Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate

Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill 2017: Discussion

Chairman

The Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill 2017, a Private Members' Bill, was referred to the joint committee for consideration. This is the first occasion on which it has considered a Private Members' Bill. In this session we will hear from the sponsor of the Bill, Deputy Martin Kenny, who is accompanied by Deputy Martin Ferris and Mr. Seamus Bonner, secretary of the Irish Island Marine Resource Organisation. I thank them for coming before the committee to outline the rationale behind the Bill. In the next session we will hear from officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Deputy Martin Kenny to make his opening statement.

Deputy Martin Kenny

We are here to discuss the Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill 2017.

It is good that we are here to discuss it and turn our collective attention to the plight of offshore island communities that need special assistance to survive, as I think everyone recognises. The details, effects and consequences of the Bill need to be examined and I expect that over time we will openly and intelligently work out the issues dealt with in the Bill. From the beginning, it is important that all of us concerned with the process agree that the islands and the people on them who make their living from fishing are at an extra or particular disadvantage. Of course, we can agree that other coastal fishers also badly need assistance, but the Bill is specific to the islands for a reason. We are setting out to establish something new and diverse from the norm and when doing so, it is vital that the scope and action proposed be clearly defined and limited. Once we succeed in delivering on the intentions of the Bill and can review the outcomes, other measures could be considered for other coastal communities that also depend on small-scale fishing. The small-scale fishing communities based on offshore islands are our focus, as it is obvious that geography and limited income opportunities make them a special case. If we adopt a solution-focused attitude in dealing with the Bill we can work up legislation that will improve the lives of island fishers in a practical way. On different occasions the committee, the Government, the Department and the Minister all agreed that island fishers were a special case. Through the Bill we can all agree that we want to improve their lives in a practical way by a special measure, thus allowing them income opportunities from the natural resource which surrounds them.

The number of boats based on the islands that will be affected by the Bill is very small in the context of the size of the overall fishing fleet. As stated in the Bill, it is limited to small-scale fishing carried out by vessels less than 12 m in length that do not use towed fishing gear, as listed in Table 3 of EU Regulation No. 26/2004. We are talking about small-scale coastal communities and fishing which occurs within the six-mile territorial limit, including the baseline. The intention of the Bill is to have the absolute minimum impact on the other parts of the fishing industry and fishing stocks. One of the issues brought up during the Second Stage debate was that the residents of offshore islands engaged in fishing needed to be more clearly defined. The registration of a boat and the licence to fish outline the ownership, capacity, tonnage and engine power of a vessel and the address of the boat owner. There were also questions asked about how residency on an island would be determined. I would have thought the electoral register would be one obvious way it could be determined. Of course, when someone is opening a bank account, he or she has to provide proof of address in the form of household bills which are used to prove the identity of the person and the address match. It is not as if it is impossible to set regulations to address all of these concerns about the provisions of the scheme, without having to include them in the legislation.

We all recognise that the islands face a special difficulty and that the only way we can sustain them is by ensuring access to the natural resources surrounding them in the ocean and the bounty that it gives. Farming is also difficult on the islands, a fact recognised by the special high rate of payment under the areas of natural constraints scheme, the beneficiaries of which, incidentally, the Department has no problem in identifying. We have to make sure island communities have a special opportunity to fish the sea. That is what the Bill attempts to do by providing for a small, special fishing quota, to be taken from the overall quota, solely for island fishers. The tonnage and species affected are part of what we need to work out, within certain parameters. Again, the exact details should be included in the provisions of a scheme, as they would vary when the national quota varied.

The legality of the Bill was also questioned and it was suggested Ireland could not provide special measures under the Common Fisheries Policy. However, other jurisdictions inside the European Union governed by the same Common Fisheries Policy have established special fishing arrangements similar to what we are seeking to do, with a quota for small-scale fishing communities. The Shetland Islands off the coast of Scotland have a special community fishing quota scheme to protect their fishing industry and there are other similar arrangements throughout the European Union. The Common Fisheries Policy states it should "contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects". This recognises the importance of small-scale, artisanal coastal and island fishers. Member states are encouraged under the Common Fisheries Policy to provide coastal communities with preferential access to resources.

The Bill provides for the issuing of licences to island fishermen who are defined as people who are "habitually resident on one of Ireland’s offshore islands and who [are] engaged in fishing to earn a livelihood". "Small-scale coastal fishing" is defined as "fishing carried out by fishing vessels of an overall length of less than 12 metres and not using towed fishing gear as listed in Table 3 of Annex I to Commission Regulation EC 26/2004". Licences will be non-transferable and in force when the holder of a licence is on board the vessel.

The enactment of the Bill will involve the allocation of a non-transferable community island quota within the Common Fisheries Policy network to the islands concerned. The aim of the Bill is to arrest the decline in island population where fishing has been a central part of the economy. As said before, there is scope within the Common Fisheries Policy for the recognition and support of islands to enable them to survive and prosper. There is also provision made in the Common Fisheries Policy for a ring-fenced non-transferable quota for the islands. The Bill takes advantage of these provisions. The clear objective is to allocate quotas and provide for the issuing of heritage licences to island fishers to facilitate the continuance of traditional fishing practices on Ireland's offshore islands

The only thing that is not clear is whether the Government will support the thrust of the Bill and work with us to establish solutions to issues that may arise in our deliberations. I look forward to the speedy progress of the Bill with the assistance of the committee. I thank the Chairman and staff of the committee for all of their assistance in the process so far.

Deputy Willie Penrose

I compliment Deputy Martin Kenny who has been very persistent in dealing with this matter. One can have a lot of sympathy for and empathy with the position he has adopted. I do not live near a coastal island community, but we read that such communities are disappearing, a matter about which I have spoken in the Dáil. There was a programme on RTÉ that was very useful showing their demise.

