Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 29 June 2021

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Fishing Industry: Discussion (Resumed)

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to welcome to the meeting the following representatives of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, Dr. Susan Steele, chair of the authority, Mr. Andrew Kinneen, authority member, and Mr. Micheál O'Mahony, chief scientific officer, who all appearing remotely. You are all very welcome to the meeting this morning. We received your opening statement and it has already been circulated to members. We are limited on time due to Covid-19 safety restrictions. The committee has agreed that the opening statement will be taken as read so that we can use the full session for questions and answers. All opening statements are published on the Oireachtas website, and publicly available.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Participants in the committee meeting who are in locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating from within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether or the extent to which participation is covered by the absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

I now invite questions from members. Deputy Collins was first to indicate.

Photo of Michael CollinsMichael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for creating a slot so that we could bring in the SFPA this morning. This is something I have called for since it previously attended the committee and I welcome our witnesses. There is a crisis in the fishing industry which has been going on for quite some time. In the past 12 months, in particular, we have stumbled from one crisis to another, leading to what we have seen in Cork and Dublin, that is, peaceful protests, but great anger.

There is a very strong belief within the fishing industry that the SFPA and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are not fit for purpose, and we must, as a committee, try to bridge that gap between the industry and the SFPA and others. There needs to be a rebuilding of relationships and the only way that this is possible is if we try to have monthly meetings with the SFPA to iron out issues that need to be ironed out.

The attempted ramming - I accept this is not what this session is about - of a vessel off the coast at Castletownbere, by a Spanish-registered vessel which was illegally fishing in our waters, raises the question as to why it took so long to get a Naval Service ship to the rescue of the fishing crew from Castletownbere. Why did it take so long to arrest the skipper? What are the procedures when an Irish boat is attacked in its own waters? Why is there no protection for Irish fishermen? If it was the other way around and if an Irish boat had acted in the way this Spanish one had, the feeling out there is that there would have been much swifter action. Why do Irish fishermen feel abandoned?

I have quite a lot of questions, but I respect that I have only so much time because other members need to get in. I will ask questions and perhaps the SFPA will be able to answer a number of them. Maybe I will get in again later, but if not I will write to the SFPA and submit questions to it.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Collins, you will have the time to ask your questions, because we have a two-hour session, which is time enough to get questions answered.

Photo of Michael CollinsMichael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When you hear how many questions I have, you might be in shock.

I will go through as many as I can and maybe I will come back in later so as to give other members a chance. On the weighing crisis, the SFPA submitted a draft new control plan in December 2020 and again in 2021 further information was submitted. This was four or five months before any control plan was revoked. Was that the case? What was going on here? The SFPA did this without consulting the industry. It never told the industry why. In its evidence the last time it appeared before the committee, the SFPA said it consulted continuously with the industry. I can not understand why the SFPA did not give some indication that there was a problem and start working towards a solution.

Did the SFPA inform the Minister at this time? Did it share a copy of this plan with anybody, a group or a Department official? Did the SFPA inform the Department? Why did the SFPA consider it necessary to submit this draft control plan? There is no evidence that anyone asked it to do it. Has the SFPA shared this draft control plan with the industry, since it has become public knowledge just four weeks ago?

When did the SFPA get the initial reply back from the European Commission following it completing the 2019 administrative inquiry? Was any of that correspondence shared with the Minister or the Department? Why did the SFPA confirm the findings of the 2018 audit with the European Union to the administrative inquiry especially when, at that time and since then, the details or contents of these investigations have still not been shared with the industry? The Commissioner stated the SFPA confirmed the findings of the audit reference to the letter of 13 April, informing it that the control plan is revoked. It stated the SFPA confirmed the findings. Was that wise?

Does the SFPA think it is fair that sanctions are imposed on the entire fishing industry and yet not one fisherman has seen any evidence or any information that has been compiled by the 2018 audit or the 2019 administrative inquiry, which the SFPA carried out? Why withhold evidence and yet proceed to punish an entire sector? Has the SFPA written to the European Union seeking the information to be shared with the fishing industry? Did the SFPA share a copy of this 2018 audit with an NGO such as BirdWatch Ireland, or other such organisations? Where are the details regarding the contents of the 2018 audit coming from? Is there an internal discipline problem in the SFPA? Internal leaks are out of control.

The last time the SFPA was before the Oireachtas committee it stated that the decision to revoke the plan came as a shock to the SFPA. How credible is that statement now, if four months earlier it was submitting a draft control plan to the European Commission? Has the SFPA made a blunder on the basis of the information it shared with the European Union as part of the 2019 administrative inquiry?

Record-keeping in the SFPA, according to the 2020 PwC report, is poor, or non-existent. Did the SFPA make the Minister aware of any correspondence in the run-up to April 2021? Does the SFPA accept that this is sharp practice, first, not advising that it submitted a plan and, second, leading us to believe that the decision to revoke the control plan was a shock, while all the time the SFPA was exchanging plans and correspondence with the European Union for months in advance of that.

Does the SFPA accept that submitting a control plan is in fact a matter for the Minister? Does the SFPA accept that it is the Minister who submits the plan to the European Union as per statutory position? Since the revoking of the plan on 13 April 2021, the official at European Union level dealing with Irish queries was not available, being either on leave, or having left, or so the SFPA informed the industry last week. How long was the position vacant? While it was vacant, who was the SFPA liaising with, and since when? Why has it taken 77 days, or two months and 16 days, to get to a position where finally it is accepted that a control plan is being submitted for all fisheries, shellfish, whitefish and pelagic fish? When will this plan find its way to the European Commission?

Realistically, we need to be fair and open here. Ireland could be without a control plan for another six to 13 months. That has the potential to take in two landing seasons. Does the SFPA realise the chaos this will cause? Submitting the new control plan to Brussels does not fix it for fishermen, because they still have to operate the weighing piers until such time as the submitted control plan is accepted by the EU and every coastal state. That could take months. Has the SFPA submitted an interim plan to allow the weighing in factories? It was able to submit a draft plan earlier without advising anyone. Has the SFPA addressed the crisis of having no plan at European level? If not, this madness will continue for months, leading to the destruction of the Irish fishing industry.

We do not accept that the SFPA cannot do this. If the SFPA had appealed the original implementation decision on 13 April, it would have acted to save the industry. It would have negotiated the position for Irish fishermen. That decision, of 13 April 2021, should have been appealed. It was a savage attack on the Irish fishing industry by the EU. It was blunt and draconian. It nailed every sector of the Irish fishing industry.

The SFPA and the Government have an opportunity now, after all that has happened, to rebuild a relationship with the industry and put in place measures to allow the fishing industry to restore normality in fish processing, by making a case for restoring weighing in factories before the delay in getting the plan adopted by the EU. Reason needs to prevail. Weighing whitefish and shellfish in the open air is not practical or sensible.

On 4 June 2021, the SFPA lost a case in the High Court, taken by the industry for the right to use a weighing machine at the pier in Killybegs. The industry paid for this device. Costs were awarded against the SFPA. That has a potential cost to the State of about €500,000 to €600,000. Why was the case allowed to go ahead? Mr. Justice Simons found that the SFPA acted unlawfully. That is a damning judgment against the SFPA. Is the SFPA going to have an internal examination on this issue? Does the SFPA believe, that as Ireland's chosen, competent authority, responsible both for the implementation of the European Common Fisheries Policy and the regulation of sea fisheries and seafood production, it is able to carry out its duties as the competent authority to protect the quality of seafood and to ensure it is fit for human consumption by providing a health certificate for seafood? Would the SFPA agree that the current practice of weighing fish on the pier degrades the quality of fish?

