Tá fíorfháilte roimh na finnéithe chuig an gcruinniú seo, idir iad siúd atá i láthair anseo agus siúd atá ag faire orainn ar líne. I welcome all the witnesses.

Before we move to the substantive topic of today’s meeting, I want to bring to the attention of everyone present the note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at my direction as Chair. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from proceedings.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this requirement. If a member attempts to participate remotely from outside the precincts, for example, he or she will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The agenda for today's meeting is the continuation of our discussion on water quality and aquaculture. This is our second meeting on the subject. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Marine Institute and a number of environmental NGOs appeared before the committee to discuss it last week. We are joined today by representatives from the IFA Aquaculture committee, including Mr. Finian O'Sullivan, cathaoirleach, Ms Catherine McManus, leas-chathaoirleach, and Ms Teresa Morrissey, aquaculture policy executive. We are also joined by Ms Clíona Mhic Giolla Chuda and Mr. Micheál de Burca from Bia Mara (Déise) Teoranta, Waterford Oysters. Ms Ita Beresford of Dungarvan Shellfish Limited is also joining us.

Mar gheall ar an tábhacht a bhaineann leis an ábhar seo i nGaeltacht na nDéise agus i bhfianaise gur Parlaimint dhátheangach sinn, beidh ateangaireacht ar fáil trí mheán na Gaelainne agus i mBéarla. As this is a bilingual Parliament and because of the importance of this issue to people in Gaeltacht na nDéise, simultaneous interpretation will be available via the headsets for those who wish to avail of it.

The opening statements have been forwarded to members. I will allow each group of witnesses five minutes for their opening statements. We will then proceed to questions and answers. That will take the form of seven-minute slots for members in which they will have time to put their questions and get answers back. We will have a second round of questions and answers if there are any outstanding questions that members wish to pose. I invite Mr. O'Sullivan to deliver his opening statement.

I thank the Chair and the committee for inviting IFA to address them today regarding aquaculture and water quality. I am joined by the IFA Aquaculture committee's vice-chair, Ms Catherine McManus, and senior policy executive, Ms Teresa Morrissey. I wish to focus on the following areas, namely aquaculture and water quality, shellfish classification systems, pressures affecting water quality and the need for stronger engagement and policy co-ordination.

IFA Aquaculture believes it is important that public discussion around aquaculture and water quality is grounded in evidence. There is often an assumption that aquaculture is primarily a pressure on marine water quality. However, that narrative is incomplete and, in many respects, misleading when applied to the Irish context. By its nature, shellfish farming provides environmental benefits. Shellfish are filter feeders that remove nutrients from the water column, improve water clarity, enhance bacterial denitrification and contribute to nutrient sequestration. In this sense, shellfish production can support improved water and habitat quality and assist in mitigating eutrophication pressures in coastal waters.

In relation to finfish farming, it is acknowledged that nutrient inputs require careful management. However, current water framework directive classifications show Irish coastal waters to be primarily of high or good status for water quality parameters, including areas where marine aquaculture activities operate. Irish salmon farming is predominantly organic and is located in exposed, well-flushed offshore environments where nutrient enrichment risks are significantly reduced. Furthermore, the sector operates under extensive monitoring and regulatory requirements. Aquaculture operators comply not only with the water framework directive but also with the habitats and birds directives, environmental impact assessment requirements, benthic monitoring, water quality monitoring, residues controls and sea lice management protocols. Few sectors operating in the marine space are subject to the same level of environmental assessment and oversight. This is further supported by the shellfish classification system.

The Irish shellfish classification system is a critical food safety framework that determines the conditions under which shellfish can be harvested and marketed on the basis of ongoing monitoring of microbiological water quality. Classification status has significant implications for shellfish aquaculture producers, influencing market access, production costs, harvest planning, and business viability. The system is administered by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, under food hygiene legislation derived from European Union regulations, with the support of the Marine Institute, MI, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, and the Irish shellfish industry.

The molluscan shellfish safety committee, MSSC, is a scientific and technical advisory group that supports the Irish shellfish classification process. The committee brings together expertise from Government agencies, marine science, food safety and the shellfish sector to review monitoring data and supports evidence-based recommendations.

Maintaining a robust, transparent and scientifically grounded classification system is essential for protecting public health while supporting the sustainable development of Ireland's shellfish aquaculture sector. The importance of maintaining a high level of water quality in shellfish-producing areas also has particular relevance due to the link between water quality and organic status for bivalve molluscs under EU organic regulations. Overall, the Irish shellfish classification system is both a food safety safeguard and a key commercial factor for the shellfish aquaculture sector, with the MSSC contributing scientific oversight that supports effective and credible classification decisions.

While aquaculture is often discussed as a source of pressure, IFA Aquaculture believes equal attention must be paid to the pressures affecting aquaculture itself, particularly in relation to shellfish waters. Ireland has 64 designated shellfish waters requiring protection to support shellfish life and growth. In recent years, water quality deterioration linked to wastewater discharges and inadequate treatment infrastructure has had serious implications for shellfish-producing bays. Elevated bacterial and pathogen levels, including norovirus risks, together with nutrient loading from wastewater systems and storm-water overflows, are increasingly affecting shellfish classification and market access. This is not simply an environmental concern; it is also an economic and public health issue. Where wastewater systems are under pressure, particularly following periods of heavy rainfall and flooding, untreated or partially treated discharges can compromise shellfish waters, disrupt production and threaten livelihoods. Climate change is likely to intensify these challenges through more frequent extreme rainfall and pressure on ageing wastewater infrastructure. There are physical, chemical and microbiological requirements that designated shellfish waters must either comply with or try to improve, as well as the establishment of pollution reduction programmes, where required. In recent years, mismanagement of discharge into designated shellfish areas has compromised the water quality in shellfish producing bays across the country.

Finfish aquaculture producers, particularly those involved in freshwater aquaculture, are also experiencing increased water quality pressures where incoming water quality to freshwater aquaculture production systems is critical. Freshwater aquaculture producers are investing heavily in monitoring and control technologies that assess incoming water quality and are also proactively monitoring and mitigating other influences and water quality pressures on rivers. For these reasons, IFA Aquaculture believes that continued roll-out and prioritisation of tertiary wastewater treatment, particularly adjacent to shellfish-producing bays and freshwater aquaculture sites, must remain a central objective of water policy and river basin management planning. Protection of shellfish waters and freshwater aquaculture water sources must be placed on a stronger legislative and management footing.