Of course, I recall clearly that the Minister did come into the Dáil and broadly accept the thrust of what Deputy Martin Kenny was trying to do, but his big focus was on the definitional aspects of the Bill. My definition of bureaucracy is always finding a way of making sure something that is very desirable is not done and this Bill was a perfect example. The Minister was concerned with the ownership of boats and making sure the people who were the object of the Bill would be its beneficiaries. Deputy Martin Kenny has referred to these issues and I was disappointed with the attitude adopted by the Minister.

There are lots of technical issues in the Common Fisheries Policy and it was an ideal opportunity to deal with this matter. The boats defined are those less than 12 m in length. There would also be a way to identify who was who. There may be people with similar names on an island, but we have almost reached the point where there is a single identifier for the people in question. The personal public service, PPS, number is specific to an individual. It is almost like a quasi-national identity card. I do not see a problem if what is proposed is permitted under the Common Fisheries Policy and I am reliant on Deputy Martin Kenny's contention that it is. I am not an expert in the fisheries area; if it was something else, I would have a degree of knowledge. Every member has his or her own expertise. If this is allowed under the Common Fisheries Policy, I cannot see why we cannot support it. It is not going to represent a huge proportion of the overall quota made available and will be non-transferable.

Deputy Martin Kenny might explain further, but, as I understand it, "non-transferable" means that someone cannot be a smart boy or girl by going onto an island and selling a licence for a few quid. In other words, someone will not be able to get a licence easily enough as part of the scheme and then take it to the auctioneer's or wherever things are sold. We would not want that to happen. We want licences to benefit the people on an island, not to be hauled around and sold. It may well be that there will be some generational transferability. If a father obtains it, one can assume that there will be a lineage to take it on. If there is not, it should be returned to the equivalent of a national reserve. There might be some other island community, on Tory Island or the Aran Islands for example, that would take it on. That is what I would like to see happen.

As long as the scheme is tightly ring-fenced, this is a wonderful idea. It is a nod to our culture and language because a lot of fishing takes place in Gaeltacht areas. A lot of Irish speakers are affected. In the midlands we are not as fluent in the language as we should be. There is a heritage and a cultural aspect involved, as well as protecting the incomes and livelihoods that are under threat and will be wiped out if we do not do something.

If we are not proactive and interventionist, such people will be gone and, like Tomás Ó Criomhthain and Peig Sayers, people from the islands will spend an age making films about what was there and we will regret it and start ag caoineadh, as we always do. We always wake up when the game is over. This is a pre-emptive opportunity and I and my party fully support it. Although we do not have very many members on the islands, those we have made more noise over this than other issues that I thought might be very relevant. However, this is clearly relevant to several of those people on the islands and we will, therefore, be supportive of the Bill. We expressed our support for it on Second Stage and will continue to do so.

Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

A scene in the documentary "The Atlantic" shows fisherman Jerry Early from Arranmore on his boat. He is limited in every way from fishing traditional stocks. Behind him in the shot is what he refers to as a small city, one of the supertrawlers that hoover up the fish in our Atlantic waters while the island fishermen struggle. It would be a profound moment for any Irish person to see how that man has almost been criminalised for fishing the waters as his forefathers did. I would like to think that any European who believes in regional development and all the things the EU says it stands for would also find it profound. That is why I am delighted by this legislation. It is sensible as there is a limit on the size of the boats and the quota is non-transferable. This legislation will only affect persons genuinely fishing on the islands. Many in coastal communities and elsewhere believe that Irish waters and the resources in them were sacrificed many years ago and we never got our fair share of the overall quota. Has there been any feedback from the fishing organisations on the Bill? The scale of what is being proposed is so small that it would have no great impact overall but it would have a profound impact on the islands. Anyone who watches the scene in that documentary depicting Jerry Early on his boat would find it so powerful as to be unable to argue with the legislation.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank Deputies Martin Kenny and Martin Ferris for their opening statement and commend them on their work in bringing forward the Bill. I also recognise the work done by Mr. Bonner on this issue. It is a vitally important and very timely Bill and is in line with the work of the committee. It implements a recommendation published by the committee in the previous Dáil, which is very welcome and timely. The Bill should be progressed through the committee as quickly as possible to get it back into the Dáil and get it passed. It is a long process to go from here to getting it enacted and it is vitally important that that happens. I am sure the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will try to resist it as much as possible along the way. It is interesting to hear what Senator Mac Lochlainn had to say about Irish waters but the viewpoint of the Department is that the only Irish waters are those inside the six mile limit and everything else are European waters. That is a travesty and says a lot about from where the Department and the Government are coming in terms of Irish fisheries. The Bill is vitally important and should be progressed. There is an onus on the committee to progress it as quickly as possible. I have no questions on the Bill as it makes perfect sense. Any potential problems can be teased out and worked on. It will probably be dealt with in the Department's submission but do Deputies Martin Kenny or Ferris or Mr. Bonner consider that the current discussion of changes for all inshore fishing and quotas and so on would or should have any impact on the Bill?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I commend the work of Deputies Martin Kenny and Ferris on the Bill and welcome Mr. Bonner, who is from my county, and commend him on his contribution to it. My party supports the Bill and thinks it a very sensible and proportionate proposal that would be of great benefit to island communities. Unfortunately, employment on our islands is far more limited than we would like it to be. In the past, islands thrived on the fishing sector but in many ways it has been torn from them. The Bill would help to restore the stability of the fishing sector and ensure that the long-established fishing tradition on many of our islands can continue and be strengthened again.

As regards the type of fishing gear that would be permissible, the Bill outlines that it is limited to vessels of 12 m and does not apply to towed fishing gear. I ask for clarification on the type of fishing gear which would be permitted under the Bill.

Deputy Martin Kenny

As regards the quota and its non-transferable nature as asked about by Deputy Penrose, the idea is that the owner of the fishing boat would have a quota and hold a licence which grants permission to fish the area. Although the quota would be non-transferable and the owner could not sell or give it to anyone else, if he or she stopped fishing or retired it would pass back into the island community quota and thus would remain a resource for the island community which could be given to another fisherman, possibly the original owner's son or daughter or someone else from the same island community or another island community where it might be needed.