Thank you, Chairman, for your patience.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Steele, a very comprehensive list of questions have been asked. If you do not have answers to all of them, I fully understand, but you can get back to the committee in writing. However, I am going to give you the opportunity to answer questions raised by Deputy Collins.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I thank the Chair. I think I have notes on all of the questions apart from the fourteenth question. I thank Deputy Collins for the invitation to come back so quickly. I am aware of the issues in the fishing industry. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee and address some of the questions. Deputy Collins mentioned that he was going to write to the SFPA. The SFPA would like to extend an invitation to him, as we are based in Clonakilty not far from the Deputy. He will always be welcome. We prioritise meetings with Members of the Oireachtas and the fishing industry. We are very happy to attend those meetings.

If I miss questions, I apologise. We will come back to the Deputy in writing. We are happy to go through a number of the questions. Starting with the control plan, and the draft control plan, when the SFPA was responding to the 2018 and the following on administrative inquiry, as part of that work there were draft control plans. They were for discussion with the Commission rather than a control plan that was being submitted.

One question was about how a control plan is submitted. The key thing is that the control plan is submitted through the SFPA. We have discussed this, and this was what happened previously in 2012. It is absolutely essential for Ireland that we have a new control plan. Following the revocation of the control plan, the SFPA prioritised working with the industry to bring into compliance its situation of weighing at landing and then working on control plan submission.

Initially the SFPA drafted and went for public consultation, which ended on 18 June 2021, for a control plan that covered all demersal landings and excluded pelagic landings. The decision to consult without pelagic landings was undertaken, as they are the risk scenario singled out for enhanced controls with the Commission implementing regulation. The intention was to submit the control plan in order to deal with the current issues which are being experienced by the demersal fishers with weighing prior to transport. However, following the consultation process and consideration of the submissions to the consultation process, the authority decided that the greater than ten-tonne boat pelagic landings will be included in the control plan.

The SFPA is prioritising the development of a revised plan that acknowledges the specific risks that have been identified and led to the Commission's decision to revoke the previous plan and provide enhanced controls. This will not be fast, however. The commission and the Ireland desk are going to work with us on the reviews, and we will be working closely with them to ensure the plan provides the assurances they require to minimise the risk of systematic manipulation of weighing pelagic catches in Ireland, and under-declaration of catches by operators that are highlighted in the decision to revoke the plan.

The SFPA is prioritising this and aims for a submission as soon as possible. The Commission review time will be a minimum of ten weeks following the submission of the documents. As the Deputy said, the SFPA is looking at the pelagic fishery and the ongoing fisheries for the demersal without a control plan. There is a pelagic working group working with the SFPA to look at the practicalities going forward. That is in answer to the first question.

Regarding the administrative inquiry, and the questions on who was informed and with whom the information was shared, as the SFPA went to the administrative inquiry, the correspondence from the Commission was with Ireland, not with the SFPA. The Department and the Minister were aware of the status of the administrative inquiry. The responses to the administrative inquiry have also been sent to the Department.

We informed the industry in consultative committee and other meetings that we were meeting with them and there were significant concerns being raised as part of the administrative inquiry and of the audit. Those are in response to the Deputy's questions Nos. 1 to 5. With regard to the sharing of the audit and the audit findings, we have put it in our opening statement and said it the last time we were in front of the committee. We always have it formally on record we believe it would be of benefit for all EU member states' audits to be public. This happens in other areas in the Commission but not in the Directorate General, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG MARE. That is written into the opening statement and I reiterate it here. However, we will follow in with the Commission on this and the responses and the audit from the commission is its material so we will not be sharing it until the commission does.

Before I move on to other questions, I think I have taken Nos. 1 to 7 there, I am not sure if Mr. Kinneen or Mr. O'Mahony have anything they want to add in there.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. O'Mahony want to come in on that?

Mr. Andrew Kinneen:

I will, Chairman. Deputy Michael Collins has offered us a lot of questions there and we have taken note of them. I repeat the invitation to him and to other members of the committee. The committee will be aware that section 68 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 is explicit with regard to the duty the authority has to account for the performance of our functions to the committee. We are happy to engage with it at any time and any level to hear members' concerns or what they might wish to offer us on how we might do our job better. To reiterate that, there is a statutory basis for our relationship. We like to show the committee every respect in terms of our attendance here and we view it as a privilege to have an opportunity to put our position on different matters on the record. We are very happy to engage, just to confirm what Dr. Steele has been saying to the committee on that point.

There are a lot of issues of concern to the industry at the moment, many of which we are aware of through bilateral meetings with industry representatives. Deputy Michael Collins has mentioned the public and peaceful protest conducted by the industry to get public recognition for the many pressures it has. Some of them are wider than our remit but very much part of that has been the industry's concerns coming out of the issues with the control plan, the absence of a control plan currently and having that in place. We are doing everything we can in terms of having a credible - and it is very important it is credible - control plan to present to the Commission as quickly as possible. We have now established a channel for this work, whereby we can work bilaterally with the Commission on the development and improvement of the control plan without adversely affecting the other bilateral discussions taking place between Ireland and the Commission with regard to the administrative inquiry and the potential for the clawback of alleged under-declared landings and so on.

For the Deputy's information, it is not that we have endorsed the Commission's findings wholesale. We have taken issue with some of its conclusions and methodologies that apply to doing calculations of the quantity of under-declared fish. We have offered advice to our parent Department, and by that route to the Commission, on where we perceive there may be shortcomings in the reliance of the Commission on dipping data to extrapolate our potential alleged under-declaration of our landings. There have been certain issues that are a matter of fact. We have spoken to the committee about some of these in the past. These include the proven case of weighing systems being interfered with and that has been tested in a court of law and is a fact. Along with other matters, which are a matter of record, as well, we have, as we are required to do under Community law, co-operated with the Commission in providing it with the data it requested on the details of pelagic landings into Ireland over a six-year time period. We had no discretion in that matter. We felt it was in Ireland's interests overall to engage with Commission and provide that data, which is a matter of record anyway, on the landings and on the ancillary information our front-line officers would have gathered when attending those landings. It is not as if we put a rubber stamp on the Commission's view of Ireland or what its audits are. It is much more nuanced than that. We have always tried to ensure there is accurate information in place.

I support Dr. Steele's view that we are in a position where we are following. For the most part the correspondence from the Commission has been from the Commissioner to the Minister. We have not been at liberty to divulge that while matters are in process, particularly the discussions on estimated alleged under-declared fish. What we have done is offer every assistance both directly to the Commission and to our Minister to ensure they have the best technical information we can provide as to the reliability or otherwise of certain methodologies. We hope we have been honest brokers in this. We are not at liberty to divulge this into the public arena at this stage but we have offered opinion where we felt something needed to be corrected or where there needed to be counterbalancing information. We have done everything we can to make sure that has been the case. As I said, we have established a direct route with a Commission official and officials to work on the development of Ireland's control plan. There have discussions already with that individual and they have covered a wide range of issues that are of concern to the Commission at this stage and that would have to be attended to in our control plan, as we submit that to the Commission, so that it would be credible and be deemed worthy of consideration and approval. There are a wide range of issues there, such as the Commission wanting us - which was not entirely the case with the earlier control plan - to adopt a risk-management approach to how we resource and systemise our control in the major ports and so on.

