Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Deputies Mac Lochlainn. I presume the weather is a factor. Deputy McGuinness, the committee Chair, will be replaced by Deputy Fintan Ó Súilleabháin, who is substituting. Deputy Whitmore is online with us.

Before we begin, I want to bring to witnesses' attention the issue of privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by the witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from these proceedings.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney, who is online, will be accompanied by Ms Mary Bertelsen, supporter and adviser, Mr. Jakob Pinkster, naval architect, and Mr. Justin Delaney, naval architect, who is online. We are also joined in the Public Gallery by Mr. Christopher Gaffney.

At the outset of the meeting, I wish to advise members of limitations of this committee's remit. Oireachtas committees do not have an adjudicative function and are not empowered to make findings of fact, cannot intervene in individual legal cases and claims, cannot encroach on functions of the courts and cannot examine matters more appropriately dealt with by another State body.

The committee is considering the issues raised in the case of Mary Kate WD-30, solely in relation to its implications on wider public policy and public interest issues that it raises. This applies to both parts of today's split-session meeting.

The committee cannot endorse individual claims. Nothing may prevent members from asking questions about the case. The witnesses' opening statements have been forwarded to the members. I will allow five minutes to read the opening statement or two minutes to give a brief synopsis of same. We will then proceed to questions and answers. I call the first witness, Mr. Gaffney, to make the case.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak today. My family has been involved in fishing over many generations, and my father recently received an award for 60 years’ service to Arklow lifeboat. My brother is currently carrying on this tradition, which also goes back many generations. On 2 July 2007 we purchased the German fishing vessel Evert Jan SC-30. The vessel was Dutch designed, built and owned, but registered under the German flag. The vessel was still fishing and had up-to-date German paperwork, with all copies of her two-year interval German surveys and sailing permits. The stability book was stamped and approved by Germanischer Lloyd classification society and the German marine survey office. All this paperwork was accepted and approved by the Marine Survey Office, and she was accepted onto the Irish registry as Mary Kate WD-30.

From the outset we did not have a safe feeling in the vessel, something we never experienced in our older, former beam trawler. We nearly capsized on a couple of occasions. We notified the Marine Survey Office and agreed that the vessel should be stability tested as soon as possible. On 26 May 2009, we carried out our first stability test which was done by our naval architect and witnessed by the Marine Survey Office. The results were devastating but not surprising. On 2 October 2009 we had a meeting with our solicitor and our insurance company. It was confirmed that we were not insured for a design mistake or latent defect. After many stability tests and surveys by many experts in their field, they have all arrived at the same conclusion that the vessel was highly dangerous from day one and could never have passed her EU or German stability criteria and should never have been certified by Germanischer Lloyd or the German marine survey office.

As the committee can appreciate, our case is a huge maritime safety issue. It should not have been left for us to fight alone. We have accumulated a mountain of evidence, and the Departments of the marine and Transport should finally take ownership of this serious safety issue. The vessel cost us a considerable amount to purchase and licence. Once it was discovered that our vessel was unseaworthy, we were left with two options. One was to scrap the vessel and the other was to lengthen her by 5.85 m, a massive increase of over 20% of her original length, which we did as the only sensible option left to us. After she was lengthened and fixed, several buyers from the UK were extremely interested in buying her as she was now a fabulous boat in fantastic condition but the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the UK equivalent of the MSO, would under no circumstances allow the vessel to be imported. We had to voluntarily surrender the vessel and licence to the bank which resulted in a forced fire sale, and even after the sale we still owe the bank a massive amount. At that time, we were also close to losing our family homes.

We were told that we are time barred in Holland and time barred in Germany, which stopped us taking a case against Germanischer Lloyd and the German marine survey office. In January 2011, we travelled to Brussels to give a presentation to the Directorate-General for maritime affairs. All in attendance were visibly shocked at the content of our presentation, which was backed up by impartial professional evidence that the Mary Kate contained 20 tonnes of unaccounted steel from new build. We also gave evidence of a second German sister vessel with the same stability failures. The directorate undertook to advise the EU countries where the sister vessels to the Mary Kate were registered. The European maritime directorate said it could not compensate an individual as it can only deal with countries, but that Ireland could compensate us out of the European fisheries fund. If the allocation was already used, they could submit our case and because of its unique circumstances, it would be approved. We pursued this possibility at every level and with letters of support from MEPs and TDs, but again, our request was shot down by the Departments of the marine and Transport.

In 2014, we commenced legal proceedings in the Irish High Court against the German marine survey office and Germanischer Lloyd, to get jurisdiction for the case to be held in Ireland. It took until 12 November 2015 for a ruling that Ireland did not have jurisdiction and, in the judge's opinion, we should take a case either in Germany or Holland, which was impossible.

The EU wrote to Seán Kelly MEP:

In terms of addressing the loss Mr Gaffney has suffered, on a previous occasion the possibility was outlined that the case might be addressed through the European Fisheries Fund, but this was a decision for the Irish Authorities as they oversee the allocation for such funding. The Commission could not instruct them in this regard.

The Commission also had said this to us at our Brussels meeting in 2011, and if acted upon by Ireland, we would not have been put through this living hell for the last 17 years. Ireland has never made a submission. Seán Kelly MEP and nine other Irish MEPs wrote a joint letter to the Taoiseach and Minister with responsibility for the marine:

The Commission has made it clear on several occasions that Mr Gaffney’s case can be exceptionally addressed through the European Fund for Maritime and Fisheries. At this stage the matter has been unresolved for 15 years and it does not reflect well on the Government that this case remains when a clear remedy is available.