Chairman

Who is responsible for reallocating the returned quotas?

Deputy Martin Kenny

The Department would have the authority to reallocate them to whoever is eligible for a licence. Although the legislation sets out the eligibility criteria, the specifics in that regard would not be dealt with in the legislation but, rather, in the scheme or statutory instrument that would follow. One of the criticisms of the Bill on Second Stage was that it did not specifically set out how to determine an islander or an offshore island. There are many ways of doing so and that would be worked out in the scheme.

As regards the small quota, I am not from a coastal community but when I talked to those who are I discovered that the boats in question are small boats which average 8 m in length, shorter than the tables in this room. It is usual for one person to go out fishing but it is far safer for two to do so. If one makes it a little more profitable, it is far more likely that there would be two on a boat, which would increase safety. I had several discussions to try to work out the level of quota needed. I was told that the fishermen in question come home with three to four boxes of fish per day. There is approximately 15 kg of fish in a box. Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus Bonner

It is approximately 15 kg.

Deputy Martin Kenny

There is 15 kg to 20 kg of fish in a box. That is the amount they catch in a day. If they fished for 100 days a year, they would catch a very small amount of fish. However, they fish with hook and line, which means that the quality of the fish is better and they get a better price for it because, much like in agriculture, the consumer wants the story around the food. Fish caught by a small island community on a small boat using a hook and line system will fetch a better price.

It is about putting in place a mechanism which ensures island fishermen can make a living. The point has been made to me that the large vessels throw over board more fish than the smaller boats would catch in a week. The quota being sought for the islands is approximately 1% of the overall national quota, which is minuscule. The national tonnage for mackerel is 85,000 tonnes. The island quota for mackerel would probably be 0.1% of the overall percentage. It is a tiny amount. That is all that these small boats would have the ability to catch given the method they use to catch fish.

The six mile limit on the baseline is another issue that was raised today and during the Second Stage debate. In this regard, we are talking about shallow waters close to the coast. As the species of fish in these waters are seasonal, operators can only fish there a couple of months a year. Most of the people living on the islands are engaged in lobster and crab fishing because they have no other option. This is about creating other options for them which will enhance their livelihoods considerably. The issue of cost and its impact on the Exchequer was raised, as we would only be diverting part of the national quota to this area, there would be little if no impact on the Exchequer. Taking all of the boats registered on all of the islands that are in this particular category a licence would be required in respect of only 60 boats. The administrative cost of doing this would be minuscule in the overall context of the budget of Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is possible to set up and manage this at very little cost to the Exchequer. I am not suggesting there would be no cost involved, only that such cost would be minuscule compared to the advantage it would give to the island fishermen, and to Ireland as a nation in terms of what we would be doing to assist a small sector of our community that needs assistance. There are umpteen advantages arising from this.

On the question of what type of gear would be used, generally speaking in the vast majority of cases it would be hook and line fishing. On the impact of any new changes coming down the line, we all accept that all of the coastal communities are under pressure and that many of the people who live on the coast and fish in a similar way are equally under pressure but if we can get this proposal over line for the islands and it works then we can look at something appropriate for the coastal communities. I have spoken to fishermen from other areas who are agitating for something similar and I understand that but we first need to get this over the line for the island communities and when we can show that it works and is sustainable we can do likewise for the other communities.

Mr. Seamus Bonner

As Deputy McConalogue has stepped out for a bit I will come back to his questions later. On consultation with other fishery groups, as an islands organisation we have been working on this issue, which predates the last reform in 2012 of the Common Fisheries Policy, for a number of years. We have done work at EU level to get the islands recognised in the Common Fisheries Policy and we have also worked up through the system, which culminated in the Oireachtas report of 2014. The heritage Bill is one of the 29 recommendations of that report. We have prioritised this legislation. We are a members-based organisation of fishermen on the ground.

On the quota element, the issue of non-transferable quota rings alarm bells with a lot of people because up to now a lot of the quota has been transferred away from communities to bigger boats but a non-transferable system would allow the quota to be retained in the community. Quota is often quoted as a public resource. It is not privately owned by anybody. This Bill would give access to that fishery resource to the small island boats, of which there are not that many. It would be the polyvalent general register, namely, boats under 12 m, non-towed gear. We are working with European partners and we have come up with a formula for this. We are affiliated to the Low Impact Fishers of Europe. This is about low impact fishing rather than trawls involving nets, pots and hooks and lines, which are a lot more selective than mobile gear, they are better for the environment and they give a better fish product for which operators will receive a better price.

Deputy Martin Kenny mentioned the quota for mackerel. We made a submission to the consultation on the mackerel quota, in which we requested 106 tonnes of mackerel for all of the islands as part of the move to get back a seasonal fishery but this request was declined. We asked for only 0.1% of the national quota but, as I said, the request was declined. The Bill would put quota allocation on a statutory footing such that nobody would be dependent on the discretion of whoever is at the table on the day. On the question of who makes the decision in regard to allocation of quota, there is a system in place in this regard, known as the CMO regulation, which is administered by producer organisations. They are responsible under the Common Fisheries Policy for swaps and looking after the quota of their members.

Deputy Martin Ferris

This Bill arises out of the all-party committee report of 2014, following lengthy deliberations with experts and people from the islands involved in the fishing sector, all of whom raised issues such as the decline in population on the islands, a lack of quota for island fishermen and discrimination of them in terms of the size of vessels and the withdrawal from the island and coastal communities from traditional fishing, namely salmon fishing. All of this has put huge pressure on a small sector, particularly those involved in cray, lobster and crab fishing and so on. During our deliberations on this issue we identified an opportunity to address the wrongs being perpetrated on coastal and islands communities. One of the recommendations of the committee's report is the introduction of a heritage licence to provide for a set quota for the islands so as to ensure people can continue to live where they were born and thus the survival of the islands. In this regard, a 0.1% quota is proposed, which is very small in the context of the huge quota currently available to a small number of boats, from which they derive huge incomes. This can be done if the political will is there. I understand that officials will have some reservations but we are prepared to debate this with them. We are open to the Bill being improved but we need a heritage licence for the island communities in order that they can survive.