I do not know if we are in a position to comment to the Deputy on the vacancy in the Commission except I can confirm that up to a certain point, when dealing with the audit and the administrative inquiry we were dealing with a particular Commission official. That official's tenure at the Commission came to an end. I cannot give the Deputy dates; I am not privy to the internal workings of the Commission. That individual's contract came to an end with the Commission and they have now been replaced with another individual and we are liaising directly with them to ensure we are dealing with matters as they are arising. I welcome and hear the Deputy's comment on rebuilding relationships. Part of that rebuilding is for us to offer what we sincerely believe to be true. In our meetings with the industry, its representatives have tried to be constructive and creative regarding solutions that might address the situation Ireland finds itself in with regard to the absence of a control plan. We have listened carefully to what they have been saying to us but we are somewhat at a loss in that there are no provisions in the Community legislation that we are aware of that provide for transitional arrangements, a quasi-control plan or whatever it might be.

It is an on-off switch in terms of the legislation that is there. There is either a control plan with sampling plans inside it that provides for the weighing of fish after transport or there is not. If there is no control plan in place, we will go back to the default position where all fish must be weighed before transport. We have tried to mitigate the effect that has had on the industry. We are very conscious of it thanks to the feedback we received during consultation and meetings we had with those working in the industry.

The effect on the industry is not universal. We are not saying there is no effect but it differs in different scenarios. For example, for landings into our major fishery harbours such as Castletownbere, Dingle, Rossaveal, Killybegs, Dunmore East and Howth, much of the weighing of fish is taking place as it did heretofore under the control plan insomuch that we have defined a footprint area of the harbour in which fish can be weighed. To give an example of what the practice might be, in Castletownbere much of the fish is being weighed in the weighing systems of the co-operative, which are hygienic, covered, proper and, in every way what people would desire to manage and handle fish of this quality.

As you move away from the major harbours, there is a greater impact on smaller operators. We concede that and have done a lot of work with these groups to see how we might help them. As part of that work, we looked at what equipment operators are using to weigh fish and engaged the expertise of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, to see how we might help them to get type-approved systems in place and so on. I emphasise to the Deputy that there is an effect on the practices of the industry. We have not come to the committee to claim that the de-icing and re-icing of fish is good for quality fish. We were before the committee previously and we dealt with that matter then too. We are trying to help the industry to deal with what has to be managed at the moment.

We would not like to leave the committee with the impression that members of the SFPA are attending every landing and standing over people to make them tip out their fish and so on. That is not the way we do business. In fact, we try to adopt a supportive and de-escalated approach, given the suddenness of these arrangements having to be put in place on foot of the Commission's decision to rescind Ireland's control plan. I will leave it there. I am sure we will come back to these matters as we speak to the committee.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wanted to move on to the next witness but Dr. Steele wants to come in.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I apologise to the Chair. I only dealt with questions Nos. 1 to 8 and a number of questions are outstanding. Mr. Kinneen has answered some of them but, if it is okay, there are a few more I will address.

Question No. 8 was about the administrative inquiry and whether it looks like we agreed with it due to the language used. I will state for the record that the agreement was reached through the information provided, which was substantial information to the Commission rather than an agreement by the organisation. It is a discussion we have had with industry many times but it is just to be aware that that is the language.

On the question of whether we shared the audit with any NGOs or were there any leaks, I assure members that the SFPA takes its data duties incredibly seriously. If we have leaks, we will look at them. As we also take our protected disclosures and the whistleblower Act seriously, the answer to that question is "No". There has been no sharing of the audit or breaching of any confidences by the SFPA.

On the decision to revoke the plan and how this was communicated, it is a matter of EU law and accepted within Irish policy that the ultimate decision maker allowing post-transport weighing is the Commission. EU law does not delegate that to member states. The Commission's powers are not qualified by consultation or advance notification obligations and, therefore, since the day of approval of the control plan the risk of its revocation has existed. The SFPA forewarned the sea-fisheries consultative committee that the derogation was at serious risk. The SFPA has also frequently emphasised to Irish operators the overall precariousness or, at least, the non-automatic nature of the derogation. In many of the audits by DG Mare since 2012, the risk of post-transport derogations facing jeopardy was made explicit. The potential for a post-transport weigh derogation has been clearly to the fore in all the SFPA cyclic discussions with the pelagic industry. On notifying the industry of the Commission's decision to revoke the control plan, we began consultations with the industry immediately following publication by the Commission of its decision. We ask Members of the Oireachtas to understand that, as a regulator, we operate within existing regulations and decisions and not in a speculative manner regarding them.

On question No. 12 about the PwC report, the SFPA is subject to periodic critical review under its code of governance, as are all State agencies. The SFPA carried out a comprehensive review of the organisation in 2019. It was the first review of its kind of the SFPA and it recognised the significant changes that have taken place since the establishment of the organisation in 2007 in terms of the expansion of our remit and scale. The SFPA has grown from an organisation with 77 people and a budget of less than €11 million in 2015 to a budget of €24.8 million and a current staff number of 155 in 2021. The PwC report and its recommendations provide a clear path for the changes required to ensure that the organisation can effectively and efficiently deliver on our remit. In order to work with that, we have set up an advisory board, which meets with the authority monthly. We have appointed a director of transformation who came before the committee at its last meeting to meet members. Significant progress has been made on many of the issues raised in the review.

There were a number of questions about the control plan, its submission and the desk vacancy in the EU. Mr. Kinneen has answered all those questions very well. Again, on the building of relationships with the industry and our ongoing discussions with those working in it, I assure the committee that meetings have taken place and working groups have been formed.

Another significant question related to the interim plan and whether we could submit a draft plan. Deputy Michael Collins explained his frustrations with it. To be very clear, we have no authority in EU or national law to derogate in any way or to put in place transitional arrangements. We are aware that we face criticism for this. We are a regulatory authority and are agents of the State who implement what is on the Statute Book. We have no way to derogate from this. As Mr. Kinneen explained, we have been working on putting in a description of where weighing on landing occurs. In some ports and piers, that has led to an easing of tensions and good working arrangements. We are also very conscious that there have been significant changes for some of the islands and rural ports.

We are working very hard to rebuild the relationship with industry and the Commission. The SFPA has to work hard to rebuild the relationship with the Commission following the audit findings, the administrative enquiry and concerns about pelagic weighing.

I have noted a final question. I apologise to Deputy Collins but there was quite a list.

As I offered, I am very happy to meet the Deputy at any point. We will go back over this and will communicate with the committee in writing if there is anything I have missed.

Regarding the High Court case, the SFPA is committed to implementing the decision of the court. As the regulator, we support the correct weighing of catches, regardless of where that takes place, where we can have confidence in the accuracy of the certified weighing systems being used and being mindful of learnings from past experience. The approval process has been worked through. What is involved has been communicated to the industry and we will be working through that as quickly as possible. Regarding the details of the case, the judgment is available for anybody to read. I will not go into the full detail of it because I am aware that other Deputies want to come in. I am not sure if there is anything else I have forgotten from that significant list of questions.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back to Deputy Michael Collins if time permits. I want to move on to other Deputies and Senators. I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will get a response from the authority to those questions. I will bring in Dr. Steele and then ask the Deputy to put his other questions or does he wish to finish putting his questions now?

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish my questions. My colleague had 20 questions and I have only asked one so far. I will be brief in my other questions.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair point. There are not many witnesses with us and I know this is a very important issue for certain counties. I am prepared to afford the members some latitude in asking their questions.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness, the Chairman has been more than fair. I will brief.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask Dr. Steele to answer the Deputy's first question and then I will come back to him.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I appreciate that.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I thank the Deputy for his consideration in going through our statement in detail. We put a lot of work into writing it and I appreciate the detail he has gone through. I also appreciate what he has expressed regarding the importance of the sustainability of the fishing industry and the importance of our role in that respect. Rather than argue back with the Deputy, I will look at the map forward and I will then ask Mr. Kinneen and Mr. O'Mahony if they want to come in.