The final point I wish to make concerns engagement. IFA Aquaculture welcomes greater recognition of aquaculture within water policy discussions. However, there remains insufficient structured engagement between the aquaculture sector and agencies responsible for water quality management. The sector depends on clean water more than most yet there is no consistent mechanism through which aquaculture producers participate directly in water governance discussions. The industry should be included more directly in water governance and stakeholder forums, including discussions relating to implementation of the water framework directive and marine water management. We believe there is merit in considering a dedicated forum involving industry, State agencies and relevant Departments to strengthen co-ordination between aquaculture licensing, marine spatial planning and water quality objectives. Those whose livelihoods depend on healthy marine and fresh waters should not be absent from decisions concerning their management. Effective policy depends on collaboration and informed dialogue.

Irish aquaculture provides sustainable food production, supports resilient coastal communities and contributes positively to climate and environmental objectives. However, the sector also depends fundamentally on clean, protected and properly managed waters.

IFA Aquaculture is committed to working constructively with the Government, regulators and stakeholders to ensure that water policy and aquaculture policy develop in a balanced and evidence-based manner. With appropriate investment, stronger engagement and coherent policy implementation, Ireland can both protect water quality and realise the full sustainable potential of the aquaculture sector.

We welcome the committee's engagement on this issue and look forward to the committee members' questions.

Don tarna ráiteas oscailte, a Chlíona, mura mhiste.

Sa chéad áit, gabhaim buíochas leis an Chathaoirleach agus baill an choiste as ucht an cuireadh do Bia Mara (Déise) Teoranta, nó "Waterford Oysters", teacht i láthair an choiste inniu chun fianaise a thabhairt faoi chursaí caighdeán uisce i gCuan Dhún Garbháin. Liom inniu tá mo pháirtnéir sa ghnó, Micheál de Burca, agus inár dteannta leis tá Ita Beresford thar cheann comhlucht oisrí eile atá ag feidhmiú sa chuan, sé sin Dungarvan Shellfish Limited.

The oyster industry in Dungarvan has been operating since the late 1980s when, following various initiatives, primarily by Údarás na Gaeltachta, several aquaculture licences were granted to local people to grow oysters in Dungarvan Bay. The industry has operated successfully since then, with much oyster farming expertise being developed locally.

Markets were developed across much of Europe, with France being the principal one of these, and a lot of work has been put into developing markets in Asia for purified and packed product in the past ten to 15 years. Our oysters are internationally recognised as being of the highest quality, commanding top prices in these markets.

Over the past few years, we have had problems with entirely unexplained mortalities in oysters. In 2024, and again in 2025, we had huge losses of oysters in the bay. Last year, the level of losses was in the region of 70% across all classes of full grown and half-grown oysters. Given that oysters take three years in the water to reach maturity and involve a high level of manual labour input, losses on this scale are obviously life-threatening for the industry.

The value of oysters sold in Dungarvan in the previous few years across all the companies was approximately €8 million to €9 million. With losses occurring in both full-grown and half-grown stock, we estimate the losses to be in the region of €10 million in each of these two years. When translated into gross value added, GVA, the overall aquaculture sector makes a €3.3 million direct contribution to the local bay economy and employs approximately 100 people or 70 full-time equivalents, FTEs.

The losses occurred in the same week in each of these two years - the first week in August. We had a similar scenario in 2019, where approximately 60% of the full-grown stock and 30% of the half-grown stock died. Local fishers noted that other species in the bay also suffered around this time, as did the green seaweed - the ulva - that grows. Anyone familiar with oyster growing will recognise it. It is like green seaweed hair that grows on the oyster bags. As there has been no definitive cause identified during these recent incidents of unexplained mortalities, we suspect that there will be other factors at play such as a pollution event of some sort, but we are anxious to stress that we simply do not know the cause of the mortalities at this point. Other bays in the county and in the country were not at all affected.

Oysters in a bay are a species that are very sensitive to pollution. In a sense, they act as the "canaries in the coal mine" with regards to the health of the ecosystem and environment in the bay. Our product depends on clean waters and a sound ecosystem in order for them to thrive. Oysters are a product with a very low carbon footprint. In fact, oysters are deployed in bays around the world in order to help in cleaning up polluted waters.

We have a lot of data from environmental monitors in the bay in the past two years around the time that the mortalities occurred, none of which explains the losses that we suffered. The Marine Institute also carries out regular testing of water in the bay to identify the presence of any harmful algal blooms, but none appears to have been present at the time of the losses.

The fish health unit of the Marine Institute also screened the oysters for the presence of diseases.

In September 2025, following a meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Timmy Dooley, and local representatives and in co-operation with Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, and Waterford County Council, the Marine Institute decided to implement a comprehensive suite of testing this summer with the aim of trying to identify the causes of these mortalities. We are engaging with the public and have asked them to report anything unusual in the water to us. We have also asked local fishers to be on the lookout for algal blooms or anything noteworthy. All eyes will be on Dungarvan Bay for the next ten weeks or so to see if we have a repeat of the losses again this year. Please God, we will not.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na comhaltaí as a gcuid aire.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as a ráitis tosaigh. We now move to the questions and answers session.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. It was very welcome when the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, was appointed as a dedicated Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries. He has also assumed responsibility for inland fisheries and our committee would hope to do the same. It makes sense that we work collaboratively. The presentations show that there is an interconnectivity between the rivers and the bays. I suspect that the pollution issues affecting the rivers relate to the lack of a joined-up approach to dealing with this matter. I know from separate hearings that there is repeatedly a failure of regulation and oversight. Our committee has an ambition to work jointly with the environment committee to hold the relevant agencies to account.

Based on Mr. O’Sullivan’s presentation, I found it disturbing that IFA Aquaculture is not involved in water quality governance with the relevant State agencies. I find that astonishing. We are talking about food and public health. It would strike me as absolutely essential. Why is this the case? I assume that IFA Aquaculture has engaged in forums. Is it the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, we are talking about? I ask Mr. O’Sullivan to elaborate on that and give us more detail on these forums and the IFA Aquaculture’s efforts to be involved in them.

Our involvement at that level would be with Uisce Éireann to a degree. Our involvement there would be at the mollusc and shellfish safety committee, which is a committee made up of all the operators involved with shellfish. It is a food safety committee. It is not a statutory body. We attend it and the Food Safety Authority chairs it. The Marine Institute attends it, as does the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, and anyone who has something to say relating to the safety of shellfish farming. Uisce Éireann attends that. That is the only place where we interact with Uisce Éireann and that interaction is limited because there are always a lot of issues on the agenda on the day. We do not interact that deeply with it.