A previous Minister with responsibility for the marine told us that if they helped us, they would have to help everyone and it would open the floodgates. Ours is the only Irish case like this; it is a totally unique one-off that should be treated as such. The Department of fisheries and current Minister referred to our case as a failed private commercial transaction. I have never missed any payments before this on any other vessels either. The case was caused by fraudulent official classification and government documentation. A failed private commercial transaction is buying a restaurant but getting no bookings, nothing remotely like the above. As the committee can see, this case has many similarities to the mica saga, and has equally caused as much devastation and hurt, also through no fault of our own. From the very first day we have been treated abysmally by the Departments of the marine and Transport despite the fact that the EU has no objection to funding being used to compensate us for our loss.

We have lost our livelihoods, career, way of life, all savings, our substantial family investment along with our family's heritage. Our mental health has and continues to suffer, and personal relationships have been severed beyond repair. The never-ending stress and worry are something I would not wish on anybody and it is a real struggle to carry on and impossible to turn off, with this nightmare constantly on our minds. I was a successful fisherman, providing for my family and creating local employment, with a real sense of pride and achievement, having climbed the ladder from being an apprentice deckhand at 15 years old, to owning and skippering a state-of-the-art vessel by 37, which took huge sacrifices and hard work to achieve. In the blink of an eye, this all changed, and I was left with nothing, and thrust into an alien world I knew nothing about. With no income and with the social welfare office stating I was not entitled to anything, I had to live off savings and rely on family handouts. I was instructed by our bank to visit the vessel daily to keep its machinery running and in good working order and keep a log. This went on for years. I also had to deal with the bank, surveyors, naval architects, councillors, TDs, MEPs, Ministers, Brussels, insurance, journalists, radio interviews, lawyers in Germany, Holland and Ireland, barristers, senior counsel, Marine Survey Office, shipyards and Government Departments, sometimes unbelievably all in the same week. It was overwhelming and I do not know how as a family we managed to cope. I would like you all to think about that for a minute, the stress, turmoil and mental fatigue, all while having been told we have zero rights, and all through no fault of our own.

There are no current EU directives to cover this size of vessel, such as customer protection or vessel safety.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Gaffney, I am very sorry to have to cut in. I did give you the extra four minutes and I realise you want to refer to the charter of human rights and also your request. We will give you that opportunity later. I will now give an opportunity to members to ask questions. The other witnesses who are here will be involved in the questions and answers. Do not worry, I will let you in to complete your presentation.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

No problem.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Gaffney for coming in today. It is a story I have kept my eye on for the last couple of years.

To see in his opening statement what his family went through and the whole hardship, my heart really goes out to him. This saga has been going on for the guts of 17 years now and cannot be sorted. At the end of the day, he started out as a fisherman and worked his whole way up. He bought a boat and thought everything was perfect. It is like going out to buy a car, you think everything is right.

Did Mr. Gaffney get surveys done on the boat before he left Germany?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Yes. She was brought to Holland and was surveyed twice by technical experts there. We also brought it to a shipyard. We discussed the stability of the vessel. They said the vessel was as original. As she was classified with Germanischer Lloyd and the German marine survey office, she had her two-year interval surveys. All the paperwork was up to date. Everything was 100% in order and there had been no issues with the vessel before that. We did everything possible with regard to surveys. We left no stone unturned.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even where I work in Killybegs, or used to work, the Lloyds of London stamp on a boat, train or anything was always recognised as the top or number one in the industry for doing stuff.

Is the company basically walking away from Mr. Gaffney?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Yes, everyone walked away from me. As the Senator said, that was the gold standard. If you cannot trust the classification, where do you start your engine.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Reefer boats would come into Killybegs. Everything had a Lloyds stamp and we would always treat it in Killybegs as the gold standard.

Was it when the witness was out fishing that he noticed the stability issue, or did he have a feeling from the start that there was something wrong?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

We went fishing. The Senator will know that, when you are getting used to a new vessel, she handles differently. We were not really sure. She just did not feel right. It was only when we got fast on the bottom or when the weather got really bad. You could go months and she would be fine, and then all of a sudden, something would happen and it would frighten the life out of you.

We got fast a couple of times and she leaned over. The water came up across the top of the rail and up on top of the hatch, and she was within seconds of capsizing, with the certain loss of life. That is when we notified the Marine Survey Office that there was something wrong.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How did the office interact with Mr. Gaffney? Did it try to help him? From reading his report, Mr. Gaffney did more surveys and then decided to lengthen the boat by 5 m. Did she react any better after that? The 20 tonnes mentioned in the opening statement seem to be causing the bother.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Yes, there are 20 tonnes. When the naval architects did the calculation, it was sitting above and below the decking in front of the wheelhouse. Of course, there is no weight there. The Marine Survey Office came and more or less told us to go back to it when she was fixed. It did not give us any help in between.

We then had meetings with the bank and naval architects, and the only option was to scrap the vessel, but she had cost €750,000 at that stage. The only viable option was to lengthen the vessel, so we did. Just when it was finished, the bank repossessed it and took our licence. She was sold in a fire sale.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is she operating now?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Yes. She went to Union Hall and was operating up to the last decommission, which was in New Ross.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In his opening statement, Mr. Gaffney said he had also identified two sister ships with the same problem. Did anything happen to them or are they allowed to fish away the way they are? I know it is not relevant to Mr. Gaffney. This is just for my own peace of mind.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Around the same time, a German sister ship, the Destiny, was tested and had identical stability issues. However, because he saw where we were with the courts and where we were getting with the EU, he went straight away to lengthen the vessel and went back to fishing. It took us over a year to get the bank to know what we were doing and it took a year for the Marine Survey Office to give us permission, so ours went down the road by years and years, not by our own fault, but the German guy went fishing straight away.

There was also another German sister ship, a third one, which was lengthened because it had the same stability issues, but we have no paperwork for it. As recently as 2024, Mr. Delaney and Mr. Pinkster notified the Netherlands shipping inspectorate of another sister ship they believed was wrong in Holland. It was also tested in Holland last year or two years ago and was found to have the same stability issues as the Mary Kate.