There is a significant opportunity for us in the control plan and in the work we will do on it. We will have ongoing dialogue with the Commission and that will give us an opportunity to ensure that there is a level playing within Europe for operators in the country into which they land fish. As stated, that will be important. It is also important that we have accurate controls in terms of the weighing. For me, there is a huge opportunity in the control plan and the work we are doing on it. As mentioned, significant work has been done since the issues with the pelagic industry were first discovered to try to ensure there is better control. However, the Commission view is we need to do better. There is an opportunity in the control plan to do that. We will look at that. As I said, there is engagement and we welcome that the industry and the regulator want to work to ensure that we have good control. I will hand over to Mr. Kinneen and Mr. O'Mahony at this point as they may have more to add.

Mr. Andrew Kinneen:

To respond to Deputy Mac Lochlainn, I take the sincerity of his observations. I want to put on the record that we would not want to tar everybody with the same brush. We have challenges with some operators and we must be very vigilant and take every care to ensure they do not circumvent the legislation and, in effect, become unfair competition to those members of the industry who are doing their work lawfully and within the rules.

The Deputy expressed a difficulty in regard to the belt and braces approach in terms of protection of weighing machines. That is based on the good advice we get from the NSAI and other technical experts. In that case, we are protecting the weighing instrument from interference by an operator. In regard to the two flow scales that are on the equipment on the pier in Killybegs, we have been advised by the NSAI that they are state-of-the-art with regard to how boat fish can be weighed. Those same group of experts and our own independent research into this area tells us that good and all as those devices are - they are very good in that we can download example logs to see if there has been any tampering or unusual patterns in the way fish have been weighed - we have been advised that that machinery, even the best on the market, is still vulnerable to physical interference and if not properly set up can be vulnerable to offline interference by electronic Wi-Fi-type read-outs. I will give a specific example. We have been informed that the weighing instrument will weigh what it is being passed over it, but if you have the means to tamper or adjust the belt-feed of the fish being put on the machine that gives you a capacity to distort the capacity of the machine to weigh accurately over time. That is just one example. We have been also told that if you put physical obstacles or devices on the belt-feeder coming to the machine it would have a similar effect on the accurate weighing of it. Those are the two things of which we need to be vigilant.

With regard to CCTV, we very much appreciate that we can monitor these weighing scales with closed circuit television systems, but equally, and not with everybody but with some operators, we have had difficulty setting up those cameras such that they have sufficient viewing point of the weighing instrument, the meter recording the fish going over the weighing instrument and the portion of conveyer belt feeding the fish to the instrument. We have some work to do with the industry in that regard. I am heartened by representation we have received from the industry that it is happy to engage with us. We will be doing some of that work this week. On the question that everything is fixed and we are super vigilant and all over this, unfortunately Deputy we are not. It is the unlawful operators that are setting the challenge for us and creating the difficulties for other operators who are trying to do their work and work lawfully. It is a complex area. We will always try to exercise and meet our responsibilities proportionately and appropriately. We are in a process at the moment to try to re-establish where we should be in terms of monitoring the industry. All good regulation comes with co-operation. Where somebody does not to want to adhere to the law there is nothing much we can do. We are mindful of the level of engagement we need from the industry to make this a success.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. O'Mahony want to come in?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I am conscious of the answers the Deputy has already received and I thank him for the opportunity to respond. I recognise a great deal of what he has put on the table as thought processes I would have had 13 years ago when I commenced working with SFPA. This is not rocket science; it is weighing dead fish. Surely, that should be easy to do and easy enough to control but the reality is that it is not. That is not stretching the reality; it is a factual statement based upon a great deal of experience.

The Deputy mentioned CCTV and the potential for unannounced inspections by the SFPA or the NSAI. Each of those helps and each mitigates the risk but none, on its own or as part of an overall matrix, will sufficiently deter a concerted action by somebody who gets out of the bed in morning with the sole intent of landing undeclared fish. That is the reality. There is an element of trust involved and an element of us trying to find a balance of control versus commercial impediment. I know the Deputy will respond about the commercial impact of these controls, but we are trying to find a balance.

The Deputy mentioned CCTV. The CCTV views the read-out on the scale. The only thing - it is a useful thing, but let us be clear it is a limited thing - that can do is show that that read-out is created in zero. It most certainly does not give us the confidence that that read-out is correct. It gives us the confidence that the scales is turned on and clocking something of greater than zero. I am not belittling that; I am just delimiting it to what it is. It is that and no more. Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned the potential for unannounced inspections. We can do unannounced inspections but the reality is there is only one gateway into each of these plants and things can change. We have experiences of things being visibly changed rapidly as we walked into plants. There are controls in place. As I said, I would previously have held the view expressed by the Deputy that the totality of these add up to something that should be enough to assuage anyone's concerns. The reality is they do not. When the Commission digs it finds the potential for tampering is real. The instruments can be tampered with. Despite best attempts, there is more to do here yet.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for his contribution and the endorsement of the SFPA as the strongest regulator of fishing. It is not a matter of being either strong or weak but of being effective. I hope that in all our lifetimes we will never see any fish stock collapses. I say that for all of us in the coastal communities and throughout Ireland. The role we play is very important, so I thank the Deputy for the endorsement, although not necessarily as the strongest regulator.

The Deputy raised a couple of issues. The questions he asks were raised in the meeting we had with the industry. That is one of the reasons I asked Dr. O'Mahony to attend with us today. He is the chief scientific officer so he has looked at the detail of this. I will ask him to respond to the Deputy on that.

There is just one thing I wish to raise. Regarding a reset of the relationship with the industry, it is normal for the relationship between an industry and its regulator to be strained at times. The most important thing, however, is that we keep communication going. I assure Deputy Mac Lochlainn and the rest of the committee that we are prioritising that. As Mr. Kinneen said earlier, we are keeping very regular meetings going with producer organisations, industry working groups and any member of the industry who wants to meet with us. We have been prioritising that. It is about trust but, with regulation, and given that in the pelagic fisheries one landing can have a value of €500,000, it is also about having an assurance. As for the development of that assurance, we have put in place a number of measures but have not got it right yet. It is to be hoped that as the new control plan goes forward and as we deal with the Commission, we will get measures that are correct. There are lessons for everybody through this process.

I will hand over to Mr. O'Mahony to talk through the detailed legislative points Deputy Mac Lochlainn has inquired about. I am not sure whether Mr. Kinneen will want to come in after that.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I thank Dr. Steele and Deputy Mac Lochlainn. I will start somewhat narrowly on the very nub of the Deputy's question, then get a little broader and then circle back again. I will start by agreeing with him on the generality of the point he makes. We will not sit here and say the weighing of fish at landing, or SFPA controls of the weighing of fish at landing, are a step towards improving fish quality. That is simply not the case, to get that out straight away. The words "quality" and "safety" are put about. The Deputy spoke about the fisheries control regulation and quoted from Article 74 of the Council regulation and Article 98 of the implementing regulation. Fisheries control is what the SFPA does. Fish weighing, fish quality maintenance and fish safety maintenance are what the industry does. Our role is the official control.

