hurdle. Am I correct in saying this?
Mr. Michael O’Driscoll
Yes, of course. I have stated EU legislation prohibits the grant-aiding of sea fishing vessels, which include mussel dredgers engaged solely in aquaculture. That is further proof that dredgers should not be classed as sea fishing boats. This was brought forward and it affects boats involved in aquaculture in the same way as it affects sea fishing boats. That is an anomaly in the European Union system rather than the Irish one and it does not make sense.
Is it agreed that the clerk to the committee should send a report on today's proceedings to the Minister and the Minister of State and look for explanations?
We should also request a meeting with them.
Is that agreed also? Agreed.
Can we get the Minister of State to go to Cromane and see it for himself?
That is a matter for the Minister of State, but a report on all of what has been discussed will be sent to him. We will personally talk to him. I thank the delegates for their presentation and responses to the questions raised by members of the committee. I also thank Deputy Healy-Rae who I was able to facilitate in attending the meeting when he approached me.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Michael O’Driscoll
A Chathaoirligh, a mhuintir an choiste agus a Theachta Healy-Rae, táimid an bhuíoch díbh buaileadh linn agus éisteacht linn. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.
The joint committee adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 16 April 2008.