We can prove three cases, but really there are four sisters that mirror each other.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Gaffney keeps going back to Holland. It seems they are the competent people who sign off when you are buying a boat, that it is A1 and everything is right and you should proceed. The witness took their word that everything was right when he was buying this boat. As he said, it was over €1 million and that is a lot of money. Surely, when they sign off on it, they, rather than Mr. Gaffney, are the ones who should be culpable and fit to pay the piper.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

When we bought the vessel, we went through an agency that sells the boats to Ireland, so there were a lot of experts involved. We tried to go after all of them through Holland but, with the vessel being time-barred and everything, there was no legal option. Also, because the paperwork was all there and the vessel was signed off by Germanischer Lloyd and the German marine survey office, they took the paperwork for what it should be. The Marine Survey Office also accepted that paperwork. Really, no one was at fault except the Germans in the first place for certifying it and Germanischer Lloyd. It all goes back to them. The vessel should have also had a ten-year stability test in Germany. We thought it did because that was the law but it ended up that she had not. We went on all the paperwork because it was still sailing. It had an interval every two years and was tested. We had all the paperwork, it was hundreds of pages on the vessel, and everything was A-okay until we found the problem ourselves.

The sister ships were the same. Everyone was codded by the original paperwork.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So, it really comes back to the German marine survey office, which has a lot to answer for here.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Yes, 100%. As the Senator knows, it always goes back to the flag state which is ultimately responsible for the vessel, and that was Germany.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any legal option for Mr. Gaffney that he has not tried yet?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

No. We are time-barred. We tried to go to Holland and to Germany. We went in Ireland and the judge ruled Ireland did not have jurisdiction and told us to go back to Germany and Holland, which we could not. The judge also awarded substantial costs against us on top of that.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was another hit Mr. Gaffney had to take. Did the witness get any help at all from any of the Departments here?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

No. It was the Leas-Chathaoirleach who got us to Europe and to that meeting. They were really shocked and offered compensation through the fisheries fund. They said they could not do it because they could only deal with countries, but Ireland could. However, Ireland has never made that submission. As the vessel was under 24 m, it did not come under EU rule but, rather, national rule. They could not do anything about it, although though they told Ireland this and Ireland did not do anything.

However, they did write to Germany, Holland and England at the time to warn them of sister vessels. They also wrote to Germanischer Lloyd. The only thing the Marine Survey Office did, after two years of knowing about this, was eventually write to the committee on safe seas, warning it of what happened to the Mary Kate. That was only after my solicitor told me to tell them if they did not notify them, and if any of the other sister vessels were lost, the Marine Survey Office and Ireland would be held liable for withholding the information.

It took over two years for them to notify anyone else.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My God.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do any other members wish to speak?

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am from Arklow and I know the Gaffney family for almost 30 years. What is happening is absolutely shocking. They have been very harshly treated. They do deserve their day. They have got so much advice now on exactly what to do, but they need support from us in the Government at this stage. They have been pushed from Europe back to Ireland and it seems that there is no end to what is going on. It has obviously taken a toll on their family as well. We can see that, and the stress that has been caused. It has gone on too long. We simply need answers on it. It is a huge burden on C.J. and his father. What is happening is simply wrong and we need to act on it. I really feel that we need the Government to make a decision on this as well.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Gaffney or any of the witnesses want to come in? Does Ms Bertelsen want to respond to some of the questions?

Ms Mary Bertelsen:

If it is okay, I have just a small statement to read about my involvement. I thank the committee for affording C.J. and myself the opportunity to bring before the committee the catastrophic loss suffered by an innocent family due to an inaccurate German stability book.

I became involved with the case when it was given to me as a representation when I worked for a former Fine Gael TD from Wicklow in 2018. On reading the case file it was obvious to a layperson that the stability book was inaccurate. An inaccurate stability book is a very serious violation of international and national regulations and can lead to a boat capsizing and possible loss of life. In essence, it means that a boat is unseaworthy and is an accident waiting to happen. Over the past few years we have made extensive representations at home at both national and EU level, and to the European Ombudsman, presenting irrefutable evidence that the stability book of the former Mary Kate was inaccurate. C.J. and his naval architect, Justin Delaney, and Professor Jakob Pinkster presented the case of the Mary Kate at EU level. There was palpable shock when the evidence was produced. The EU wrote to the Germanischer Lloyd Classification Society, which also stamped and approved the stability book. It also wrote to Holland, Germany and England where other sister ships were registered.

I will talk briefly about the Marine Survey Office, MSO. The Irish Marine Survey Office notified the Committee on Safe Seas, COSS. The EU has continually stated that the national authority has competence in this case and no objections would be raised if the Department compensated the family from EU maritime funds. At EU level or national level, there has never been a case like this, hence there are no regulations in place. The MSO accepted the same official EU papers to register the Mary Kate under the Irish flag. The Mary Kate was lengthened and a new stability book was issued in accordance with EU regulation. Not having fished for two years and the family having run out of money, a UK buyer was prepared to purchase the now brand new Mary Kate. The UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, MCA, stepped in and the sale fell through as the Mary Kate had not sailed for over two years. C.J. informed the MSO, which undertook to contact the MCA, as the Mary Kate had a new stability book and was in compliance with all relevant EU regulations. The UK was still a member of the EU at this time. The MSO never contacted the MCA. Was the MCA in breach of EU maritime law when it refused to allow the Mary Kate to operate under a UK flag? We will never know because they never followed up.

The MSO did not inform its German counterpart of the major construction defect in the former German registered beam trawler. Why? The MSO did not proactively notify COSS of a major stability issue with an EU-registered beam trawler. It only did so when Mr. Gaffney told the MSO that it could be held accountable if any sister vessels were lost at sea, as it knew for over two years the case of the Mary Kate. I would have thought that when a catastrophic defect, such as that of the Mary Katewith 20 tonnes of unaccounted steel, has been identified, the MSO would have a duty of care to immediately send an SOS informing its German counterpart and also COSS.