Whereas we are not involved in deciding on regulation, we have to operate within regulations in the classification system of growing waters and stuff to counteract the effects of pollution from the rivers and from the land, including from wastewater treatment plants. We are not part of deciding where these systems can be corrected, but we are on the side of trying to manage our industry within the framework of a certain amount of pollution, which is based on classification. Ms Morrissey might want to elaborate on that.

As Mr. O'Sullivan said, the molluscan shellfish safety committee is what it says on the tin. It deals with molluscan shellfish safety from a food safety point of view. We have Irish Water and the EPA as part of the committee, and all the State agencies that deal with food and shellfish safety. In terms of the water quality part of that, we do not deviate into that. If we try to bring it up at the forum, we are told it is maybe not the most appropriate forum.

On our need or want for engagement on governance of water quality and the water framework directive, it would be the likes of the Water Forum. There is a shellfish experts water quality group, though we are not part of that. A number of State agencies and Departments are but the industry is not. There is a wider discussion around water quality but we are not really part of it. We are the recipients of some issues related to water quality and are trying to manage them as best we can. The representatives of the shellfish sector will elaborate on food safety and our struggles to manage what is coming into any bay. That is where our focus is at.

Okay. Does Ms Mhic Giolla Chuda or her team want to respond? What has happened there is devastating. We have to assume it is some kind of pollution issue. We cannot definitively say what it is. For God's sake, we had the Blackwater disaster and nobody could tell us what caused it. We have a serious problem in our rivers and bays where we have disastrous impacts but we do not know what is causing them. We know it has to be some form of pollution but we are not sure of the source. Between Inland Fisheries Ireland, the EPA, Uisce Éireann and the shellfish representative groups, it strikes me there is a need for an intervention. We might talk about that towards the end of this hearing. Maybe we can write to the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley. Can I get Ms Mhic Giolla Chuda's input, please?

The Blackwater and Dungarvan incidents happened within a number of days of each other. We are very cognisant of the facts there are several good-sized rivers - the Brickey, the Colligan and so on - flowing into Dungarvan Bay. We are not by any means discounting the possibility that something is coming through the rivers. I agree that we need a co-ordinated approach to this. At the end of the day, if a bay is being polluted, it does not really matter to us whether it is coming from a river, the sea, the land or whatever. At a local level, we have a reasonable amount of engagement with the State agencies because of what has happened, but I agree wholeheartedly a co-ordinated national approach would be of great benefit.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I know first-hand how devastating it is to lose a large amount of stock because of an event like that. To lose that stock two years running must have made it difficult for those affected to get back on their feet after all the work that went into getting it to that point.

On monitoring, I am glad to hear there is a lot of engagement. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, has set up a reactive interagency group to deal with fish kills in the river systems, such as the fish kills in the Blackwater and the Glyde recently. The reason was pretty clear in the case of the Glyde, but in the Blackwater a number of agencies were brought in immediately and there is a protocol under which they work. Have the witnesses had any engagement on that protocol? Are they aware of that protocol?

There is nothing specific, but if we notice any mortalities, we can call the Marine Institute and can get samples up to it straight away. Is there an initial reaction group? No, but the testing is the most important thing for us. If there are mortalities, we will be able to get them tested straight away.

They would be proactive with it, ideally. Is there monitoring happening at the moment in the rivers?

It is more within the bay. BIM has a testing programme going on and the Marine Institute's chemistry side has monitors and everything out there.

We have our normal phytoplankton weekly test and our biotoxin monthly test. If we did notice the mortalities, we could increase those testings, which is good. Everything is being monitored at present between BIM and the Marine Institute.

Okay. I thank Ms Beresford. I will move to IFA Aquaculture. Ms Morrissey made a very important point that what is coming into the bay is what is important. Essentially, most of our shellfish will be primarily in estuary areas, so it is really important that we know the impacts of pollution on the receiving waters, what is going on in that estuary and, indeed, what is coming in from the rivers. What we are seeing is the importance of clean rivers for those industries. I found it interesting to go through IFA Aquaculture's opening statement because the EPA has been clear that every year, when it does its water quality testing, it has its indicative reports and water quality reports that, while urban wastewater is a huge problem, it is not the only issue. We heard that last week. We had some shocking statistics from the EPA in relation to that and it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Agriculture is actually the primary polluter of water quality in Ireland, however, whether it is in rivers or estuaries. Indeed, we have a situation where roughly five times the number of water bodies are impacted by agriculture as they are by urban water. It is a really big driver of pollution, whether it is in a river or an estuary. The latest EPA report states that 43% of riversides have elevated nitrogen levels and one in five estuaries have nitrogen levels that are too high, particularly in the east and south of the country. There are areas that are especially impacted by this. I find it interesting that agriculture was not mentioned in IFA Aquaculture's opening statement at all. It highlighted the pollution impacts of urban water but not agriculture. Will Ms Morrissey explain why that was?

It is mainly to do with the fact that our monitoring programmes are based more on a food safety point of view. Ms Beresford referred to how biotoxins are sampled either weekly or monthly, depending on the bay. E. coli testing is done weekly or monthly. Norovirus testing is done. This is from a shellfish point of view. That is how we know we have that data. We do not have data to suggest issues available to the industry directly or issues from other sources. We know for definite that we have issues from a food safety point of view and, obviously, from urban and wastewater treatment pressures because that is the data we have. We get it very regularly and we have a fairly comprehensive dataset. Our focus is maybe a bit narrow in that sense but it is mainly because that is the data we have.

There is one point I want to make. The Deputy was asking about oyster mortality in Dungarvan. It is actually legislated for. Oyster mortality and mortality in general has to be reported to the Marine Institute under animal health law. That is done if it is over a certain level or threshold and it will react to that. Now, the testing and the monitoring programme that is ongoing in Dungarvan is much more expanded from what we would normally see in terms of an investigation of mortality

From IFA Aquaculture's perspective, the only thing it focuses on is that issue of health and safety, so growing conditions and-----

Not necessarily. It is not the only thing we focus on. It is the most complete dataset we have available to us because the monitoring programmes that are mentioned in our submission are mainly focused on shellfish safety and food safety. That is the dataset we have. We do not necessarily have a full comprehensive dataset for pressures from other areas. However, the Deputy is right to refer to the EPA water quality reports. We did look at that with interest last week to see what other pressures are coming into marine and coastal waters.

