Mr. Dominic Rihan:

Since I took up this job about a year and a bit ago, we have met the SFPA quite often to discuss various operational issues in terms of regulation coming down the tracks at us from Europe. Many of the meetings have been constructive. They are good dialogue and we get feedback. Those meetings have helped. They are important and have a value. However, it seems that the minute we walk out the room, the situation returns to where it was at a port and operational level. We have also had workshops with the SFPA. Again, they were on legislation coming down the tracks. The CCTV is one issue on which we have had engagement with the SFPA. They are robust sessions. They are useful to build bridges in that we can see where the authority is coming from and we can provide our view of what we see. Again, when legislation is coming down the tracks at us we have, at times, had a different interpretation of what that legislation says and what it is intended to do. So the two-way dialogue is important but we expect that the other side actually listens to what we say. I can point to the areas on the CCTV where the interpretation from an Irish perspective, compared with some of the other member states and the UK legislation that is coming down the tracks, is very punitive. Instead of looking at five or six cameras on board of fishing boats the SFPA want 20 cameras on board or to locate monitors and sensors all over, and whatever else. Again, they take a disproportionate interpretation of legislation. We are trying to build bridges. The dialogue is important and we welcome that engagement but there needs to be a two-way process. As I have said a few times, the consultative committee has a role but that role needs to be very much strengthened so that it has some teeth and some ability to effect change.