In 2021, the Dutch safety board carried out an investigation into Dutch beam trawlers with stability issues. The Mary Katewas Dutch built and designed. Her stability book was certified by Germany. We wrote to the then Minister of State for transport, Deputy Naughton, requesting that the Department of Transport would submit the case of the Mary Kateto the Dutch safety board. Based on our previous experience with the MSO, we also submitted a parliamentary question to make sure the MSO actually submitted the case of the Mary Katefor inclusion in its investigation. As Mr. Gaffney outlined, jurisdiction could not be established. The Mary Katewas built in Holland, her stability book was stamped by Germany, and the stability issue was identified in Ireland. The latent defect meant insurance would not cover a pre-existing fault. I am puzzled by this because 20 tonnes of unaccounted steel has never been identified within the Mary Kate, so how is it a latent defect? Nobody knew it was there – or maybe they did.

EU legislation applicable at the time covered fishing boats over 25 m. The Mary Katewas 24.5 m. There was no consumer protection available to this family. The failure of the MSO to act in a timely and efficient manner contributed to additional losses for the family.

I want to touch on the Gaffney business. Deputy Brennan knows the family quite well. As I stated earlier in my address, an inaccurate stability book is a very serious violation of international and national maritime regulations. Any civil servant who suggests that the purchase of the Mary Katewas a failed commercial transaction lacks basic understanding of maritime safety regulations and should be seriously reprimanded.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I could interrupt Ms Bertelsen for a moment, I do not want Deputy Brennan to be excluded because he still has two and a half minutes for his further questions. We do not have a copy of her submission, so perhaps she could provide it to us and we will circulate it to members as well.

Ms Mary Bertelsen:

Of course. Will I finish?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will call Deputy Brennan.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy for Ms Bertelsen to finish.

Fionntán Ó Súilleabháin (Wicklow-Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am deputising for Deputy Conor McGuinness, the Chairman, and I have not been allowed in yet. Non-committee members are getting in ahead of me. Could that please be rectified?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Súilleabháin will get his opportunity. I take it he is off-site. I have no discretion here. He cannot contribute in public session from outside the precincts of Leinster House. The same applies to Deputy Whitmore. It applied to me when I was off-site recently. I am sorry about that.

Fionntán Ó Súilleabháin (Wicklow-Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was caught in the same traffic jam as Mr. Gaffney.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the unfortunate aspect of it. Witnesses may contribute from outside the precincts whereas Deputies may not. It is something I am sure he and his party, and others, will raise to try and have this rectified, but as of today, unfortunately, I am not in a position to allow him to contribute. I do not have discretion.

Ms Mary Bertelsen:

I am just finished. The family has previously bought and sold eight other beam trawlers over the years. They know their profession, their business and the industry. Their lending institution was happy to advance loans to them and they had an unblemished credit rating based on sound business acumen over many years. In addition, they have five generations of voluntary service with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

All RNLI volunteers are very brave people. They put to sea in treacherous conditions to help save lives of people and ships in distress. We as a society owe the Gaffneys and other RNLI volunteers a lot. Does anybody seriously believe the defence by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that this was a failed commercial transaction? The biggest problem with this case is bureaucracy at its worst. There never has been a case like this at either national or EU level. There are no rules or legislation in place for boats with blatantly fraudulent stability certification or maybe if we believe the defence by the Department of Agriculture Food and Marine, perhaps mariners' lives do not matter. This case needs to be taken by the horns by all who aspire to act in the interest of fairness, be they Government civil servants or elected public representatives. A life sentence has been imposed on the family. They have lost their beam trawler, their fishing quota, their fishing licence, their whole way of life, and generations of a seafaring pedigree have been cast adrift. I hope the committee can ascertain who is accountable for the catastrophic loss of the family. Is it the ship designers, the German classification society. the insurance company, the Marine Survey Office, the German equivalent of the MSO, the Department of Agriculture Food and Marine or the Department of Transport? All we ask today is that the members of the committee examine the irrefutable and impartial professional evidence presented and the new evidence from the owners of the MV Destiny BRAand MV William Jacob UK 158, and if satisfied there is a miscarriage of justice, will call on the Department of the marine to order an immediate and impartial EU investigation with the three countries, Holland, Germany and Ireland, into all aspects of this case and offer a derogation, given the catastrophic loss and severe hardship the family had suffered, to say nothing of their former business relationships and their standing in their community.

The Gaffneys have never asked for sympathy nor do they want it. They just want to know how and why they lost their whole livelihood and are now in substantial debt to a financial institution through no fault of their own.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Bertelsen. She have taken up over two minutes in excess of Deputy Brennan's time, but I think that he was happy to do that. Deputy Ó Súilleabháin, if you wish to pose a question through the secretariat, then we can raise it for you.

Deputy Whitmore has made a statement through the secretariat and I will be put that to the witnesses. She says that Mr. Gaffney did all the right things when it came to the MV Mary Kate WD 30, put in all the right paperwork, did all the right checks, and followed all the rules and put the safety of his and his sister vessel's crew above everything else. For Mr. Gaffney not to receive any support from the State in this case is a failure of the State. It has been a long, difficult journey for him and his family and it is now past time to get it resolved for him.

I call Deputy Joe Cooney

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and I thank the witnesses for coming in here today. I also thank Mr. Gaffney for his opening statement This must have had a serious impact on his family over the years. He stated: "The matter has been left unresolved for the past 15 years." Can this be resolved going forward or is it going to be left in that situation going forward?

