Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I will try to work through the answers on that.

We are the regulator. We implement policy. We enforce what is on the Statute Book. It is allowable for those, including the vessel the Senator named, to be here. There is a fleet of them. We see them as one homogenous entity but they all are different vessels, generally owned by Dutch multinationals. They fish in various waters, including the Irish EZ

We consistently hear the same message as the Senator hears, that these should be inspected and these pose particular risks. We agree. They should be inspected and they pose particular risks. We absolutely agree on that. There is no push-back whatsoever on that. We absolutely agree on that.

Our obligation is to have risk-based inspection frequencies which goes towards the question of what is our trigger. Our trigger is the risk of non-compliance. Where we perceive a risk of non-compliance, we are duty bound to act. We are duty bound to devote our resources to those areas where there may be a risk of non-compliance. We see particular risk with these vessels and we devote resource to these vessels. These are among a group of vessels that fish in the Irish EZ but almost never land in Irish ports.

Landing gives us, as controllers, a particular insight into what has been caught at sea, in particular, what has been retained on board. It is a good point at which to get a good idea of what actually is there. These vessels do not land and we do not have that particular window for these vessels. That is a particular issue for us. Because of that, we are setting up this coastal state unit to deal with the information we have as opposed to trying to pontificate about the information we do not have. We try to deal with the information we have and make the best of that to do the job that is before us.

The Senator was emphatically looking for cast-iron assurances of various things, one of which was the presence of officers on board. We arrange for inspections. We have a service level agreement with both the Naval Service and the Air Corps. An inspection involves a discrete event of going on board, verifying what is on board and then coming off. It does not involve staying on. The European control regulation sets a general limit of four hours for an inspection and that is the framework under which we work. It would be abnormal for inspections to take any longer than that.

Deputy Martin Kenny asked more or less the same question - have we the power to place staff on board. Control observers are, within the European regulations, a matter for the flag state, not the coastal state per se. As a coastal state, our role is one of inspections which is discrete - a sort of event where, one might say, it is happening now and now it is stopped. That should directly answer the direct question on that.

In 2016, we carried out 13 inspections of these vessels. In 2017 to date, we have carried out 15 inspections of these vessels. Those are the raw numbers of inspections to date for those vessels.

Deputy Martin Kenny mentioned the mincing of fish. One of the prohibitions for all vessels, including these vessels, is the prohibition to have infrastructure on board that would allow the return of fish to sea post grading. That would include whether or not they are minced. Mincing is not something we see on these vessels. There was one highly publicised scientific trial which was mentioned in the media quite frequently. That was - I do not have a date in my head - roughly towards the middle of 2015, when there was one vessel in the Irish EZ conducting a mincing trial. That is not what we find on board these vessels. Any return of graded fish to sea would be an offence with which we certainly would deal. What we find in our inspections is that is not the norm. I think that answers the questions that were asked.