The results for the EPA have been pretty consistent over a number of years. They are also very consistent in that they state that it is the south and south east that are primarily impacted. When there is an estuary area where all the rivers are running into it, there might not be a lot of recharge of the system there. Those farms are particularly vulnerable to anything that is coming in. While I am not sure whether there will be any sort of health and safety impacts resulting from nitrates, certainly, from a farms perspective, I would imagine that if there was, potentially, an algal bloom, there would be mortalities within the stock but there would also be impacts on the health of that stock and its growing potential.

If you stress oysters, you are not going to get the same growth levels. Is that not something that would concern the witnesses? Have they raised the impacts of agricultural pollution within their organisation? There is a tension, I would imagine, between what IFA Aquaculture is trying to achieve and what other elements of the organisation are trying to achieve from a stock basis.

We said in our opening statement the narrative is incomplete and in many respects misleading. There is a bigger picture. We are receivers of anything that comes down the rivers, for sure, but our primary focus is to be able to operate within the condition that are there in the monitoring programmes that are set up in the classification of bays, which is very important to us. There is a national biotoxin monitoring programme as well, which is not related to pollution but to natural phenomena and that type of thing. We have said the narrative is incomplete, but we are busy enough trying to figure out how to operate. Every time we step out into the public domain we are constantly portraying our industry as being of benefit to the environment, which is a way of us defending our industry but it is factual as well. As shellfish are filter feeders, they accumulate all the nutrients and turn it into protein and stuff. There is seaweed farming as well. It should get more attention but that is back to licensing again. We were in here before about licensing and the difficulties with that. Seaweed is an incredibly effective natural sponge for absorbing excess nutrients and phosphates that come down the rivers into the seawater. All the types of low benthic aquaculture we are talking about at the minute benefit the environment, and that is the tack we will go on because we have enough people detracting from our industry. We basically have to promote our industry as an industry that is environmentally friendly, which it is.

That is fine. I suppose-----

We might move on, if you do not mind, Deputy.

Can I just finish up on that? There is a challenge there.

Is it a question? A question will demand an answer, and just to be fair-----

No, it is more of a statement. What aquaculture farmers need is a good quality environment in which to raise their stock, and if the water quality is not good, for whatever reason, that is something that would impact the witnesses' members and the people they are representing. I think the evidence is there and there probably is an onus. I can appreciate it is probably very uncomfortable because there is a tension within the farming sector in general, but it is really important that if there are impacts from other sectors of the farming industry on aquaculture, it should be raised. There is a responsibility to do that. I appreciate it would be difficult.

There will be an opportunity to come in for a second round.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe ón IFA agus iad siúd ó Chontae Phort Láirge as ucht a gcuir i láthair. The IFA referred to aquaculture, the water quality and the 64 designated areas, but it is hard to fully understand why the witnesses are not an integral part of all this. They are very much on the periphery and that is not good enough because they have an important role to play. They have to represent their members. Mr. O'Sullivan referred to a designated forum. Will somebody flesh out what is meant by that or what they feel we should do or could do? I ask as we are quite supportive of the role the witnesses play in aquaculture and water quality.

We have fleshed it out without giving it a name in our submission. Water quality, as both Deputy Mac Lochlainn and Whitmore referred to, cuts across lots of Departments and State agencies. I referenced already that there is a shellfish waters expert group that we are not part of. We do not feed into the Water Forum. My organisation does but this committee in this sector does not and it is important we have a voice at that table. As to whether the Water Forum has all the agencies and bodies we would be seeking to reach, maybe it does not.

Maybe it needs a specific one that deals with marine and coastal waters specifically because, as the Deputy said, there are several pressures affecting marine and coastal waters which cut across many different agencies like Irish Water and the EPA. They all have their own individual role in water quality and we have seen that. Everyone has referred to the recent issues in Blackwater and obviously what has happened in Dungarvan. Again, we do not have that kind of co-ordinated approach until after the fact when the event has happened, and then we are scrambling backwards and it is almost impossible to figure out what the issue is.

I referenced already the fish health unit and the Marine Institute, which do a very good job in investigating oyster mortality, but they are looking at it from a purely fish or shellfish health perspective. They have a job to do there and pathogens to search for that they are legislated to do. However, when it is a bit broader, it is and has been very difficult for the operators in Dungarvan to try to come to a conclusion as to what the issues might be. Perhaps we could have a co-ordinated agency group meeting regularly, because there are many issues, even on the food safety side, which Mr. O'Sullivan mentioned, and the molluscan shellfish safety committee, where water quality is consistently cropping up for many reasons. Deputy Whitmore mentioned several pressures on rivers, and we are the final recipient at the end of that. We do not necessarily have that co-ordinated approach until the event is over and we are lacking that.

The Deputy mentioned the interagency group that was set up, which is an inland group as far as I understand it; it does not have anything to do with marine or coastal waters. If a similar event happened in a marine or coastal water, whatever that event might be, I am not aware that there is any interagency or co-ordinated group which would deal with that. I do not know if that answers the Deputy's question.

I can only speak on my own behalf and on behalf of my party, but I think all of us would have agreed, when we had the opportunity to discuss it, that there should be a more co-ordinated approach and the witnesses' organisations should be part of all this. If their members are being affected, there is no point in having a good, co-ordinated approach to investigate mortality. We should have a co-ordinated approach in ensuring we do not have mortality. It makes no sense. The witnesses would have our full support there.

Regarding Dungarvan, it is pretty frightening that the witnesses had a water quality and mortality problem in the same week in 2024 and 2025, so it will be all eyes on this in the next few weeks. It is frightening because if the cause had been established, it could have been dealt with it. When you have not established it, you cannot deal with it. Even if it happens that there is no mortality this year, while that is good, you will always be afraid that 2027 and 2028 might have the mortality. In fairness, the witnesses make a fairly substantial contribution to the local economy - something over €3 million.

Did the mortality last year of 30-60% affect the witnesses' markets? Has it got out to the market that they are having these problems and has it resulted in the companies buying from them raising questions about it? Were any of the witnesses at the major seafood conference in China in recent weeks or do they have a market there?

No, I am not aware of that, and certainly no one from Dungarvan was there, though we would have had substantial enough markets in China in previous years. Our suppliers are certainly aware because the oyster industry is a reasonably small community right across Europe. Being fair, many of our customers have been very supportive and understanding. The real issue for us is if you lose 70% of your stock, you have only got 30% left to sell. However, we still have to keep all the workers on, the oysters have to be turned regularly and they have to be divided in the bags, and so on. It has a massive influence on the whole cash flow of the business, and it is a business that needs heavy reinvesting year after year to keep the show on the road, so to speak. It affects us hugely in that way.