Ms Mary Bertelsen:

The fairest thing would be an impartial inquiry into all aspects, with a view to some level of compensation. They have bought and sold four beam trawlers over a number of years. Fishing is in the DNA and in their blood and they have lost all of that, absolutely everything. Maybe Mr. Gaffney is the best person to answer that as to what kind of resolution there should be, but there must be a resolution. There has to be fairness. The stability book was wrong from day one. This is not a failed commercial transaction, as the Department of the marine has called it on numerous occasions. The evidence is there. Mr. Gaffney might be the best one to answer.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Going forward, the MEPs have stated that Ireland can use the fisheries fund to compensate us, which will cost the Irish taxpayer nothing. This has impacted my life. I have lost everything nice. I have nowhere to go now. I need to get my life back in order and my family back to normality. All I was looking for was the Department of fisheries to make a submission that the fisheries fund be used as compensation. Going forward, because we are talking about years that I maybe do not have, that the other countries, Holland, Germany, together with Ireland, do a joint investigation into it - 99% of the paperwork.has already been done by us It would not take very much for those countries to look over it. We have asked Brussels to call a meeting even though it is out of their jurisdiction because of the size of the vessel but just to broker a meeting in Brussels between the three countries and sort out where the blame lies. It also needs to be stopped from ever happening again because at the end of the day, people's lives are at risk because of this.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this a once-off case or are there similar cases?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

It is a once-off in Ireland, because the legislation has been changed, and I would say that the Mary Kate was probably part of that. This will not be able to happen in Ireland again. It has also happened to other owners in Germany and, as late as 2024, to another owner in Holland. We just want Ireland to sort it now from my end of it and then discuss it with the other countries to bring the other sister ships in as well.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Justin Delaney for Mr Gaffney's team is online and has a right to respond.

Mr. Justin Delaney:

Good morning. I really just want to cut to the chase, having been the naval architect who first tested the Mary Kate in Arklow all those years ago. This is a shocking indictment of EU maritime safety. We received the failed stability test on the second German sister vessel, the Destiny BRA, the same year as the issues with the Mary Kate were found out. Two sister vessels were shown to have the same defect. Let us remember: Mr. Gaffney and his crew nearly died. This could have been be a huge manslaughter case, yet nothing has ever been done. Even after the EU Commission, and the letter from the MSO to COSS, nothing has ever been done in Europe. It was only when Mr. Pinkster and I alerted the Dutch NSI to the fourth defective sister vessel in 2024 that the Dutch actually came out and did something. What does that say? We can all say how unfortunate this case is but the reality is that it is a very serious case, and this needs to be addressed now. We are talking about lives nearly being lost, vessels being allowed to operate because there was no regulations for vessels under a certain length. How ridiculous is it if we know unsafe vessels are operating, but nobody can do anything because there are no regulations? This is the whole idea of putting new regulations into force. This is what safety is all about. I am very angry because I have written so many letters to the EU Commission, the Taoiseach and Departments.

The Gaffney family should not receive one more letter from the Department saying it was a failed private transaction and it cannot award compensation because there is nothing in the regulations to allow for it. Of course there is not. This is an extraordinary case. This needs to be dealt with by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste with the Dutch and German authorities. I will continue writing to them. I have already made contact with the German owner and the Dutch owners. We put together a letter from all three that was signed by C.J. Gaffney and the German owner of the German sister vessel.

This needs to happen now. It is a disgrace that we are still here talking about this when so-called safety departments act in this way. I am sorry. We can go through all of these committees but-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are cutting into the time of Deputy Cooney who has three minutes left.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am fine with that response.

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

I am a naval architect working in the shipbuilding industry and I also work for ship owners. I have also been a university lecturer in the technical university of Delft, where I got my master's degree. I was a university lecturer there on ship design, stability and ship hydrodynamics. As Mr. Delaney has said, it is a disgrace that the authorities did not pick up on the signs of these vessels having this big shortfall in stability. I remind everybody that back in the 1800s, Mr. Plimsoll decided to assist a lot of people who had family drowned at sea because shipowners had been sending their ships out overloaded with cargo. After these ships left harbour, they would capsize in the first storm they met, with a lot of loss of life, the loss of the ship and damage to the environment. Mr. Plimsoll said that something had to be done about this. This is when the Plimsoll load line was defined. This states a ship is not allowed to load above a certain level. It was also the very early start of stability regulations.

This case is the same story except nobody is acting on it. It involves a beam trawler fishing boat that has stability issues. What did the authorities do? What they should have done is say that something is wrong and that it smells like there is something wrong so let us have a look at it. They did not do that, which is totally wrong. The Mary Kate was found to be unstable. Mr. Gaffney was a good skipper. He knew about safety of life at sea. He took care of his crew, his ship and the environment. He did not take any risks. He said "Stop", and that he wanted a stability test done on the ship. He was told it should be okay but he said that he could feel it in his bones that it was not okay. He got the test done and found out the ship was unstable and that there were approximately 20 tonnes that should not be there and that they had been there from the beginning. People looked at the extra weight and, based on the results of the new stability test, calculated that these 20 tonnes should be in front of the wheelhouse at deck level. When they had a look around they could not find anything. There were more experts, more people making stability calculations and more people looking but nobody found anything. There was not a single shred of evidence of the extra weight.

There is only one conclusion, which is that it was there from day one. The stability test which was done on day one, when the ship left the shipyard, was wrong. How it was wrong, you tell me. The calculation is based on rubbish. The only thing I can see is that rubbish was put in the calculation. The weight is there. It should not be there but it is there because it was an integral part of the structure when the ship was built. This should ring alarm bells all over the place. Everybody should be saying we should look at the 11 sister ships because it is a dangerous business.

If they are in trouble, people could lose their lives at sea.