Without being too philosophical about it, "quality" is one of those terms that means different things to different people but, ultimately, it is the sum of the good points about food and what we want in our food. That is what food quality is. It is what people are willing to pay for and what people want. One aspect of quality is freshness. It is one of the aspects people want. People want flavour, safety, ecological credentials and sustainability credentials. There are a lot of aspects of quality, but I think the focus here is on the freshness of fish. Quality is perhaps a continuum, with good, bad and middling. Safety is more of an absolute concept. Something is either safe or not safe. It cannot be a little safe, just as you cannot be a little pregnant. That is the philosophical point.

To get to the more direct point, the Deputy mentioned the control regulation.

It deals with those rare events that the SFPA is physically present to inspect. There is a much broader issue of having to weigh fish on the pier regardless of whether the SFPA is present. What fishermen do when we are present should be no different from what they do when we are not. Our presence should not meaningfully alter what is happening to those fish. The same thing should be happening to them regardless of whether we are present. As such, I do not accept the construct based on those control regulation articles that there is some kind of conflict or undoability. All of our controls do not have a positive impact on quality and everybody should be trying to work to minimise the impact of that. I will cite the example of food coming into Dublin Port today from third countries. Some of those shipments are opened and inspected. No one is saying that that is good for quality, yet it is a necessary part of the regime. The same applies to the fishery management system. Society has said that it wants to ensure that the quantity of fish that is landed is checked, so a requirement to have the fish weighed is put in place. No one is saying that is good for quality, but it is necessary from a fishery management perspective. As such, we do not accept the Deputy's construct of the control regulation somehow being in conflict with our role in quality and food safety.

Quality deteriorates from the point the fish is killed. From the point it dies, its immune system stops working and the quality of the fish deteriorates because the environment around it attacks it. Part of the skill, lore and craft of being a fisherman is to minimise that and make every step a minimising step. It is the same with weighing. Fishermen have to do many things with a fish - get it from the sea to the coast, from the landing point onto the truck and from the truck to the consumer. In all of those steps, they have to have an eye towards quality and safety, and every step within that should be a minimising step.

When we get there, we observe what the fishermen are doing. That is if we get there. We inspect approximately 20% of landings, depending on risk. There is a one in five chance of being inspected. When we get there, fishermen should not be doing anything differently. They should be weighing the fish regardless of whether we are there. The view that this has somehow changed with the revocation of the control plan is very difficult to accept; I do not accept it. In many ways, it would have been a greater intervention for us to arrive in a control plan era than in a non-control plan era. I can expand on that further if the Deputy wishes.

Ultimately, ensuring fish quality is the role of the fisherman. It is entirely possible to weigh fish with appropriate quality maintenance at landing. It is challenging - I am not saying it is easy or optimum, but it is possible. Our role would be to make the minimum possible intervention to comply with the Articles 74 and 98 requirements, which the Deputy read out verbatim, in order to minimise, insofar as is possible, any deleterious impact on the quality of the fish.

I will probably draw a breath at this point. I do not know whether the Deputy wishes to respond to any of the points I have made.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might move to the next questioner.

Photo of Tim LombardTim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. We are an hour and a quarter in this debate and it has been helpful. I acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Steele and her team to this meeting so far.

There are serious issues in the fishing industry. The weekend before last, I spent most of Saturday in Castletownbere and Union Hall. The following day, I was in Kinsale meeting fishermen. It is felt that there is a disconnect between the Department, the regulator and the industry. As has been mentioned at this meeting, that disconnect is a major issue. There will always be tensions between a regulator and an industry. That is the case in most industries. How to ensure that those tensions can be worked through in a proper forum is what I wish to discuss. I would like our guests' views on how there is no forum where the three sides sit down together and thrash out issues. Maybe a policy should be formulated, by this committee in particular, on how such a forum could work. There does not seem to have been a dialogue of any significant nature that has brought everyone together.

Regarding Mr. O'Mahony's view on food quality, he made a significant point about where a regulator steps in and what impact the regulator has on the quality of the fish. I am slightly concerned. All of us in the food chain have a responsibility to limit the damage done to food's quality from when it is harvested to when it is consumed. How we interact in that food chain is important. It is the interaction that the fishing industry is talking about. This is not about the 20% level, but what happens at that level, which the industry says is having a negative impact on the product's quality. From an agricultural point of view, it would be akin to requiring that, when milk is tested, it is at 3 oC instead of the 1 oC it is normally at when it goes into the bulk tank. We must determine how to formulate a plan that limits the damage done to quality. It is the damage done to quality from catch to consumption that we must discuss. We must see how we can engage the fishing industry to ensure it has confidence in how the regulator reacts at that stage.

Regarding the future control plan, what will be different compared with the previous plan? What will the major changes be? How will those affect matters, in particular the weighing on piers? What does the SFPA propose will be the key elements that ensure joined-up thinking between the Department, the regulator and the fishing industry in order that the plan is workable on the pierside?

Dr. Susan Steele:

The Senator mentioned tensions and issues. He was in Castletownbere, Union Hall and Kinsale. I am grateful for the solution-seeking view that he is bringing to us. We are open to having any meeting or dialogue. There is the consultative committee, which was set up under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act. It comprises the industry and consults with the SFPA. We have met the industry on these issues, but as part of the review, we are resetting that relationship as well. We are open to the Senator's suggestion in his first question because promoting compliance is a key part of the role of any regulator.

If it is okay, I will deal with the Senator's third question next before dealing with food quality issues. Regarding the proposed changes to the control plan, we placed the plan on the website for a consultative period. The control plan will involve post-transport weighing, which means it will be back to how it was before April. Weighing will be able to take place on premises when that control plan goes through, thereby removing weighing at landing. For us and the industry, the control plan is a very high priority. Following submissions from across the breadth of the industry, we will include pelagic fishing in it. The control plan will be key. We will need to work as quickly as we can, which will involve a series of meetings with the Commission. It has met us already and expressed its openness to working with Ireland on getting a good solution.

The first thing is to give an assurance that that is the way it is going forward.

In regard to the food quality questions, when we were before the committee the last time, we acknowledged the quality issues that were raised by the committee. To reiterate what Mr. O'Mahony said, both before and after the European Commission's decision the weighing of catches remains the responsibility of the industry and it is distinct from the SFPA’s landing inspection process in that it occurs whether or not we are present. All weighing of fish, wherever it occurs, whether it is on the pier or in the factory, has the potential to impact on cold chain and hygiene maintenance. Weighing in an exposed environment with small-scale equipment will require active attention by operators to manage such concerns. I know there has been significant engagement with the SFPA and we would like to express huge gratitude to the industry for that engagement, where the industry is looking at solutions. We wish to highlight the continued availability of sample weighing for fishery products and standardised boxes. For most whitefish, with some exceptions, this involves weighing relatively small sample numbers, leaving the vast majority of fish boxes fully iced and untouched other than to ensure allocation to traceable lots. It is an important part of our remit to ensure food business operators identify and manage responsibility for food safety risks, and this is a particular focus of our attention in our ongoing consultation with the industry following the revocation of the control plan.

On a point I should have mentioned earlier, when we submit the control plan, we will also be submitting a revised sampling plan. As part of that, one of the issues raised at the last meeting with this committee was in regard to monkfish, which was not in the previous sampling plan. It is our intention to look at sample weighing for monkfish, so there is opportunity in this as well.

I will hand over to Mr. Kinneen and Mr. O’Mahony, who may want to come in on some of those questions.