I also agree wholeheartedly that it is a double-edged sword. We will be delighted if the oysters do not die this year, but we will still have questions left unanswered if we do not find any explanations. It is also worth mentioning we also had the very same problem in 2019.

That is three years out of seven. It is not really sustainable.

When the oysters die, it gives you a lot more work because you have to separate the dead from the live. We wound up just picking up the live stuff because there was too much dead. The grading machine will not do that for you. There is very little weight in the shell compared to an oyster so you have to double down. It will cost you more money.

On going to China, we were sending stuff to Asia but we just do not have the stuff to send so we are not there.

I, too, welcome our guests this morning. The 70% mortality rate is alarming. There is no other word for it. That it is proving very difficult to find the source of the problem makes it more alarming, especially when oysters are supposed to be very efficient at filtering water, etc. I have never heard of a mortality rate like that in my own area, thankfully. I hope the witnesses can get to the source of it and can rectify the problem. Algae bloom is an issue from time to time in Castlemaine Harbour. It affects the aquaculture fishermen in Cromane and places. The bed would be closed and so on. That has happened quite a number of times over the years but that does not seem to be the issue here. We will support the witnesses in any way we can as a committee.

On the extraordinary delays in the processing of aquaculture licences, which can take up to 20 years in some cases, have the witnesses seen any improvement in that in the last year and a half or so? It has come up here quite a lot. It is something that interests me and my constituents at home in Kerry.

I thank the Deputy. No.

A short blunt answer.

The lack of progress in licensing is extremely concerning at this point. It has always been extremely concerning but at this point we are at a loss as to understand what the core problem is with the consistent delays. Deputy Mac Lochlainn has got answers to parliamentary questions recently on the processing of licences or lack thereof. Zero licences have been issued since November 2025. To put that in context, only ten licences were issued in the whole of 2025. Only 18 licences were issued in the past three and a half years. That is 2023, 2024 and 2025. Now we are half way through 2026. I cannot find a logical reason. The only person or people who can answer the Deputy’s question is the Minister himself and his officials. We have been in here a couple of time outlining our views and issues around licensing. It would be useful if the Minister and his officials were brought before this committee again to answer those questions because we cannot get to the nub of it at all.

To clarify, ten were processed in 2025 and 18 in the last three and a half years.

There are about 560-something waiting to be processed.

We only went to apply for our renewals last year and there has been no real correspondence or anything like that. We are just in a waiting game. The other factor with it is we cannot apply for grants because we do not have a licence so we are cut out of that market too. It is not good for any business to be cut out of the grant sector.

We are having the same issues in Kerry.

It is hugely demoralising for the whole industry to know that, once the licence runs out, you are still operating legally, but because we are in an SPA, we cannot get any grant aid even though there is millions of euro there in EMFAF funding. Especially for young people coming into the industry, which is something we are trying to encourage, it is hard for them to see a clear road ahead when they know they just cannot get any assistance whatsoever.

I have a number of questions and comments before we begin the second round of questions and answers. Mar a luaigh Clíona Mhic Giolla Chuda, tá baol ann nach mairfidh tionscadail na bhfinnéithe amach anseo má tharlaíonn an rud céanna i mbliana. The industry in Dungarvan is facing an existential crisis if what happened in the last two years happens again in the first week of August or, indeed, in any week this summer. From having spoken to Ms Mhic Giolla Chuda and some of her colleagues, I know it will mark the end of the industry. It will be very difficult to claw back operations and continue trading. That message has been heard within the Department and by the Minister, but it needs to be heard a lot louder. To have an industry that provides a level of employment and a multiplier effect in the local economy go to the wall, effectively, would be deeply regrettable. That is especially the case given its importance, but also given the investment the State has made in it, particularly through Údarás na Gaeltachta, as well as the investment that all of those in the industry have made personally and financially over many years. That is the first thing that needs to be said.

The issue with mortality events is very difficult to tie down. I was at the meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, and the industry in September last year. I know a group has been put together with the various agencies operating in this space to look into it. However, despite all the evidence, testing and analysis, and all the ability of the State, it still has not been able to get to the bottom of it. That is very worrying and poses many questions. As was said, touch wood it does not happen this year, and we will all breathe a sigh of relief, but we will still be left wondering what caused it, whether it will happen next year or the year after, and how safe we are. That is a tough place to be. The witnesses do not need me to tell them that it is tough to invest in a business when dealing with that uncertainty. I imagine it is also tough for buyers to source product when they might be grappling with that as well.

Have there been any interim results from that study? Has there been communication from the Department? Have the witnesses been kept up to date with the nature of the investigation and any preliminary results or avenues of investigation?

We get some of the E. coli results from BIM. We have one stream that is a big issue, but the council has met with BIM and is looking at that. For any of the others, we have not got anything back yet. The Marine Institute unit officials are in constant communication with us, which is good. They have explained what testing they are doing and everything like that. However, there is no full set of results just yet.

It might be worth mentioning that the Marine Institute has a bursary recipient in the area. She is giving a lot of practical assistance on the ground with the testing. She is living in the parish, so she is acting as a kind of permanent link to the Marine Institute.

I will refer back to Deputy Whitmore's earlier point. Within the testing that is being done, the BIM officer is testing the output at the mouth of all of the different rivers for E. coli and so on. We are very much not discounting that on a local basis.

The other point that touches on this is that, as with many bays, there is a norovirus issue there during the winter months. That is primarily from human sources, although there can be some from agriculture as well. The testing establishes the source. I am sorry if I am going a little off the Chair’s topic, but I thought it important to mention that we are taking the whole river basin and bay into account in our testing.

That is as it should be when investigating it. With the net cast fairly wide, it is disappointing and worrying that we are still none the wiser as to what exactly is causing this.

I wish to raise something that has not been mentioned in this meeting yet. We hear it at this committee in particular. It is always kind of an awkward one because we are dealing with fishermen and people who live on the coast and they do not want to talk necessarily talk about grants, compensation or payments. The witnesses are trying to keep an industry alive. Through no fault of their own, they are dealing with a situation that is hampering their businesses. In so many other sectors, we would see the Government almost land in uninvited and say, “Here is how we are going to look after you to tide you over, keep employment and keep your heads above water”. I wish to hear the opinions of both the IFA and the witnesses from Port Láirge in this regard. What exactly would help their businesses? I will go to Mr. O’Sullivan first and then to Ms Mhic Giolla Chuda.

