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

I thank the witnesses. My concern is there is no level of oversight that is good enough. I note in the submission it is acknowledged that you cannot get into comparisons. I believe our industry is the most regulated in all of Europe, that our fish producers and fishers are the most regulated in all of Europe. This report was leaked in the national media earlier this year at a time when the industry was in serious trouble having lost a further 15% of quota under the EU-UK trade agreement. The industry was in serious trouble and reports were in the media of tens of thousands of tonnes of over-fishing and potential fines of tens of millions of euro. This presented a picture of an industry that was criminal in its responsibilities. It was appalling. The industry had no ability to defend itself.

As far as I know, there has been one conviction - one - in a court of law that followed the NSAI taking that prosecution, none as a result of the SFPA, despite it being a very strong regulator, arguably the strongest in Europe. There was only one prosecution, yet it led to allegations of an industry that was criminal in its intent.

I put to all the senior officials in the SFPA before us that the relationship has to be reset. The SFPA is regarded as the strongest regulator in all of Europe in the level of oversight on which it insists, and that is fair enough. How can it be then that we have reports being leaked to the media, with the industry not being able to defend itself against the charge that it is involved in a massive criminal conspiracy? There is something badly wrong about that, and I put it to the witnesses we need to reset the relationship between the SFPA and the industry. The SFPA has a very important job to do. The committee endorses that job, but this relationship has to be reset. The trust is just not there. The SFPA senior officials speaking today clearly do not trust the industry on the weighing of these devices. That is the core problem that has got us to this crisis: a lack of trust between the industry and the SFPA. I put it to the witnesses that the lack of proper engagement is the difficulty.

I will move on to my second question. The witnesses have outlined that the SFPA's responsibilities include official food safety controls. They will be aware there is a responsibility to ensure cold chain integrity for chilled or frozen foods. It is a profound responsibility at the core of the fishing industry. As for the authority's own legal framework, I will read out both Article 74.5 of the control regulation, that is, EC Regulation No. 1224/2009, and Article 98.4 of the implementing regulation, that is, EU Regulation No. 404/2011 because it is important they be read out. Article 74.5 states:

Officials shall conduct inspections in such manner as to cause the least disturbance or inconvenience to the vessel or transport vehicle and its activities, and [this is key] to the storing, processing and marketing of the catch. They shall, as far as possible, prevent any degradation of the catch during the inspection.

Article 98.4 states, "Inspections shall be carried out in a manner as to prevent to the extent possible any negative impact on the hygiene and quality of the fisheries products inspected."

There is serious concern in the industry that the SFPA has two responsibilities here as an authority. One responsibility it has, which we endorse, is the responsibility to make sure the fishing industry is catching what it says it is catching. We wish the SFPA well on that important job it is doing. I believe it is doing it at a level higher than any comparable authority in Europe. I am happy to be challenged on that. That is the first responsibility. However, the SFPA also has a responsibility relating to the quality of the produce, specifically, that it is not degraded in the inspection process.

I put it to the witnesses that what the European Commission has asked the SFPA to do as an authority in revoking this control plan impacts on the quality of the produce. It is not doable. The SFPA has also said in its submission that it does not have the ability to police every single harbour and pier. It could have put in place an annulment by 12 June. It could have annulled this. It is asked to do two things. It is asked to ensure the weighing and to ensure food safety. I put it to the witnesses that the revoking of this control plan makes the other one not doable. The SFPA needs to be honest as an authority and say that what the European Commission has asked of it is not possible, is not doable and should be revoked. The problem is that the SFPA will submit a control plan, it will take months and months, maybe even more than a year, which is two fishing seasons, and that is not sustainable for the industry. Surely to God there is straight talking to be done by the SFPA directly with the Commission, and indeed between the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Commission, to find a solution to this.

My final question is the following. I will not ask any more questions just now because it would be unfair to my colleagues. Do the witnesses agree that the relationship between the SFPA and the fishing industry has to be reset? The trust is not there on either side. That is the truth. It has to be reset, and that is what has led us to this crisis. Even though the SFPA is the strongest regulator of its kind in Europe, somehow it is being accused of not doing its job and of being weak. That is the substance of the leaks that have been made to the media, which I do not believe are true. I reject utterly any suggestion of a criminal conspiracy among our fishing industry. That is deeply unfair and damaging, and the industry has not even had a chance to defend itself.