This is a big missed opportunity. During all of this time, the Gaffney family were stuck with a boat that did not work. It was not allowed to go to sea because the stability was not right. The only option to deal with the extra weight discovered on the vessel was to lengthen the ship. The only way to compensate for that is through the length of the vessel. This was done. It cost a lot of money but they got it done. The ship was A-okay to sail again but it could not do so because it did not have the fishing quota to make it viable. That is the way it went, with no proper assistance and no proper management of the weight business or the fishing side of the industry. The Gaffneys were stuck. It is disgraceful and it should not have happened. They are perfectly correct in seeking compensation.

We should seek scrutiny of the sister ships to see what their stability is like. We should continue with this. We found a number of sister ships that are not good as far as stability is concerned. It is the same story as with the Mary Kate. We should look at all of the sister ships and get the figures. Why are the shipyard and the designer not helping when we ask for information? We are not getting the information. We ask for information on the other ships that had a stability test done on day one, when they were built, but we do not get it. I find that very strange.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This session is time-limited so I must interrupt Mr. Pinkster. This part of the meeting will finish at 12.15 p.m. and we will then have an opportunity to pose questions to the Department. We have received Deputy Ó Súilleabháin's question but it is more pertinent to the Department, whose officials will be before the committee after 12.20 p.m. I will ensure the question is addressed to them when that part of the session commences.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not know anything about this until I read the brief yesterday. To me, it stinks to high heaven. The Gaffneys bought a boat and took delivery of it in July 2007. It was accepted and had certification from Germany. It met Irish certification standards but, lo and behold, in September 2007, we brought in new certification standards here. Because the boat had been brought in three months beforehand, it was left there. I do not know the Gaffneys but, in fairness, when Mr. Gaffney found out there was a stability issue with the boat he stopped fishing. He tested it and found there was a problem. At his own expense he got the remedial works done. He got the boat lengthened so that it could handle the extra 20 tonnes that were there. When he did this he was not allowed to fish and the boat lay idle. From what we are seeing, because he could not make his repayments, the banks foreclosed on the boat, took it, sold it at a loss and left Mr. Gaffney in the position he is in.

The State can be very good. If we went to England today and bought a motor car or lorry and landed back in Rosslare or Dublin or at the Border, it would not be long before there was a list of extras that were on it and a calculation was done on how much extra VRT would have to be paid to bring it into the State and look after it. We can have it every way but the Gaffneys have been done a serious wrong here.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

A serious wrong.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Gaffney bought a boat which met all the legal requirements enforced in this country at the time. Three months later, we changed the rules. Mr. Gaffney was told he fell outside the terms by three months and the State washed its hands of the matter.

What Mr. Pinkster and Mr. Delaney said about the possibility of other boats still being out there sailing with stability issues is a serious matter. We hear about EU rules and everybody blames the EU for being so strict with this, that and the other, but here we see a case of where boats that somehow seem to be 15 tonnes to 20 tonnes overweight were allowed to sail in EU waters, were registered within the EU and we do not know what the story is with all of them. We do know what happened to the Mary Kate.

The State should hold its hands up here and do something for the Gaffneys. It would be different if Mr. Gaffney had bought the boat after September 2007 and had tried to slip it in under the radar. Nobody would have anything to say then. The man did everything by the book, however, to try to improve his business to try to get out there. Fishing is a hard enough business. Having been cast aside the way he has been, I think it is regrettable the State is not trying to do something for him. In fairness, if he had been unscrupulous, he could have been out there fishing away in an unstable boat trying to make money. As Mr. Pinkster said, though, he took the right decision for the safety of himself and his crew. He parked his boat up and went to see what the issues were. I do not know how much it cost to lengthen that boat, but I would not think it was cheap. When he got that done and tried to do the remedial works, he was still left hanging, so I support whatever this committee can do to help Mr. Gaffney.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we move on, do any other committee members want to pose any questions? I ask members to bear in mind that we have a next session and they will have opportunities then as well. If nobody wants to contribute at the moment, I will pose one or two questions.

I remember very vividly back in 2011 when it was arranged that the Gaffneys would come to Europe and make their case there. I had hoped then that progress could have been made but, of course, the 24.5 m rule was not helpful. The matter then came back to Ireland again. Who advised that if the boat were lengthened it would then comply with stability rules? What was the reason for the two-year rule? Was it out of the water for two years or was it one of those use-it-or-lose it situations?

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

I think it would be best to ask Mr. Gaffney that.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

We bought the vessel in 2007. The legislation did not change until October 2009. It was two years after we bought the boat before Ireland changed the legislation. Regarding the boat, we had an expert from England, who designs boats all the time, Ian Paton, who got involved with the case as well. He is another marine architect. He was the one who did all the stability calculations and worked out how much the vessel had to be lengthened by. He came up with the design for that lengthening. If that was not done, the vessel would have been scrapped and would only have been worth scrap money. That is the reason we lengthened the boat.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Gaffney. Can someone tell us what happened to the other vessels, the sister vessels? Were they lengthened? When they were lengthened, were they allowed to continue or were there any legal cases there?

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

I will answer that. A vessel is lengthened in order to make it stable again. The stability of the boat was not good with the situation as it was when Mr. Gaffney bought it. If a vessel is lengthened, it will have more volume in the water and will have more stability characteristics from the ship side for the righting moment to bring her back to a stable situation once she gets displaced like that. Additionally, the weight distribution is different when you lengthen a boat. Both these factors - the body form and the weight distribution - contribute to the stability of the ship, which means it is stable.

It allows a vessel to sail again. Its stability book is passed, it gets a seaworthiness certificate and it can go to sea again. It gets a complete new bill of health. It is the same thing as if a doctor says you can go out again and work. It is the same for the ship. That is what happens when you lengthen the vessel. Is that okay?

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wonder if we can get an answer to the Leas-Chathaoirleach's second question about where the other boats are at the moment.