When Ms Beresford was answering Deputy Michael Cahill’s questions around support, our submission to the food vision seafood task force occurred to me. Those going through a renewal of their licence are not eligible for grant aid. For those renewing their licence, they are not eligible for grant aid under the sustainable aquaculture grant scheme. That is through no fault of the shellfish producer or any other aquaculture producer. A producer cannot get grant aid if they are in renewal, and we know the story around that. We are in renewal for years and years. We suggested, through the task force, that Irish Inc. would take up the full complement of the grant of 50%. I think 25% of that can be recovered from Europe. In this particular case, we are ineligible at European level due to not having a current licence. The committee could support us in that regard so that Irish Inc. takes up the full complement of the 50% grant in the sustainable aquaculture scheme, which we believe is to be launched in July. The problem with it being launched is because of the eligibility conditions. Many of our members are not eligible for grant aid. We estimate it is over half of the total licensees. Anything helps. People have projects and still have the faith in the industry going forward, despite all the knock-backs. If they want to do something, such as purchase a bit of machinery, it would be good if they could do that and be prepared for when the sunny days come again. The committee could support us in chasing down the 50% grant aid from Irish Inc.

I ask the same question of Ms Mhic Giolla Chuda in the context of Dungarvan bay and the immediacy of the situation there.

There are a number of issues. Of course, any kind of direct assistance would be more than welcome, particularly in respect of restocking or something like that. This comes back to the grants. Bord Iascaigh Mhara needs to open the grant scheme for the industry. That boat has sailed for us, however, because half of our licences ran out last year and the other half are due to run out within a week or so. The sustainable aquaculture scheme seems to only open for a limited number of months every year. Like I said, that ship has sailed for us.

Coming back to assistance on the mortalities, we seem to be lacking any kind of a structure or scheme into which a situation like this can land. For farmers whose cows get bovine tuberculosis and such - I am not terribly well up on this – the State tells the farmer that they must cull the animal, for which there will be compensation. That is fair enough. I have no issue at all with that. As these oysters seemed to die a somewhat natural death, although that is not my opinion, there is no scheme we can apparently fit into. This has been a matter that has been raised over a long number of years. I have been on and off the IFA Aquaculture committee for a long time.

There was an issue in Donegal several years ago where there were massive losses in stocks. Again, there was not a mechanism through which those oyster farmers could be helped. We would love to get any money or help we can get, but there is a structural issue there too.

I will follow up on that point. Is insurance available?

No.

There is no compensation, so, essentially, those losses have to be eaten for two years running, which is a considerable amount of money.

Yes.

Yes.

In relation to the monitoring, is continuous monitoring happening?

Yes.

Is it on each of the-----

The phyto testing is weekly and the biotoxins testing is monthly, and all year round, no matter what. The testing programme that has now come in with BIM and the Marine Institute started in the last week of April. It will run until September.

It will be looking at oxygen and temperature.

We have monitors out in the bay all the time anyway, so that was always monitored. These extra phyto, nutrient E. coli and chemistry samples are weekly.

With the last pollution incident, there was no indication from the oxygen levels.

No. There was nothing from the monitors at all.

Telemetry in the bay measures oxygen saturation, turbidity and the whole lot.

Nothing showed up in the phyto or biotoxins tests.

It does sound, then, like something just flushed in and out quite quickly.

As Ms Mhic Giolla Chuda said, it affected the ulva and the oyster bags, the crabs and the mussels.

The shrimp levels were impacted too.

It is like the whole biodiversity of the bay. It comes back to life in September then. Everything starts to come back at that point. Whatever is washing in is causing this mortality event, and then washing back out again.

With climate change, we are seeing an increase in our water temperatures. Obviously, that puts additional stress on any stocks. If there is a pollution event like that, the stocks are not able to withstand it to the same extent as they might have previously. Would that be a concern for the witnesses?

We looked at that in the context of the 2024 and 2025 weather events, and they were completely different. We had one that was overcast and cloudy. Last year, then, there was a bit more of a temperature. In the last two mortality events, the weather environment does not seem to have been an agent.

Where we do see an impact from climate change is in the rising sea levels, believe it or not. Again, oysters are at that sensitive edge between the sea and the land, in the intertidal area. We have been at this for the last 35 years, and we have had to move the blocks where we are growing the oysters further and further in. It is not affecting the oysters, but it is an effect of climate change and one we can see very clearly.

I thank the witnesses.

In fairness to IFA Aquaculture and the people here today, they should have the right to reply to what was said in the sitting last week which dealt with salmon. I do not know if they have had a chance to read the transcript or listen to the testimony, but I think it is only fair that they would have a chance to respond to the issues raised. I invite them to tell us how they see things. Basically, the assertions were that the salmon farming industry is having a profound impact on the wild salmon population, that there is damage to the environment and that the only safe way to conduct salmon farming is on land. Those were the assertions. I think it was John Murphy last week. That is just a very brief summary, to my mind. I invite the witnesses to respond, just to be fair to all parties. As a committee, we have to try to establish the facts based on the testimony of the people who come before us.

I thank the Deputy. I will come in and I might bring in Ms McManus too. I watched the session last week with great interest. There were a number of statements in relation to salmon farming, in particular, that I would have an issue with. The inference was that salmon farming appears to be detrimental to water quality, which, obviously, we would not agree with at all. There does not appear to be any evidence to back that up. When we look at the water framework directive, a lot of the indicators there, primarily the status for marine coastal waters, are of good and high status, and this includes bays where salmon is farmed.

There were a number of inferences regarding sea lice and organic status as well. I will ask Ms McManus to come in and make clarifications.

I thank the Deputy for giving me the right to reply. I was surprised by a number of the allegations that were made last week. I thought that some of them perhaps should have been based more on fact. That was not apparent from some of the submissions made last week. Our industry has been operating in Ireland for at least 50 years commercially, and probably longer than that in some cases in the context of the ESB. We farm a species that is very sensitive to water quality and environmental conditions. I stated at a previous meeting that we have some of the most comprehensive datasets for environmental parameters in the bays that we operate in. In our case, we have been farming in Ireland for over 45 years. In many of the bays involved, we co-farm and coexist with shellfish farmers. I refer, for example, to Mulroy Bay in Donegal, Lough Swilly, inner Clew Bay and Bantry Bay, where many other shellfish members reside with us. More recently, there has been seaweed farming in proximity to our farms. We have happily coexisted with the rest of the industry.