This was all taken from the all-party committee report and we have gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure this will become a reality. I do not accept that it cannot be done. If obstacles are going to be put in the way, let us debate them and let those who have reservations outline their position. At the end of the day, I spoke with members of other political parties about this, including some who held office in this sector, and they asked us not to proceed because it would create difficulties in Europe. None of that has come to fruition.

We need a positive debate and a political commitment to implement the provisions of the heritage Bill in respect of our island communities. Once we get that over the line, it will be a huge statement for deprived coastal communities in general. They have been discriminated against because they did not have a track record in respect of quotas. That did not mean anything because most people involved in the fishing sector in the coastal communities did not have a track record but that did not mean they were not fishing herring or mackerel or were not involved in other sectors. At the end of the day, they have rights and entitlements as well. This issue relates to 60 boats and this could make a huge difference to the preservation of island communities. The knock-on effect is that people will visit the islands and the livelihoods of those who continue to live on the islands will become more viable. That will not only benefit the islands but the coastal communities as well.

Deputy Martin Kenny

The ban on salmon fishing had a major impact on island fisherman but I would like to be clear that this is not an attempt to bring back salmon fishing. Someone has attempted to say that is the case but it is not. The intention is this legislation will solely cover quota species. There is no quota for salmon.

Most of the fish caught by the small island boats will have a short life because they will quickly be transported to a restaurant either on the island or nearby on the coast. Food miles is a big issue nowadays. The food miles in this case are low. This is a means of allowing the local community to source fish for local restaurants and the community. It is about creating a circular economy both on the islands and in coastal communities close to them. It has more positives than negatives. We looked forward to dealing with this in a spirit of co-operation. If we can all agree that this is something we want to do, we can work to overcome the difficulties that always arise rather than allowing them to prevent this from happening.

Chairman

That concludes the questions. I thank Deputies Kenny and Ferris and Mr. Bonner for making their presentations. We will suspend for a minute to allow the officials to take their seats and present the other side of the argument.

Sitting suspended at 4.34 p.m. and resumed at 4.35 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary, Ms Josephine Kelly, principal officer, and Mr. Paschal Hayes, principal officer, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and I thank them for appearing to discuss this Bill. We heard from the Bill's sponsors earlier.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the Bill. I am accompanied by colleagues who deal with different aspects of this area and work with me - Ms Josephine Kelly and Mr. Paschal Hayes. The committee invited departmental officials to hear its views on policy, technical and legal aspects of the Bill. It is important, therefore, that I clarify from the outset that, while the Department can articulate the current policies and procedures in place, it is not the role of officials to give personal views on policy issues. With regard to the Chairman's earlier comment, we are not here to give the other side or any side. We will outline the policies and procedures. Ultimately, this is a matter for the Oireachtas.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Beamish for the clarification.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

In addition, we are not lawyers. While we can advise on the current regulatory situation and how it is applied, we cannot interpret legislation or give legal advice. Overall policy is set out by the EU and there is limited scope under the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, for national policy. It is technical and highly regulated and it would be helpful to try to explain that.

With those caveats in mind, I would like to take the committee through the current procedures and regulations that may inform discussions on the Bill and I will be glad to take questions from members afterwards. Sea-fishing boat licensing is one of the central elements of the legislation. I will outline the licensing system currently in place for sea-fishing boats which is relevant to the measures proposed in it. The rights to engage in commercial sea-fishing are managed through the current licensing system which regulates the Irish sea-fishing fleet in line with EU and national law. The EU CFP regulations, particularly Council Regulation 1224/2009 and EU Regulation 1380/2013, require commercial sea-fishing boats to be licensed. The management of EU fishing fleets using vessel capacity in terms of gross tonnage and engine power, measured in kilowatts, is a cornerstone of the policy and has been for many years. Licensing of sea-fishing under the CFP is centred on the licensing of a sea-fishing vessel and not the licensing of fishermen or individuals. That is a long-standing structure under the policy.

The current fishing boat register was introduced in 1990 and, at that time, the capacity of all fishing vessels was recorded as part of the registration process. EU fleet management rules introduced a cap on the size of member state fleets, including Ireland's, by setting a ceiling on the total capacity of the fleet in gross tonnes and kilowatt units. Over time, because of the recording of capacity in the new register and the establishment of a national cap, capacity itself became a private commodity. It is important to note that this situation arose for anyone, islanders or otherwise, engaged in commercial sea-fishing. Fishing boats from Donegal to Dingle or Castletownbere to Clogherhead were registered at that time on the basis of their gross tonnes and kilowatts. That capacity came to be a valuable asset for the families who owned the vessels and to this day is a key factor in licensing commercial sea-fishing vessels.

The Department understands that the current retail price for capacity for polyvalent vessels under 18 m is approximately €2,000 per gross tonne and €1,000 per kilowatt engine power. To give a practical example of this, the average vessel in the under 12 m fleet of the polyvalent general segment, which was discussed as the target segment of the fleet for the Bill, is approximately 7.5 m in length. Although there is a wide variation, this would be approximately 3.7 gross tonnes and 29 kilowatts in capacity terms. At current prices the combined capacity of such a vessel would be worth €36,400. That is to convey the concept that the capacity is a private commodity that is tradeable. In the Department’s experience, proposals which could impact on the value of capacity experience considerable opposition. This is understandable when one considers that in many cases investments are made or loans are taken out to secure both capacity and a seaworthy fishing boat in order to support a family at home on land or as part of larger seafood businesses that support a number of jobs in a local community.