Mr. Andrew Kinneen:

I thank Senator Lombard. The Senator asked a very focused and fair question on what will be different in the new control plan. To preface the remarks I will offer, we have this channel opened up with the Commission and we will be having broad discussions on what the points of concern might be from its perspective in approving a resubmitted control plan from Ireland. Some of the areas of discussion are interesting. As Dr. Steele mentioned, we are going to look at the sampling plan and how that is geared, the number of boxes to be sampled and weighed, and so on, with a view to any possible reduction in those numbers to make sure Ireland's sampling scheme is in line with other member states. We had some encouraging preliminary discussions with the Commission on that earlier.

We will also have to look at joining up the dots on risk management of different fisheries and the landing and transport of fish into different port areas, and so on. That is a broad approach but there are principles that we are going to have to look at to make sure they can be adopted in terms of our control plan and the management of inspection resources.

Now that we are including the pelagic sector in the revised control plan for the Commission, we also have to consider the issues that arose in terms of the audit and the ongoing dialogue in the initial inquiry with the Commission on points of concern. As I said earlier in this meeting, we are encouraged by feedback we have had from the Irish Fish Producers Association, IFPA, in terms of the written submission it made to the SFPA as part of our consultation with the industry. It clearly indicated it is well disposed to looking at the measures we have in place and whether it needs them refined or improved, again, in a proportional way but in a way that will ensure we have a credible platform when we present the control plan.

We would tend not to look to radical changes to what we had heretofore. What we sent out to the Commission in the past was well considered and is probably not likely to be changed radically. What we submit will reflect best practice on what is available in terms of technological developments and practices in the industry, and other points of view the industry has very kindly offered us in terms of our consultation with it. Much of it will be familiar, some of it will be amended with a view to improvement and there will be a few new elements. We also hope there will be elements that will be less burdensome to the industry in terms of sampling and the way the sampling is carried out.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Lombard have further questions?

Photo of Tim LombardTim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am okay with the response on the control plan, which is significant.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important that we emphasise this reset of relationships. As an Oireachtas Member, I am conscious there are other interested parties out there, such as environmental NGOs and a range of people who are interested in the marine. I have been a spokesperson for my own party on fisheries and the marine for about a year and I have engaged extensively, including with the SFPA, to try to get the wider perspectives. I find the situation astonishing and I really want to reiterate this point. The SFPA has increased its budget, increased its staff and increased its capacity over the last number of years. It is not a story of weak regulations and a feckless industry in Ireland. It is actually a story of a very strong and well-resourced regulator and an industry that is the most regulated in Europe and the most compliant. There may well be individuals who are not meeting those standards, and that has to be accepted in all industries. However, I believe that as we speak in 2021, we have a very well-resourced and effective regulator - it is arguably the most effective and strongest regulator in Europe - and an industry that just wants to go out and fish and earn a living. We have got to a point where we need to reset that relationship.

I am going to say again that the recent episode dealt with in the High Court decision is a worrying sign in terms of that relationship between the SFPA and the industry. This is an example from Killybegs, and I can speak now that the court decision has been made. There was an attempt to find a workable arrangement on the weighing of fish. The judges decided that the approach of the State was outside the law, and a legal challenge was undertaken at considerable cost to the State. What was sought to be achieved was a weighing system that was acceptable to the SFPA and the European Commission that would minimise the impact on the quality of fish. It was a very noble objective but, sadly, at a point in time, the SFPA walked away from that process. Again, there is reflection for that organisation and its authority in what happened there.

The industry has to reflect too. I am going to say here that any fisherman around the coast would acknowledge that when there is no oversight and no law - this is the same across the world – and when nobody has eyes upon them, people will take shortcuts. However, I believe that what we have got to in our country right now, and we need to say this out loud, is a very well-resourced and strong regulator when compared to the industry.

I am told by fishermen that what they encounter when they come into Killybegs harbour, which is our major harbour, is unlike anything else in Europe in terms of oversight, regulation, accountability and systems. How is that story being misrepresented and not being told to the national media? How is it that a leaked report, to which the industry has not had a chance to respond or have sight of and that presents it as some sort of mass criminal enterprise, is given to the national media? This deeply untrue and unfair. We have a responsibility as Oireachtas Members, therefore, to stand over the important work the SFPA does but to also not allow our industry, which is heavily regulated and held to account, to be misrepresented in the way it has been.

Do the witnesses agree with my assessment? I do not think they have responded to my point. I believe the SFPA is the most effective and strong regulator in Europe and that our industry is the most regulated in Europe. Is that agreed? Can we get a response to that?

Dr. Susan Steele:

I thank the Deputy. I wish I could agree with him. The issues we have with the audit and the audit findings would say there are issues in the industry and in the regulator. The audit, unfortunately, does not support that argument for being the strongest regulator in Europe.

I would like to bring attention back to the resourcing of the organisation, which we mentioned at the outset. I will run over it again because it is one of the keys. The key areas are the actual roles of the SFPA. Our remit is the regulation of the commercial sea-fishing industry in compliance with the CFP. We also regulate official controls for food safety for all wild and farmed fish, including classification of wild and farmed mollusc areas, and approval of Irish food processing establishments. That is a significant amount of work as well.

We do food trade controls including catch and health certification of Irish fish exports and import controls; a role which has grown and expanded substantially due to Brexit. We also look at the control of compliance with marine environmentally protected areas and infrastructure provision to facilitate both fishermen and vessel operators' compliance with their obligations, including development and support of their on-board IT systems to facilitate their statutory declarations. We cover these significant remits, which have important potential impacts for fishing today and for future generations but also for the Ireland's reputation with regard to seafood safety and Ireland's trade.

I will use the language "Keeping the wheels on the bus" to describe how we went through the exit of the UK from Europe. I would actually argue that we are not a well-resourced regulator. We would be well-resourced if we had one of those roles. In the Killybegs office, we have 18 fisheries officers who work incredibly hard. The Deputy will be aware of the size of County Donegal, however. We welcome the fact that we are opening a new office in Greencastle but those 18 fisheries officers are carrying out vessel inspections in pelagic and demersal landings. They are carrying out all the food safety controls, all the mollusc sampling and sampling areas, all that import trade, for instance, catch and health certification of Irish fish exports, and then also doing the additional Brexit workload. They are looking at the marine protected areas and also working with the infrastructure provision for fisheries with regard to data and IT systems. We could act as a regulator in reducing what could be future risks for Ireland with the remit we have. We are grateful to the State for the resources as the remit has grown. I would not use the words "well-resourced" for us, however.

With regard to effectiveness, we have committed staff who carry out every aspect of the remit to the best of their abilities. It is not just pelagic landings they are dealing with. They are dealing with a huge number of different issues that can blow up at any time of day or night in different areas. I thank the Deputy for his words on the role of the SFPA. There is a perception that exists. With what we are looking after, however, and the value of the seafood industry we regulate and potential sustainability and reputational food safety damages that can occur, I would not necessarily say we are as strong or as resourced as we should be.

Regarding the industry, again, I am very grateful, which I said in my previous appearance before the committee. I have worked with the fishing industry and aquaculture industry for my entire career and in the vast majority of cases, there is significant compliance. Rogue operators or those who seek to get economic benefit from breaking the rules, however, damage every person who is in the industry. It is, therefore, important that we are resourced.

The Deputy raised questions about the judicial review. I am nervous about summarising it. I know he summarised some of it. It is a comprehensive review. A number of factors were taking part here. The SFPA was delaying approval while waiting for confirmation and clarification from the commission. That was at the grounds of it. We are working, of course, within what the courses recommended going forward. I hope I have addressed some of the items raised by the Deputy. I do not know if Mr. Kinneen wants to come in on some of the points.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one question. If the SFPA is not the most effective and strongest regulator in Europe then which is?