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

A number of other vessels, the sister ships, were also lengthened. They were also lengthened for stability reasons, in all probability. I do not think we have all the stability books of those vessels, so we could not state for sure that was the reason, but it was probably the reason. Perhaps Mr. Delaney can elaborate on the sister ships being lengthened.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to ask a question before he comes in. When the bank decided it would take the boat, was it sold then? When it was decommissioned, was it decommissioned by the owner of the boat or by the bank?

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

I will pass that question to Mr. Gaffney. I know the answer, but he can take it.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

When the vessel was repossessed, the licence was taken at the same time. It was sold to an owner in Union Hall and he fished it for numerous years. He then decommissioned the vessel with the EU and and got the Irish grant after that then.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Boyle, if he has a brief question.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are saying the boat was less than the 5 m. Surely the Department was involved in signing off on this, so that would put it in place in this regard. It was taking responsibility that the 5 m was put into the boat and the stability was right. That really should bring it into the picture, would it not?

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

May I answer that? Certainly. Once you make any change on a ship of any significance that can affect the stability of the ship, you must inform your marine survey office. What happens then is that you say you are going to change the size of the ship and then you have to show the Marine Survey Office what you have done. It will also want to see the new stability testing of that ship in the new situation. It will also be, generally speaking, present during the stability testing of the modified ship. The reason for changing your ship - shall we say, the reason for the modification - could come from the ship owner, who thinks to himself that he wants to put some extra cargo space in his ship, so he will lengthen it. It does not have to be caused by the stability of the ship but could be a question of earning more money by transporting more cargo and so making a ship larger rather than buying a new one. In this case, of course, it would probably have been known that the reason for the lengthening of the Mary Kate was because she had had her stability book withdrawn upon having had the new stability test done when she had been sailed for a while.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Pinkster very much.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will pose two short questions. When the Mary Kate came into the country, was it inspected by the marine safety authorities at that time? I presume the marine safety authorities did not detect the stability issue. Was it even considered by them? Second, when it was recommended to increase the length of the boat to comply, did Mr. Gaffney have to buy tonnage at that stage to ensure the boat could be lengthened? I ask this because tonnage at that stage was quite expensive. To say that it was €1,000 per tonne would possibly be too low.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

When the vessel was presented in Ireland to the Marine Survey Office, MSO, its officials did a safety check and looked over all the safety gear and everything. Like us, once I produced the stability book stamped by Germanischer Lloyd and the German marine survey office, the MSO accepted that book.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could it have established at that time, if it did an in-depth investigation, that there was an issue with the stability?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Unless the vessel would have been stability tested on an incline, it would never have known. It was only when that test was done that we told the Marine Survey Office of our fears and that we thought there was something wrong with the vessel. That is when everything came to light. However, it would not have known unless it performed an inclined test.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was there not a formula that could be used by the Marine Survey Office to establish whether it was or was not stable?

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

No, not unless it did a full inclining test.

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

May I give an answer to this?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, a short answer.

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

What the Marine Survey Office could have done was not a complete stability test, but it could have done a draft survey of the vessel. It could have had a quick look at the draft of the vessel and looked at the loading condition of it, and it would have been able to see that there was something not right in the thing.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That could have been done-----

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

That could have been done.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but it was not done.

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

It could also have done initial stability tests to test the initial stability, the GM, by just, shall we say, rolling the vessel a little bit on the quay side with the ropes slackened and measuring the angle of heel and the time period of the roll. It could have had an estimation for the initial stability, which would also have helped it notice that there was something wrong.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Pinkster suggesting that should have been done, and if it had been done and it was established, we would not be here today?

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

I think so.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like a point of clarification because I am a bit confused. The document that was sent to us states the Gaffneys purchased the Mary Kate in July 2007, but Ireland's first set of comprehensive safety regulations for 15 m to 24 m vessels only came into effect in September 2007. I said in my contribution they were three months out. The boat Mr. Gaffney bought, when it arrived, met the Irish regulations. In September 2007, we changed our regulations, and the boat fell outside the new regulations. That is what is stated in this document. It states that there were no actual stability or construction standards in place to prevent it from being accepted. It was not a case of Irish authorities failing to verify German documents. It was simply one of a peculiar timing. It is, therefore, all about the timing here. Is that correct?

Mr. Jakob Pinkster:

I think the Deputy better ask that question of Mr. Gaffney.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Gaffney might be very brief because we want the others to have an opportunity.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

It could be a typo. Ireland did not change the regulations until 2009, which was two years after we bought the vessel, not three months. That could be a typo. It was definitely October, however.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It states after that that existing vessels, which now included the Mary Kate, were give a timeline for improvement works based on their age, after which they were required to comply. The Mary Kate was given until 1 October 2009, but Mr. Gaffney had actually done his tech work four months ahead of that in the lengthening and had to go back.

Mr. C.J. Gaffney:

Yes, we did not come under the legislation. It was us who notified the MSO that there was a problem. We put up our hands and said there was something wrong. That is why she was tested four months before she should have been

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, that concludes part one. The questions posed by the members were very relevant. I thank those who made presentations and answered questions. We might decide to prepare a report, but that is a matter for the committee to decide in private session at a later stage. We had all heard of the Mary Kate. I, fortunately, had some insight into it because I happened to be in the European Parliament at the time. The other members have acquitted themselves quite well and posed very relevant questions.

We will now move on to the second section of this meeting. We will adjourn for five minutes to give officials an opportunity to bring the other witnesses into the meeting.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will continue with the agenda until 1.30 p.m. or earlier.

Before we commence, I will briefly restate to the witnesses that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

We resume our discussions on the topic of the fishing vessel safety issues arising from the case of the Mary Kate WD-30.

The committee is now joined by witnesses. Representing the Department of Transport are Ms Noelle Waldron, head of maritime safety policy division; Mr. Ean Wallace, deputy chief surveyor, Marine Survey Office; and Mr. Jason Bryars, ship surveyor, Marine Survey Office. Representing the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are Ms Sinéad McSherry, assistant secretary general; Ms Eimear Coughlan, principal officer, sea fisheries administration division; and Ms Thérèse O'Keeffe, assistant principal officer, sea fisheries administration.

