Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests from the SFPA. I have a number of questions but first I want to acknowledge the 14-page substantial submission the SFPA has made to the committee. I want to refer to a number of references in it and that will link in with my questions. The authority welcomed the invitation for its representatives to appear before the committee but expressed frustration that it has not been able to discuss its responsibilities, one of which involves food safety official control, a matter to which I will return in one of my questions. In its submission, the authority asserts:

Fishermen’s declarations must reflect the outcome of fish weighing. Under-declarations would defeat the purpose of catch limits (quotas) and make fish mortality assessment incorrect thus creating immediate fraudulent food provenance and damaging long term sustainability efforts.

Dr. Steele can take it that statement is agreed by members of the committee of this committee and the fishing communities with whom we, as elected representatives, engage. Clearly, we need to sustain and properly manage our fish stock for future generations. It is important we accurately reflect the catch. The authority's responsibilities in that regard, which are very important, are taken as read. The submission also comments on the problems with the pelagic sector. Strong views are expressed regarding that sector. The submission states: "However, it is a matter of judicial record, and SFPA opinion, and Legal Metrology opinion, that these systems can also facilitate ... [incompetence] and the systems can be open to fraud". The authority has strongly outlined its concerns in that respect.

I will outline the problem I have with this. I have seen the current weighing systems. The submission lays out the chronology of events that led to the current systems that are in use in places such as Killybegs. I want to state what that looks like. I am advised that the flow scale weighing system involves state-of-the-art technology. It is sealed with cable ties to prevent it being tampered with. There are CCTV cameras upon those weighing scales as the fish go over them. It is important to weigh fish and not water, as stated in the submission. The pelagic catch is stored in water of a certain temperature and when it goes to the factory it goes over the weighing system through a conveyor belt, it is packed as soon as possible and put into cold storage. That is a critical to the cold chain. That was referenced in the authority's food safety responsibilities. Dr. Steele will appreciate that. There is a CCTV camera on the weighing device and that information is taken by monitor directly to the SFPA offices. I do not know of any industry where the regulator has direct vision on the system as it is happening. The authority has full visibility on the weighing taking place. The devices are sealed with cable ties. The National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, can inspect a device unannounced at any time. The authority's officers can get full access to a factory. If I am saying anything wrong in my testimony, Dr. Steele can feel free to challenge me in her response. The SFPA officers can physically come in and inspect all of that but they are also observing visually from their offices. At the back end of a factory, there can be boxes containing 20 kg of fish. There can be a trolley carrying 60 boxes, which is 1.2 tonnes of fish, which can be easily checked. It is possible to go into the frozen storage compartment and easily check it.

The authority has an important responsibility, which is why it exists. It is important to demonstrate what fishermen say they catch is what they are catching. We need more fish in our seas but whatever the fishermen say they catch they should prove that. I have engaged with those in the industry. They do not resist that and accept that needs to be done.

I have demonstrated the level of oversight the authority, as the regulator, has, which is unprecedented in Europe or in the context of any other industry here. I challenge the SFPA to tell me where in Europe that level of oversight exists. The regulator has got to that point because it has been seeking to reassure the European Commission of the integrity of the weighing system and the catch system in this country. It has eyes, in the form of CCTV cameras, on the weighing system. It can be inspected unannounced at any stage by the NSAI. It is sealed so it cannot be tampered with. The regulator has full access to any factory. Yet, on the last day we engaged with the authority when I gave that testimony, its senior officer, Mr. Andrew Kinneen, still said that was not acceptable. I will use the following analogy. It is like a garda getting into a car with somebody and saying “I am going to sit beside you because I think you are capable of speeding so I will sit beside you to ensure you do not speed". The driver would be very uncomfortable with that. That is a very high level of enforcement. The driver says something and then the garda on the scene says "I could be distracted by the beautiful scenery and take my eyes of you so I am going to say I cannot enforce the law upon you". That is the level of oversight of this industry we have reached. I cannot understand how we could have got to a point where the SFPA has ensured that level of oversight and how can that not be something we can demonstrate to the European authorities is enough to ensure the integrity of our catch? I reiterate the statement the authority makes on page 2 of its submission regarding its responsibility and the job it has to do, with which I am sure every member of this committee agrees and the industry accepts.

I want to ask Dr. Steele's opinion on all of that. I have a few more questions. I will be concise in putting them but, first, I want to get a response on why that level of oversight and regulation is not enough for the regulator to have confidence in it, as Dr. Steele's senior colleague said at the last meeting we engaged with the authority?