Since the enactment of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003 sea-fishing boat licensing has been carried out by the licensing authority for sea-fishing boats rather than the Minister, as had formerly been the case, and all applications for sea-fishing boat licences are now considered by the licensing authority. The primary legislation governing sea-fishing boat licensing is set out in section 4 of the 2003 Act, as inserted by section 97 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. Before a sea-fishing boat may engage in commercial sea fishing activities, the vessel must be entered on the fishing boat register and hold a current sea-fishing boat licence. The legislation governing sea-fishing boat registration is set out in sections 74 to 80 and section 100 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 and in the Merchant Shipping Regulation 2005, SI 264 of 2005. Section 75(2) charges the registrar general with the proper management of the capacity of the Irish fleet and states that a sea-fishing boat shall not be entered in the fishing boat register unless at the time of entry the vessel holds a valid sea-fishing boat licence or will hold a valid sea-fishing boat licence on entry. A vessel must be registered before it can fish. It should be noted that the Minister is precluded under section 3(5) of the 2003 Act from exercising any power or control in respect of individual cases, or a group of cases, with which the licensing authority is or may be concerned.

I refer to Part 3, section 6, of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003 which established an independent appeals system through an appointed appeals officer to act independently in the exercise of his or her functions. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the licensing authority on an application for a licence or by the revocation or amendment of a licence may, before the expiration of a period of one month beginning on the date of that decision, revocation or amendment, appeal in writing to the appeals officer against the decision. Section 19 of the Act states that "[...] a person shall not question a decision of the Appeals Officer on an appeal otherwise than by way of an application for a judicial review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts". The licensing authority itself has no role in devising policy. The Department assists in devising policy in this area and policy is subject to approval by the Minister.

Capacity is the key element in the licensing of commercial sea-fishing boats. There is a national cap on the capacity of the Irish fishing fleet. EU Regulation 1380/2013 sets down Ireland’s fishing capacity ceiling from 1 January 2014 at 77,586 gross tonnes and 210,083 kilowatts. That capacity, in the form of gross tonnage and engine power, is a privately-owned and tradeable asset in the Irish system that, with certain exceptions, may be sold, traded or realised as a financial asset on the tonnage market. EU rules require that there be a stable and enduring balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities for member states. This is the reason that maximum capacity, that is, gross tonnage and kilowatts, limits were introduced for member states’ fishing fleets. Importantly, Article 23 of EU Regulation 1380/2013 states that member states "shall manage entries into their fleets [vessels coming into the fleet] and exits from their fleets in such a way that the entry into the fleet of new capacity without public aid is compensated for by the prior withdrawal of capacity without public aid of at least the same amount". Reflecting that, national policy requires that replacement capacity be provided at a ratio of 1:1, which reflects the EU requirement. That has been the position in the fishing industry in Ireland for decades. Any new vessel getting a licence must take out the equivalent capacity.

With regard to inshore fisheries, as the islands are located in inshore waters the committee will wish to be aware of the processes in place for managing and developing the inshore sector. While there are no consistent international definitions of inshore fisheries, in Ireland the inshore sector is considered to comprise fishing boats of less than 12 m overall length that are predominately active within six nautical miles of the baselines of the State's territorial sea. Ireland’s inshore sector is not just "small scale coastal fisheries" as defined by the EU as there are many vessels in the inshore sector which use towed gear as well as those using static gear like pots and set nets. These inshore boats make up approximately 80% of the Irish fishing fleet, while the sector supports an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 jobs. To give the committee a picture of what this means around the coast, I will outline the number of inshore boats operating in each region. These are vessels under 12 m which is the category dealt with in the Bill. Deputy Ferris mentioned that the Bill focuses on approximately 60 vessels. However, there is a total of 1,623 vessels under 12 m: 300 in Donegal; 212 in Sligo-Mayo; 322 in Galway-Clare; 478 in the south west or Kerry and Cork; 190 in the south east or Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow; and 121 in the north east or Meath, Louth and Dublin.

In practice, the Department is also aware that other vessels, particularly of up to 15 m in overall length, also currently fish regularly in inshore waters and are significantly dependent on those waters. A large part of the inshore fishing fleet has access to quota stocks, such as mackerel, herring and whitefish. The Department is not clear what stocks are intended to be the subject of the Private Members' Bill but if there are particular stocks for which access is an issue, these could be explored at the quota management advisory committee. This is the method through which advice is given monthly on the allocation of national quotas to different categories of vessels. The rest of the inshore fleet's key target stocks are non-quota species. By definition, therefore, there is no quota allocation or quota limitation issue there. Those include shellfish caught by pots, such as lobster and crab, or shellfish caught by dredges, such as cockle and clam. The inshore boats also target other non-quota species such as turbot, bait fish and some crawfish.

The Department’s role in the inshore sector and in sea-fisheries generally is in developing and implementing policies which are consistent with Government and EU policy as well as national and EU legislation. The Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 is the principal national legislation for managing inshore fisheries. Article 19 of the CFP regulation allows member states to adopt conservation measures which apply to fishing vessels flying their flag or, in the case of fishing activities which are not conducted by a fishing vessel, persons established in their territory. Article 20 of the regulation allows member states to take non-discriminatory measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks and the maintenance or improvement of the conservation status of marine ecosystems within 12 nautical miles of its baselines. Both articles are derogations to member states and are restricted by certain provisions. The general position is that most inshore stocks are under significant pressure and most commentary on the inshore sector is seeking to manage fishing effort and to take other conservation measures. The Marine Institute and BIM publish regular shellfish stock reviews which present stock assessment and scientific advice on relevant stocks.

The Government has committed to the development of the inshore sector in the current programme for partnership Government. As a result, the Department is involved in a number of actions to support the sector. Inshore fisheries forum structures were established for the first time in the State by the Minister in 2014. These provided inshore fishermen with structured access to all consultative mechanisms for the management of fisheries for the first time in the history of the State.