We are also concerned about the external pressures on water quality within the bays. We monitor, in a detailed way, the water chemistry in the farms that we are in. We have huge datasets. We have had benthic monitoring for at least 35 years in the bays that we have been in the longest. I would suggest that we know more about the water quality and the benthos in the bays that we operate in than any of those who made submissions last week.

I heard some allegations about sea lice. The Marine Institute published all the monitoring data for sea lice counts on Irish farms. We have the lowest counts of any farming nation. That is a matter of public record.

The industry pivoted to organic production about 15 or 20 years ago. We are a small industry. We know all the struggles with trying to get new licence capacity. It is very difficult for us to compete with other producers in other countries. It made sense for Irish producers to pivot along the organic route. What does organic salmon farming mean? What it means for us is that the fish are reared in lower densities. The feed is an important input. All the ingredients must be organic. There is a high component of organic vegetables in it, such as peas, beans and sunflower. The fish meal and oil components are all from trimmings meal. They do not come from any other sources other than trimmings of fish that were already caught for human consumption. These are certified by three different, independent organic bodies.

There are other constraints on treatments, chemical use and anti-foulants. It is a different way of farming, probably a more low-intensity way of farming compared with other jurisdictions. That has worked for Ireland. That is why we are so aware and have a heightened awareness on issues surrounding water quality. Anything that happens to our shellfish neighbours in terms of losses is a concern for us. It means there are pressures on the systems. We know from the Environmental Protection Agency's monitoring that the bays that we operate in have good to high water quality status. We are not considered a significant pressure on those bays. We have already talked about some of the other pressures that we know are there in terms of urban wastewater and run-off from agricultural sources. They are a concern to us.

With regard to commentary regarding farming in closed containment, we already produce a low-carbon food. If we were to go 100% on land, bearing in mind that 40% of our cycle is reared on land and finished off in the sea, if we were to do it 100% on land, the energy requirements would be massive and it would significantly increase the global warming potential of the food product, which does not make any sense, especially in this economy where our energy sources, fuel mix that feeds into our source of electricity has a high carbon base.

It would make no sense at all. Why move to a system of farming that applies greater environmental pressure globally? It does not make any sense.

I thank Ms McManus for her response. I invite her to consider making a submission to the committee. We received one from Mr. John Murphy. In the interests of balance, Ms McManus should be able to make a submission and put in writing everything she has just said in order that we can get a full picture in respect of these matters.

As I indicated earlier, I will request that on the back of today's hearing we write to the Minister of State, Deputy Timmy Dooley, asking for a joined-up forum for the rivers and bays involving the industry representatives, Uisce Éireann, Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Environmental Protection Agency and any other bodies that I may have managed to leave out. I assume that maybe Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, might want somebody to be involved as well. Am I leaving anybody off that list? If we could, on the back of the evidence today, can we ask for that? Would that be okay? Does the committee agree?

That is a really sensible proposal. Is it agreed? Agreed.

It was interesting to hear the witnesses' contributions. I was at last week's meeting. I am pleased that the witnesses took the opportunity to watch the proceedings. The meeting was a wee bit frustrating. The impression was given that if we did not have salmon farming, all our problems would be resolved because that is the cause of all of them. On the other hand, and I pointed this out last week, when the drift net was abolished for salmon, we were going to have hundreds and thousands of anglers flowing into the country. Every salmon caught would be worth ten or 20 times the cost. It is good to hear the balance and I am pleased with Deputy Mac Lochlainn's suggestion that the witnesses make a submission. We are here to make sure there is balance and that we listen carefully to all those who come before us. We are here to be objective and not subjective.

We have a responsibility after what the witnesses have told us. We know this anyway, but it takes a length of time to process applications. To add insult to injury, even though you are acting legally after the period has exhausted, you cannot throw down grants. That is ludicrous. I feel that whenever we have an opportunity with the Minister of State, and it will be sooner rather than later, we will try to ensure that those applications could be processed more quickly. The length of time it takes to do this is just extraordinary. Anyway, it was good to hear balanced contributions. I hope the next ten weeks will not bring up answers. If they bring answers, then we have a problem. Of course it affects the market. I hope the witnesses can establish what it is and get on with the business they are good at. It is not just about establishing what is wrong but is about processing or cultivating shellfish of the highest quality going to markets, whether they are France or in other parts. I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

I will make a comment on the basis of what was said by Ms McManus and the input of the two Deputies. There is an open invitation to this committee to visit salmon farms, oyster farms or mussel farms or to familiarise themselves with aquaculture generally, because looking in, it was stark at last week's meeting to see that there seemed to be a bit of a misunderstanding about what it is we are doing. Perhaps we need to do a better job in trying to get our message across. That invitation is there if there is an appetite for individuals or the collective committee to visit an oyster farm, a salmon farm, a mussel farm or any aquaculture facility around the coast. We would be very willing to facilitate that.

Provided it is in Donegal.

Or Waterford.

They are very close.

It is only a small spin.

I will come back to a point that Ms McManus made. It was in the submission too. She said that all her finfish farms are in bays that have high to good-----

That is right.

I know that only 36% of our bays would have that standard. All fish farms are within those 36%.

You have to consider that we are not spread along the entire coast. We are in discrete bays. If you look at any of the bays that salmon farming, in particular, is practised in, they all have high-to-good status water quality, according to the EPA.

I have a table I can share with the committee where we make the submission that outlines which bays and sites a salmon farmer operates in against the EPA water quality status.

Okay. They differentiate between transitional waters and open coastal. The open coastal, I think, is 81%, but when it comes to estuaries only, a third of estuaries are-----

We would never farm in an estuary.

Or in a bay area.

That would make no sense from a water quality point of view because it is a risk area as it is. You would not farm in an estuary. You do not have the depth. You do not have the currents. You do not have the environmental factors that we want.

Is there a similar list of oyster farms? Does Ms Morrissey know what oyster farms are in transitional waters that are good-to-high quality?

Yes. The oyster farms are probably more widespread. Clearly, some of them are not in areas where the water quality is as good as it can be. My earlier comments in relation to food safety and shellfish safety were because they were in those areas that were probably a little bit more adjacent to influences from an urban and wastewater treatment system and our national monitoring programmes were grounded in food safety as opposed to water quality when it comes to shellfish traditionally. From this discussion the last day and today, and from a shellfish point of view, we may need to move towards broadening that spectrum. Water quality is part of it, but we have not focused on it as much. There are differences in terms of where they are based as well.

If you compare that data with the EPA's data, it will be very easy to see what the biggest pressure is, be it urban wastewater or agriculture. That would be interesting to see.

