Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We all start from the vantage point that Ms Loughnane outlined earlier - we all value the industry and want to see a sustainable industry. That is built into the thinking of all of us who have an interest in the sustainability of the industry, including processors, fishers and those with other vantage points. I am trying to understand the dynamics in respect of the consultative committee. I understand Mr. Hayes attended the meeting on 4 March. Would there have been an opportunity at that meeting to further discuss the issues around the notice to weigh on landing? I do not have a masters degree in fisheries policy, and I am not being facetious when I say that. Many of us are on a steep learning curve. If there is a consultative committee, you would hope the culture of that committee would be such that you would all move together in lockstep and the consultative committee would be the mechanism through which you would work through or triage all of these issues. The perception I have is that the industry feels it is on the back foot now. This is the perception, rightly or wrongly. It feels it is being put upon. As a layman in this respect, I fail to understand why the industry would have ownership of a device that is the subject of a regulatory process. I ask Mr. Hayes to forgive me if it is a stupid question, but I am not afraid to ask a stupid question. Why would it be the industry? If you are regulating the industry, why would the industry own the device or the machine?

Mr. Hayes outlined options for us. I am still trying to understand fully the differences between options 1 and 2. I have been doing some searching and made some notes. Is there are a danger on option 1 that you are asking an operator to make a false declaration of their landings? Water will potentially be recorded as fish and not as water. I am operating from the notes I was jotting down and I could be wrong. I ask Mr. Hayes to forgive me if I am way off the mark. On option 2, it seems to me - again, I could be wrong so he can disavow me of my ignorance if necessary - that the operator can drain as much water from the fish he or she chooses but only 2% of the final weight can get recorded as water. Am I understanding that correctly? Does this not run contrary to the whole issue of sustainability and preserving the fish? If only 2% of the final weight can be recorded as water, what permutation does that have for the quality of the fish in situ while the fish are going through this process? We are in Kafkaesque territory if we have reached a point on this lovely island of ours where we are talking about such options. I really want to understand option 2, in particular. I am worried that under option 2, the quality of the fish could become severely diminished. The sustainability question then comes in. The quality question also comes in, as does the value question that we are all concerned about. Mr. Hayes does not have to tell me I am ignorant if it is an ignorant question, but he can educate me. I am happy to be educated.