This is perceived as a major step forward for inshore fisheries in Ireland.

The forums involve marine stakeholders and inshore fishing communities in the development of policy for the inshore sector. The structures include the National Inshore Fisheries Forum, NIFF, and its supporting network of six regional inshore fisheries forums covering the entire coast. Island fishermen have representatives on four of the six regional inshore fisheries forums and on the National Inshore Fisheries Forum. These structures allow inshore stakeholders to develop and propose policies for the sector directly to the Minister. The forums are advisory in nature, with decision-making on fisheries management continuing to be the Minister’s responsibility.

To date, the 13 National Inshore Fisheries Forum meetings have led to very constructive two-way conversations with the Minister on issues of mutual concern, industry priorities, emerging policies and initiatives. NIFF members are now included on a number of fisheries consultative structures including the quota management advisory committee which decides on the distribution, allocation and management of quota and advises the Minister on those decisions, the Celtic Sea herring management advisory committee, the industry-science fisheries partnership where the industry stakeholders engage with the Marine Institute on the science relating to this, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority’s consultative committee which discusses the roles and interests of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the industry, the monitoring committee for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund operational programme and the BIM-Bord Bia market advisory group. Since 2014 increasingly inshore fishermen have had a seat at all those tables, have an input into all of those bodies and meet the Minister directly. NIFF members recently represented the inshore sector at the meeting between the fishing industry and the Taoiseach on Brexit.

All these developments have given the forums and therefore the inshore sector a role in making recommendations on a range of issues relating to fisheries policy. For example, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund operational programme includes a dedicated inshore fisheries conservation scheme worth €6 million. That is there for the first time. The Marine Institute has also taken on board recommendations from the sector in its work programme under the marine biodiversity scheme and under the data collection scheme. The national inshore fisheries forum is developing the first ever dedicated strategy for the inshore sector. This is the first time an industry-led group has taken on this task.

Much of the work of the national inshore fisheries forum has been on tackling concerns about over-exploitation of certain stocks and protecting long-term sustainability. This work is particularly important for the sector when one considers that there are currently no quotas for most inshore species and very limited gear restrictions.

Lobster in particular is the mainstay species for many inshore vessels. As a consequence it is in need of monitoring to ensure that it is exploited at sustainable levels. The industry has been participating in the v-notching conservation programme for a number of years and changes were made to the programme in 2014 in discussion with the national inshore fisheries forum to the rate of funding support on offer to inshore fishermen to improve participation in the programme. This had the effect of increasing the number of lobsters being v-notched and put back for conservation reasons and the numbers of vessels participating in the v-notching schemes.

To give an idea of the impact of this, between 2010 and 2013 the average annual expenditure on the v-notching programme was €67,000. In 2014 this jumped to €125,000. By last year, this figure had increased to €370,000. The money is provided to fishermen and their co-operatives and associations as an incentive to put lobsters of certain sizes back to sea to support the reproduction potential of the stock.

Over 200,000 lobsters were v-notched and released during the period 2002 to 2016. Work is ongoing between the Department, the State agencies and the forums on reviewing the technical conservation measures applying to lobster to determine the best approach to maintain a long-term sustainable stock for the Irish inshore fishing industry.

The introduction of a minimum landing size for velvet crab is an example of a proposal from a regional forum taking the lead in developing a conservation measure. This was an industry-led proposal that was brought through the forum structures, initiating in the west region and published initially for public consultation and ultimately adopted by the Minister as a national conservation measure.

Other examples of the work of the forums include other conservation measures which have recently undergone public consultation, namely, to increase the minimum landing sizes for brown crab initiated by the south-east region and razor clam initiated by the north-east region.

There has been some discussion of quota management in the context of the Bill. It may be important to explain how that works. It is long-standing Government policy that Ireland’s fish quotas are a national asset. Ireland’s fish quota management system is designed to ensure the best possible spread both between fishing vessel operators and in terms of uptake of quota throughout the year having regard to fishing patterns and market conditions. There was an earlier reference to the UK system where there was allocation to Shetland. An observation from our viewpoint is that the UK system is very different and has largely privatised quotas, very much to the detriment of small fishermen in the UK.

Quotas for species which can be obtained using small-scale coastal fishing gear already have set-aside allocations for the inshore fishing sector. I have already mentioned that key inshore stocks are not limited by quota arrangements, for instance lobster and crab species which are the mainstay for many small boats. Whitefish quotas are generally managed on a monthly basis. The Minister sets catch limits for each quota stock following monthly consultation with the quota management advisory committee involving fishing industry representatives, including the national inshore fisheries forum representative. The monthly catch limits applicable to whitefish stocks are dependent on the overall length of the vessel. The catch limit of a vessel which is over 55 ft in length overall, is double that of a vessel which is under 55 ft. Quota management is linked to type of vessel. The size of vessel is related to the fishing licence.

There are also a number of opportunities for smaller vessels to target pelagic stocks. For example, a boat of less than 18 m overall length without a mackerel authorisation - in other words without a mackerel track record - may avail of the catch limits for mackerel set down in the monthly fisheries management notice for mackerel. The monthly catch limit is recommended by the quota management advisory committee and is usually set at 5 tonnes. A boat of less than 15 m overall length fishing for mackerel by means of hooks and lines may without a mackerel authorisation, land up to 500 kg of mackerel on any occasion. Such boat may not carry nets with a mesh of less than 80 mm when availing of this derogation.

Another example is herring stocks in the Celtic Sea. Some 11% of the national quota for Celtic Sea herring is set aside for an open fishery. The fishery is open to boats of less than 17 m in length overall, with fishing confined to an area known as the Dunmore Box, but not to specific vessels; it is vessels fishing in that area. This fishery operates from November to the end of the year. Interested boats are required to book into the fishery in order to receive an authorisation and thereafter on weekly basis to receive a quota catch limit.