Dr. Susan Steele:

That is a good question. I am afraid I do not have the answer. Mr. O'Mahony might have the answer to that; I am not sure. I can see him raising his hand.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

We do not have the answer to that in the absence of the publication of commission audits of the regulators. We can benchmark ourselves fairly well in our food safety controls. Because those audits are published, I can look up the external audits of my French or Belgian counterparts in food safety. We do not have that in fisheries control, however. We repeatedly put on the record that we would support that ability to see where we are. We keep hearing people talk about level playing fields. In reality, some of those people are pointing at the lowest dip and lag in that playing field and telling us all to head down into that puddle and wallow around there. That is not what we want. We want the level playing field whereby fishers experience the same control regime wherever they land or wherever they fish in Europe. In the absence of publication of the audit reports, however, we cannot answer the Deputy's question. We would like to be able to answer his question but we cannot.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Michael Collins.

Photo of Michael CollinsMichael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief because other members want to come in. The sanctions have been imposed on the entire fishing fleet, yet not one fisherman has seen any evidence or shared any information that was compiled by the 2018 audit or the 2019 administrative inquiry, which the SFPA carried out. Why withhold evidence and yet proceed to punish the entire sector? A real dangerous situation is happening here. The SFPA said that it has not shared any copy with anybody outside of its own remit, as such, but then there are leaks all over the place. Nobody is accountable for leaks. Nobody is answerable for where the leaks emanate from and who is responsible. This is damaging good, hardworking, honest inshore pelagic fishermen, however, whether they be from Castletownbere, Union Hall, Schull, Wexford or Galway. Severe damage has been done.

The witnesses will also be aware that senior politicians have put on record, as have others who have fallen out the side doors, whether that is from the Department or wherever these leaks are coming from, that our fishermen are reputed in Europe - in the halls of the European Commission, Parliament and European Council - to be pure pirates who spend their entire working lives ripping off the CFP illegally. This is the perception being put out there with the leaks. This being the case, one might image that the European Commission reports would reflect this misinformation, disinformation and pure propaganda.

The witnesses will therefore be surprised to learn from the content of the latest research and working paper from the Commission on the EU sanctioning system, dated from January 2021, that Ireland hardly features at all. This paper makes it clear that Ireland hardly features at all on the offenders list. The truth is that Irish fishing boats are responsible for 0.8% of all European-wide offences against the Common Fisheries Policy. From the leaks that are coming out, which look as though they are orchestrated leaks, it would appear that the fishing industry is up to every sort of meddling. The reality is that the EU is saying that is absolutely not the case. In Ireland we are making it look as though it is an issue and a major crisis. What is wrong? Where did the leaks come from? Why and how did this happen? Is there any investigation going on within the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, within the Department or within the Minister's office as to how these leaks came about and why were they put out there to discredit the fishing industry? The industry has worked so hard to work within the regulations, which are crippling against the Irish fishers whether they are inshore or pelagic fishers. I would like someone along the line, it does not need to be the Minister, to launch an inquiry as to where these leaks came from and why we found out afterwards that as far as the European Union is concerned Ireland is at the bottom of the ladder with regard to rules being broken.

Mr. Andrew Kinneen:

I will offer a few comments that might be of assistance to Deputies Collins and Mac Lochlainn. Deputy Collins highlighted the issues arising out of reports leaked to the media or information coming to the media that is detrimental to the reputation of the industry and so on. The SFPA can certainly speak for itself and we engage with media, as we should as a public organisation, but we never leak confidential material. I can give that assurance directly to Deputy Collins and to the committee. That is not our trade and function. We try to respond to freedom of information requests, the information access requests and the press queries. We try to engage to the level that we can. We are not in the business of leaking or briefing on the basis of confidential information. I give Deputy Collins every assurance on that point.

With regard to the judicial review, there are concerns coming from the contributions at the committee that we have been less than careful with taxpayers' money when we engaged with this judicial review, and around a lack of proper procedures on our part. I will offer some background to the committee for the record. A member of the pelagic fishing industry wrote to the Commission to complain about the levels of checks and controls and the difficulties arising with regard to the weighing of fish on the pier. The response from the Commission to that individual in the industry - it was circulated to us, so I can talk to the committee about it - was to offer the view that privately owned or operated weighing equipment was not appropriate given where we were with the administrative inquiry, the audit and so on. This point was made by the Commission to a member of the industry. The industry did not challenge the Commission on that. The SFPA found itself in the invidious position where we were trying to assess weighing equipment to try to hopefully sustain Ireland's status of having a control plan with the Commission. Being in a very difficult position, we sought from the Commission on several occasions more detailed information on how it would take the view and substantiate it in European law. In the meantime the industry, as it is entitled to do, initiated one of two judicial reviews involving the SFPA, one in particular involving the weighing equipment on the pier.

In general terms I would agree with the Deputy's remarks on the quality of that initiative. Hopefully, we will get all of those matters sorted. We are not in a position to engage in the approval of that equipment, as might be required under the statutory instrument and as we are required to do with the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI.

As a result of the Commission's opinion, and we are waiting for that to be clarified, the judicial review proceedings were initiated. Mr. Justice Simons gave very clear consideration to the arguments offered by both sides and said that the SFPA was acting ultra viresin not going into an approval process on the basis of the Commission's opinion. We could not support the Commission's opinion of pointing to legal precedents. We have now had direction from the court. We are very mindful of the costs of those court proceedings. Again, that is not a matter of our choice. We engaged in those proceedings with every sincerity that we would work with the court, offer our affidavits and submissions and hear very clearly the outcome of the judicial review. We have given our assurances to the court that we would be following the judge's direction very clearly. We are not the author of any of this. We try to be bona fide actors in the process as matters go ahead.

This week we are in a position where we will be looking at a review of the equipment on the pier, in co-operation with the NSAI. We have also done thorough work on our own internal procedures and documentation of those procedures with regard to the management of applications, not just for this equipment but for weighing equipment in general. We have tried to learn from the experience in order for it to have a benefit for the taxpayer also.

I hope this helps to allay some of the Deputy's concerns with regard to the judicial review. It is a matter we did not take the initiative on but we certainly engaged fully once it arose and we are following the judge's direction very carefully at this stage.

Photo of Christopher O'SullivanChristopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise. I had to pop away from the meeting for a few minutes to do a radio interview and I may have missed some of the questions. I apologise if I repeat some of the questions. The witness may already have answered some of them.

I would like clarity on the control plan that is being submitted. Will this include the demersal and pelagic sectors? Is it a control plan for both?

There were many references in the opening statement to the weighing equipment and the methods of weighing fish in the factories by the sector. Will the witnesses talk me through the process and the equipment the SFPA, as the regulator, uses for the weighing of fish in order to do checks and so on? I would be interested to hear that.

One of the functions of the SFPA, as stated in the opening statement, is food safety controls. With the removal of and the absence of the control plan, and given the situation whereby the sector is being forced to weigh fish on the pier, in this interim period can the SFPA guarantee the high quality and safety of our product, for which Ireland has become renowned? Where fish is being weighed on the pier can the SFPA give those guarantees?

My final point has already been touched on by some members but I have yet to hear a resolution, a solution or a proper answer. It is about the relationship between the SFPA and the sector itself. I have been a Deputy since February 2020, which is not that long I have been getting to know the industry and how everything works. In that short space of time, it has become very apparent to me that the relationship between the SFPA and the sector is at an all-time low. I mean rock bottom. There is no point in skirting around this and pretending it is not the case. I am not sure if the witnesses have seen any of the images of the peaceful protests in Cork and Dublin by the industry.