Something might show up in the testing. Hopefully, all of the testing we are doing now will shed a light on that.

On a small point of information, salmon farming by its nature needs deep water whereas oyster farming takes place in the intertidal area. They are different bays by the very nature of the product we are growing.

Another indicator of the importance of water quality, and probably closer to shore than the salmon farms, is the organic regulation. Most shellfish farms in Ireland have organic status under the organic European regulation. You have three gateways to qualify for that. Your bay must be: of high ecological status under the water framework directive, and that is a water quality issue; of good environmental status in accordance with the marine strategy framework directive; or be of equivalent quality to zone A of Regulation EU 2019/627, which is a regulation relating to shellfish. The regulation establishes the criteria for classifying, monitoring and managing live bivalve production bays. It indicates that, to have organic, you have to have very good-quality water. It is tricky to qualify for it for shellfish. It is a very important access to market to have organic status. As I say, it is very dependent on the water quality under the water framework directive, etc.

I suppose it makes the industry very vulnerable because farms have no control over what is coming in.

For the benefit of the committee and from a shellfish perspective, the organic regulations are grounded in the fact that you obviously do not have any inputs. You are not putting anything into the system other than the shellfish itself. The European Commission - in its wisdom or lack thereof, I do not know which - tied it to water quality and to the classification system. This has created its own complications. The regulation is under review and will remain so for the next number of months, or probably years, at a European level.

On the finfish organic categorisation, Ms McManus said a reduced amount of antibiotics was being used. Is there a time period between harvesting-----

Not all treatments-----

There are no treatments-----

We are very restricted. Obviously, if the animal is sick or there are welfare issues, a veterinary surgeon will decide if the population needs to be treated. However, we are limited in the number of treatments that can be administered in a cycle. If that is exceeded, the fish cannot be sold as organic. That is one way it is managed.

So, it is possible to use certain treatments but only a certain amount over a particular period of time.

That is right.

What treatments can be used?

Only two sea lice treatments can be used. We do not have the same suite as other jurisdictions might have. That is it, really.

What about fungicides or anything like that?

We do not need them.

What about in freshwater?

No. It is down to the water quality. If the water quality is particularly difficult, there would be a higher incidence of fungal infestation. In our freshwater systems, we are at the top of catchments. We are fortunate that we are not farther down and so we are not impacted by other tertiary sources into the water system. The water quality starting off in our hatcheries is actually very good.

Has there been a large reduction in that? Previously, there would have been problems with fungus in freshwater stocks. Even from a temperature perspective or-----

We have only had the same limited number of freshwater units. We only have three freshwater units. I am only talking about my company. We only have three in Ireland and we have had those for nearly 40 years.

What company is that?

Mowi.

It no longer has the farms in Wexford and Wicklow. Are they gone?

No, we are not in the trout industry, just salmon.

Was that previously Gaelic Seafoods?

No.

Within the freshwater salmon production there is not much need for fungicides,-----

No.

-----malachite green or anything like that.

Malachite green is banned.

Is it banned now?

Yes. It has been banned for a long time. So, absolutely not.

Okay. I am surprised because I would have been familiar with fungus being a huge problem years ago.

That is for those farther down river where there might be a big catchment. Our hatcheries are in Donegal and are in very remote areas at the top of systems, so we do not have that. The original choices of the sites for those hatcheries were wise ones at the time.

Does injecting antibiotics still happen?

No, we do not inject antibiotics.

Is there any injecting done on-----

When handling millions of fish, it would take a long time to inject them all.

It does; I have done it. I just know what the industry was like a long time ago. It seems that it has changed quite a lot.

It is very different in terms of structure, mechanisation, technology and all those types of things. For example, in the sea, there is an amoeba that grows on the gills of wild fish. We manage that with freshwater vats. It is a very natural way of treating. Since these are not anadromous fish that have spent part of their life cycle in freshwater, I actually call it a spa treatment. It does them good and we have large well boats that can do that. We use cleaner fish to manage sea lice because we are very restricted in what we can use. We do not like handling fish because every time they are handled, it is stressful. The industry is very different today from what it was 30 years ago or even 20 years ago.

That is good to hear.

A few points have been raised, one of which is the kind invitation, which I will discuss with the committee. We will have ferocious debates. I am outnumbered here by three to one in terms of Donegal versus Waterford. I imagine we will be going to the north west.

We could have a neutral venue as well.

The committee could come to Bantry Bay.

We will have that out in private session. I thank the witnesses for the invitation. It is worthwhile. If there is a way that we can go to a part of the county where we can see different types of fish farms, it might be illustrative for the committee.

We discussed on a number of occasions the issue of grants, renewal of licences and being disbarred. A number of Deputies raised those issues. Mr. O’Sullivan mentioned a proposal that could work where both the Irish State and Europe foot part of the bill. That is something we will return to. We should definitely correspond with the Minister in that regard.

I believe - I will make this call very bluntly – that there should be direct assistance for an industry in a situation such as this. I say that both as a constituency TD and Chair of this committee. There should be a direct assistance scheme to keep an industry afloat when it is dealing with an existential threat of this nature. We should be making that clear to the Minister following this committee meeting. We are to correspond with the Minister on foot of Deputy Mac Lochlainn’s proposal, but I seek to amend that slightly to include those two items, namely, the grant issue that has been raised and the call for direct assistance for the oyster industry, particularly in Dungarvan bay, that is facing this. That assistance is also for any part of the industry that may face a similar existential threat at some point in the future. It is about ensuring that structure, as Ms Clíona Mhic Giolla Chuda mentioned, is in place by way of a scheme. That is a modest and reasonable ask.

É sin ráite, níl tuilleadh le rá againn ag an gcoiste seo. Tá ár gcuid ceisteanna curtha. There is no more business to attend to, having had all of the questions answered. I thank all our witnesses for their participation and for being here. I thank them for making the journey and sharing their time, expertise and perspective with us. I thank the members for their cogent and relevant questions. As a committee, we will take the evidence we gathered today, as well as the evidence from last week’s meeting, and weigh it up. As I said, we will certainly correspond with the Minister. We will have engagements on an ongoing basis, as we do, with the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley. We will engage with Commissioner Kadis in the coming weeks as well. No doubt, some of what we have heard today will form part of our ongoing engagement with both the Commissioner and the Minister of State. Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe. That concludes today’s meeting as we have no further matters for discussion. The committee stands adjourned until 30 June 2026 at 11 a.m.