In the case of horse mackerel, the Minister has agreed that 100 tonnes be set aside for a fishery by boats of less than 12 m to operate from 1 June 2018 to 30 September 2018. Boat owners who were interested were asked to book in with the Department by 15 December 2017.

On a wider scale, looking at the situation for the entire sector, on Sunday the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine launched a public consultation on trawling within the six-nautical-mile coastal zone. This consultation is taking place after a number of concerns were raised by stakeholders regarding the level of trawling inside the aforementioned zone. The topic has been the subject of scientific and economic reports by the Marine Institute and BIM and preliminary engagement with fisheries representatives.

Part of the objective of looking at this issue is that the Government has committed to the development of the inshore sector in the current programme for a partnership Government. The programme identifies a number of methods for supporting the sector, such as ensuring smaller inshore boats are given new opportunities for commercial fishing.

The consultation process provides an opportunity to examine the case for giving priority access to inshore vessels within the six-nautical-mile zone and in addition better support the ecosystem in inshore waters.

A formal paper prepared by the Department with the advice of the Marine Institute and BIM has been published and is available on the website to aid the consultation process. The consultation paper sets out possible measures and their potential impacts but I would emphasise that it is a consultation exercise. Obviously at this point we cannot pre-empt what may arise or any decisions that may be taken down the line. The Department does, however, expect that the consultation will attract diverse and wide-ranging views from many stakeholders. The consultation paper is available on the Department's website and the consultation will run until Monday, 11 June.

I hope this statement has been of assistance to the committee and I will be glad to respond to any questions.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Beamish and ask members for their questions.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank Dr. Beamish and his staff. I read the statement with interest. There is very little in it to suggest that what we are proposing cannot or should not be done. In the first part of it, Dr. Beamish outlines the various trade areas that are set for fishermen to fish, the size and capacity of the boats and the costs involved, which we know are quite high in some cases. None of that is about the provision of quota. The quota is a national asset and the Government has a policy as to how to divide it. We are proposing that this should remain the case and that we should insert into the policy a provision for people who are resident on the islands and fish off them for small-scale fishing.

In placing an emphasis on the cost of capacity and all the licensing requirements, is the Department suggesting that the provision of a heritage licence giving access to a small piece of quota for such fishermen would create an extra burden on the fisherman in the form of another piece of bureaucracy to go through? Is that the concern? I think they would happily accept and go through that bit of bureaucracy in order to be able to fish.

Dr. Beamish was also at pains to point out the number of vessels under 12 m that are fishing inshore in the region. We are aware that there are quite a number of vessels. We have suggested that there are approximately 60 pelagic vessels that we think are based on the islands for which this licence would be appropriate. As I said in my statement, it would be a tiny number compared with the overall fleet, even in the category of vessels under 12 m.

The issue here is whether we agree that there is a special case to be made for island fishermen. They are in a particular difficulty. I understand the Minister is looking at trawling within the six-mile limit this week, I assume from the perspective of the damage it is doing. It is a matter of recognising there is a special case for the island fishermen and that therefore it is appropriate to make special provision for them. What we have to do is come to that agreement and then we can work out a solution.

I certainly feel everyone agrees that is appropriate. Certainly all the political people agree that it is. In his speech in the Dáil and when I spoke to him afterwards, the Minister was saying he understands the issue and understands that the Bill comes from the committee proposal. We understand that the island fishermen are in a particularly precarious position and that something needs to be done. This is our best effort to do something that will actually benefit them.

I am grateful for what Dr. Beamish has put before us. It does not in any way contradict what we are suggesting. The only thing that can possibly be put in the way of this is a suggestion that there would be an additional cost borne by the State because of it. Perhaps we can examine that suggestion a little further.

The other issue about the quota is something we will have to deal with in the future as to what species are appropriate and how it can be done in a sensible way. For some of the islands in the south west there may be certain small amounts of quota that might be appropriate, while the same quota might not be appropriate for islands off the coast of Donegal. It is about working this out intelligently and coming to a solution.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Could I respond to that, Chairman?

Chairman

Yes.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

It is not for us to be for or against the proposals in the Bill. We are trying to explain how it works. The Bill talks about granting a licence to a person, an islander. The licensing of commercial sea fishing is highly prescribed under EU law. It is very important to try to grasp this - I understand that it is very technical. It has long been highly prescribed under EU law and is a central tenet of the Common Fisheries Policy.

A fishing licence for a commercial sea fishing boat can only be given to a person in respect of a specific vessel. Under EU and national law, the person introducing that vessel is generally required to take out 100% of the equivalent capacity, so if the boat is 20 tonnes, 20 tonnes must be taken off the register somewhere else to get the licence. Separately, nobody can get an authorisation for fishing unless he or she has got the licence. Under the relevant EU regulation, No. 1224/2009, Article 4 defines what a licence is and very clearly links it to a boat. It is defined as:

an official document conferring on its holder the right, as determined by national rules, to use a certain fishing capacity for the commercial exploitation of living aquatic resources. It contains minimum requirements concerning the identification, technical characteristics and fitting out of a Community fishing vessel.

It is a licence for a vessel, not for a person. A Union fishing vessel may only be used for commercial fishing if it has a valid fishing licence. The regulation goes on to say that a fishing authorisation shall not be issued if the vessel concerned does not have a fishing licence obtained in accordance with article 6 or if the fishing licence has been suspended or withdrawn. It is all about the vessel, not the person.