Some placards were visible at those protests, which referred to the SPFA. It demonstrates how the industry feels it has been let down by the SFPA.

It goes both ways, however. In the written submission we received from the SPFA, paragraph after paragraph related to fraudulent methods, methods by which in-factory weighing can be circumvented and the potential for fraud. Reference was made to the one proven case and to the other case in the courts. Yet, and I will double-check this, little or no reference was made to the overwhelming majority of those engaged in this industry being completely compliant. That sets a narrative and an attitude of us and them. It appears that way to me as someone trying to represent people and who is an onlooker, an outsider almost, and not involved with the SPFA or the sector itself. Would the witnesses agree that the relationship in this regard is at an all-time low and that something drastic must be done to mend it? I refer to healing wounds, opening dialogue, reaching out to the industry and starting afresh. The relationship now is fairly toxic and this is getting us nowhere. I would love a response to these questions, and particularly regarding that last point about the relationship between the SFPA and the industry.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I thank Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan for his questions. Some of these questions were touched on earlier. As it will not take long, I will go to some of them again. The first question asked concerned the control plan. The SFPA drafted and consulted on a control plan, and specifically excluded pelagic landings in this regard. We logically took that decision to consult without pelagic landing as they were the high-risk scenario singled out for the enhanced controls within the Commission implementing regulation. The intention was to submit a control plan to deal with the current issues that the demersal fishers are having. These issues have been raised in this committee regarding weighing prior to transport.

We went through a written consultation process and we also had several meetings with the representatives of the industry. The authority has now decided that pelagic boat landings greater than 10 tonnes will be included in the control plan, and we are prioritising the development of a revised plan. In that revised plan, we will acknowledge the specific risks which have been identified and that led to the Commission’s decision to revoke the previous plan and provide enhanced controls. This is not going to be an easy process but we have already engaged with the Commission and we will continue to engage with the Irish desk in the Commission to move the process forward. This will have a high priority and an internal team in the SFPA will be working on this process. The aim is to ensure that the plan provides the assurances the Commission requires and that the SFPA, as a regulator, requires to minimise the risk of systematic manipulation of weighed pelagic catches. We are aiming for a submission as soon as possible but the Commission review time will require ten weeks following submission of the documents. I hope that assists in providing some clarity on that point. We had one intention originally, but we have changed that following on from the consultation period. We have indicated that to the producer organisations and we are now indicating it to the committee.

Regarding the Deputy's second question on the processing and weighing of fish, it is important to state that the onus and responsibility is on the operator for the weighing of the fish. We put a great deal of work into the communication of this aspect. Again, if we have not dealt with questions on the website or if information is not available there, and in the same way as I responded to Deputy Michael Collins, we are not far away from Deputy Christopher O’Sullivan at all and we are happy to meet him at any stage. We are happy to sit down and go through the questions posed to him when he has been out in the ports and harbours and to provide clarification on anything he would like. We would be very happy to do that.

We have laid out the situation with the processing and weighing of fish as clearly as we can on the website. We have also taken questions which arose during meetings with representatives of the industry and posted relevant answers into a frequently asked questions, FAQ, section on the website. A huge amount of proactive work has also been done in the ports by the SFPA and the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI. We are very grateful to that organisation, which has been working with us as we are assisting the industry to come into compliance in this regard. The message we gave earlier was that the weighing is done on the sample weight. For most species, then, there is a sample weighing. Fishery products are weighed on landing in accordance with the sampling matrix. The figure resulting from the sample weighing on landing is used for the landing declaration, transport documents, sales notes and take-over declaration. It is for-----

Photo of Christopher O'SullivanChristopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry for interrupting but, very quickly, do the regulators have their own scales and equipment for weighing fish and checking and consolidating in that regard?

Dr. Susan Steele:

Yes, there are weighing scales. They are in the organisation. They are NSAI weighing scales. Regarding the context of fisheries control, however, the onus lies with the operator. However, we do have weighing scales at the same standard, obviously, as the NSAI-verified scales and approved scales with the industry. I hope I have answered the Deputy’s question. We do have scales available.

Two other questions were asked by the Deputy. Turning to the food safety controls, I will return to this point last and hand over to Mr. O'Mahony to respond. He gave a detailed answer in this regard earlier and he can recap on some of the key points for the Deputy. Regarding relationships with the SFPA, there is always tension between a regulator and an industry. However, it is important that dialogue is opened and a fresh start made. It is also very important for us to emphasise that we are very grateful to those who are compliant and who work within the rules. We are very happy to take on board any suggestions in this regard. We are proactively working with the consultative committee. We have had an internal review and the director of transformation, Olive Loughnane, is working with the consultative committee to examine how we can improve existing relationships. My undertaking today is to state that we are always happy to meet with representatives of the industry and to meet the Deputy. We want to open dialogue. We believe strongly in our role in promoting compliance and in working with the industry in that regard. Returning, then, to the Deputy's question about food safety controls, and because Mr. O'Mahony gave a good answer earlier on this subject, I will hand over to him now.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

The direct question asked by Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan concerned whether we can guarantee the quality of product. It is a matter of statute that fish should be weighed. It is also a matter of fact that fish weighing has the potential to have a negative impact on quality. Another fact is that the only wing of the State which recognises this reality to the extent of writing a control plan to get away from weighing on landing is the SFPA. Therefore, our recognition in this regard is manifested in the authority having worked on a control plan in 2011 to ensure that the norm for fish weighing would be in the sheltered environment of a processing establishment. Therefore, we accept the central contention of the Deputy’s point and that acceptance has been manifested in our actions. It is not a silent or empty promise, but a real testament to what we have done in this regard.

The Deputy also asked about guarantees. It is not our role to guarantee fish quality. It is the fishermen’s role to weigh the fish, and when they are weighing the fish, they should also have an eye to quality to ensure that they do that weighing as quickly as possible to maintain the cold chain and to do it as accurately as possible to obtain the best possible accuracy from that weighing.

That is not an insignificant challenge and we acknowledge that it is more difficult at landing. However, it is possible at landing if due regard and attention are given to the detail or the balance of maintaining the cold chain, maintaining hygiene and getting an accurate fish weight.

All interventions have the potential to impact on quality and weighing is among those. Senator Lombard drew an analogy earlier with dairy production, which resonated with me. It is the same thing. Fish come out of the water at 12°C or 15°C and milk comes out of a cow at 37°C. From that point forward the producer, either a fisherman or a dairy farmer, is trying to get it cold and keep it moving. There are things we do to food that are not necessarily the best thing for quality and not everything we do to food passes the test of being a good thing for quality. The SFPA does not have the luxury of picking what is not optimal from a quality perspective and choosing not to implement those measures. We are agents of the State and creatures of statute so we are obliged to implement what is on the statutes, which require fish weighing. There have been repeated calls for an interim arrangement or something like that but we do not have that luxury or power. It has not been delegated to us or to anybody in Ireland. It is neither ours to give nor to withhold. I hope that is a useful answer to both members.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. O'Mahony. We are after having an extensive question and answer session and a number of issues were dealt with comprehensively. This is a hugely important issue for the fishing industry as we saw with the huge turnout at the protest in Dublin last week. On behalf of the committee, I thank the representatives of the SFPA for coming in again and providing clarity on issues raised by the members of the committee. Hopefully an amicable solution to this can be found and that we will not have to revisit the issue.

I propose that we suspend until 3.30 p.m., when the joint committee will meet to discuss the collection and recycling of farm plastics. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 11.33 a.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.