The general rule is that what is coming on to the fleet must be taken off somewhere else. The EU regulation does not allow for a scheme of sea fishing licensing for individuals which is separated from the licensing of the commercial fishing vessel. Anybody who would get a licence would have to have licensed the vessel already so he or she would already be a commercial sea fisherman. As such a person already would have a fishing boat licence and capacity, therefore it is not so clear what the purpose of an additional licence would be other than if it had some other-----

Deputy Martin Kenny

Access to quota. The only need for the heritage licence is to allow access to quota. That is the purpose of it.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The person has to have a general fishing licence first, they have to have the capacity and so on. Then the position on quota is that the vessels we are talking about in the Bill are under 12 m fishing with static gear. That is essentially potting or perhaps gill netting or hooks and lines, as the Deputy said earlier. He mentioned mackerel, I think. Under the current quota management arrangements, there are 400 tonnes allocated to vessels under 15 m using hooks and lines. That is what is currently allocated. It is not a fixed sum and can be changed through a quota management advisory committee. Looking back at the records, the total catches of mackerel using hooks and lines by vessels under 15 m in 2014 was 281 tonnes, in 2015 it was 220 tonnes and in 2016 it was 269 tonnes. As the vessels have never hit that limit, they are not restricted in fishing mackerel at the moment. I can go into some of the other quota species if it is of concern to the committee.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I would like one point clarified. Is Dr. Beamish saying that the person has to have a boat, a licence and capacity?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Yes.

Deputy Martin Kenny

We agree on that. What is missing for many of these fishermen is quota. We want to give them access to a small quota. That is the nub of this discussion.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Let us explore the supposition that they do not have quota. No individual has quota by right. It is an allocated public resource. In the UK, it has been semi-privatised. All vessels under 15 m - and not just those in Ireland - have a 500 kg limit for mackerel. That is the trip limit. This year, there are approximately 213 tonnes available to vessels under 18 m which do not have a track record in what is called an open fishery for mackerel. There is an open fishery in respect of Celtic Sea herring for vessels under 20 m, with 437 tonnes set aside. The usual vessel limit is approximately 5 tonnes per month. In the Celtic Sea sentinel fishery for small boats under 17 m, there are 962 tonnes set aside.

Chairman

Is Dr. Beamish suggesting that, in effect, there is a quota already?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The allocation is not restrictive for most of the types of vessel we are talking about. Most vessels under 12 m with static gear - these are mentioned in the Bill - are going to be fishing lobster and crab potting. There are hundreds of potting vessels around the coast.

Deputy Martin Kenny

That is good news for the Bill because it means there is already quota there.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

We are not sure which species the rules are unduly restrictive about in the context of the vessels mentioned by the Deputy. As he said, salmon is very important for the islands and that had a big impact but that is a separate decision. We cannot deal with that here, it is dealt with by a different Department. Of the quota species that might be target species and that are available to Ireland under the CFP, it is not so clear what quota would need to be covered by primary legislation. No other group of persons has any guaranteed quota under the Irish system. It is always linked to a vessel. That is ministerial policy.

There was a major review of the mackerel allocation. Mr. Bonner mentioned this earlier. There was a request for particular provision for the islands. From that latest review came a decision to set aside 400 tonnes for vessels under 15 m on hooks and lines. That is not being restrictive for those vessels. The underlying requirement is not so clear. We can go through other species and stocks and so forth but the issue is not so clear. It is quite a departure. It is important to know that for the licence there is already a licensing system to islanders and anybody else but it requires having a boat fully licensed, having capacity and so forth.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

That last interaction dealt with some of my questions. Dr. Beamish's document is very interesting and useful because it outlines the current situation for all quota stocks. Earlier he said, "In the Department's experience, any proposals which could impact on the value of capacity experience considerable opposition." I imagine that refers to reducing rather than increasing the value. Could Dr. Beamish verify whether that is the case?

I understand what Dr. Beamish says about fish stocks. As far as he is concerned, there is nothing there that would stop island fishermen accessing adequate quota. If a fisherman lives on an island, owns a boat, has tonnage and kilowatts and he can get whatever is available under the CFP, why is there a problem or why does Dr. Beamish think there is one? Why did the EU find it necessary to recognise island communities within the CFP? What is the EU's role in this regard, particularly in view of the fact that it recognises island fishermen in the policy but Dr. Beamish says that is not necessary? Perhaps the EU did not figure it was necessary. Could Dr. Beamish expand on that?

Dr. Beamish outlined, a consultation process was launched on Sunday last. This shows that there is a need for consultation so why would there be a problem with island fishermen also being involved in a consultation and being recognised for their stock management?

Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Am I correct in saying that, in Dr. Beamish's opinion, the existing legislation and directives provide for the types of vessels involved and the potential fishery around them? Where is the demand coming from? If it is Dr. Beamish's assessment that everything is hunky-dory, why are we here today? Why is there a demand coming from the islanders? It is clear that there is a need for additional fishery. We can do a bit of back and forth but it would be useful that the Department carry out an exploration exercise with delegates from the islanders and relevant fishers to probe where the gaps are, from their perspective. If, in his view they are provided for, Dr. Beamish could thrash that out with them in a face-to-face meeting as part of the work that goes with this legislation. I appreciate that Dr. Beamish cannot comment on policy but I assume the objective of this legislation is to keep our islands populated and for people to continue to make a living on the islands, which are laudable objectives. Dr. Beamish talks about a joined-up approach to European policy. It would surely be European policy to have innovation in our legislation that keeps people on our islands and not have directives that lead to their depopulation.

I appreciate that the Department has to operate within European directives and a framework and that it has to serve the Government at Irish and European level.

I am sure the witnesses assume the objectives of the legislation are laudable and, to use a phrase I have heard a number of times recently, it is not beyond the wit of man to find a solution and to close down the misunderstandings. It occurs to me there are fisheries that are not accessible to islanders at this stage to the extent that they can make a living. There have to be or we would not be where we are today. That is the feedback my colleagues have received in the considerable consultation in which they have been involved. Would the Department be willing to thrash it out face to face as part of the consultation that happens in the context of legislation such as this? I would like to hear Dr. Beamish's sense of that.

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate - Tuesday, 1 May 2018

Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill 2017: Discussion

Mr. Seamus Bonner

Mr. Seamus Bonner

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Tuesday, 1 May 2018