The witnesses' opening statements have been forwarded to the members. I will allow them five minutes to read the opening statement or they can have two minutes to give a brief synopsis. I would hope that the members have already read the opening statements and a brief synopsis may be sufficient. On conclusion, we will have a further round of questions, if that is practical in time terms. I call on Ms Waldron to make the presentation by the Department of Transport.

Ms Noelle Waldron:

I thank the committee for inviting the Department of Transport to talk about the important issue of fishing vessel safety. I am head of the maritime safety policy division, which has responsibility for the development of relevant legislation. I am joined by colleagues from the Department's Marine Survey Office, MSO: Ean Wallace, deputy chief surveyor, and Jason Bryars, ship surveyor.

Fishing vessel safety is a priority for the Department, and we have taken action to improve safety in that sector. The evidence shows that safety has been transformed, with the most recent published official statistics showing zero fishing vessel fatalities in 2024.

This safety transformation followed several tragedies, starting with the Carrickatine, in 1995, with the loss of six lives. This resulted in the establishment of the fishing vessel safety review group, whose report made several key recommendations including the development of a safety regime for fishing vessels in the 15 m to 24 m length category and the introduction of a survey and certification regime, including stability requirements for such vessels.

Not all the group's recommendations had been implemented in 2006 when the Maggie B was lost with two lives, the Pere Charles with five lives and the Honeydew II with two lives. The loss of these lives and vessels within a short timeframe gave impetus to fishing vessel safety and the work on completing the relevant regulations was accelerated.

The new regulations came into effect in September 2007 and have enhanced the safety of fishing vessels in the 15 to 24 m length range, preventing loss of life. These regulations were part of a suite of actions in relation to fishing vessel safety. I will set out the overall Irish maritime safety regime as it applies to fishing vessels, which may be of assistance.

In Ireland, the fishing sector is divided into three length categories for maritime safety regulation. The first of these categories is fishing vessels greater than 24 m in length, which are regulated by the Torremolinos Protocol, to which Ireland is a party. The next category is vessels that are between 15 and 24 m in length. There are no binding international conventions for such vessels, nor are there any EU safety regulations for such vessels. However, Ireland has a comprehensive set of safety regulations for these vessels, the Merchant Shipping (Safety of Fishing) (15-24 Metres) Regulation 2007. The final category is vessels less than 15 m in length and while there are no binding international conventions or EU regulations for such vessels, Ireland has a comprehensive code of practice for their safety.

All Irish flagged fishing vessels come within the scope of this safety framework and all vessels are subject to survey and certification arrangements based on four-year cycles. The Department of Transport works closely with the industry to improve safety standards in the fishing fleet, which have increasingly improved, and we hope this will continue.

I would like to talk briefly about the fishing vessel, Mary Kate, in the context of the safety regulations for fishing vessels of 15 to 24 m length. When the Mary Katewas presented for registration in Ireland there were no applicable stability or construction standards in place until the aforementioned regulations were introduced in 2007. These had a phase-in timeline and required compliance for existing fishing vessels over several years, from 2007 to 2010, depending on the keel-laying date of the vessel. The regulations are comprehensive and require relevant fishing vessels to comply with a survey and certification regime.

At the completion of the implementation of the 2007 regulations, the number of operational 15 to 24 m vessels in the fleet was reduced but the safety profile of the fleet was significantly improved. In some cases, the MSO could not issue a safety certificate to an existing fishing vessel, which came within the scope of the new regulations, until it had been brought into compliance. This was the case for the Mary Kate, which required modifications to bring it into compliance, and this compliance was required by 1 October 2009. There were safety issues with the Mary Kate, but it is important to highlight that these issues were identified through the MSO's robust survey and certification regime.

Another important point to note is that the Department of Transport made both the European Commission and all other member states aware of potential safety concerns with other similar fishing vessels by submitting a paper on the issue to the committee of the safe seas in 2013. Subsequently, the European Commission informed the relevant member states by providing details of similar vessels.

The case of the Mary Katehas demonstrated the effectiveness of the recommendations made by the Fishing Vessel Safety Review Group. Once these recommendations were implemented, safety in the Irish fishing vessel sector was transformed.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for convening this session. I have outlined the actions the Department has taken to improve fishing vessel safety. I look forward to our engagement in this session.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Waldron. We will now have the opening statement from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and committee members for the invitation to speak to the committee today on the issue of the fishing vessel safety issues arising from the case of the Mary Kate WD-30.

I am head of the sea-fisheries administration division. I also hold the position of Registrar General of Fishing Boats. I am joined by Sinéad McSherry, assistant secretary general with responsibility for seafood and marine in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and my colleague Thérèse O’Keeffe, deputy registrar general of fishing boats.

First, I wish to state that I empathise with the difficult situation Mr. Gaffney, his company and his family found themselves in following the purchase of the Mary Kate. As I understand it, the core issue here relates to the instability of the vessel which only became apparent after purchase. I understand that the vessel was purchased by C.J. Gaffney Limited in Holland. It was entered on the Irish fishing fleet register in 2007 and received a sea-fishing boat licence in December 2007.

The legislation governing sea-fishing boat licensing is set out in section 4 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003, as inserted by section 97 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006.

To license a sea-fishing vessel in Ireland, a safety certificate is required. This is a mandatory requirement under Irish and European Union fisheries legislation. Licences are issued annually and are usually only valid for one year. The licensing authority is legally prohibited from granting a licence unless a valid safety certificate is in place in respect of the vessel on the date of grant. It is important to note that safety regulation and certification is the exclusive responsibility of the Marine Survey Office of the Department of Transport. This Department has no function in this safety matter other than ensuring the vessel has a fishing vessel safety certificate prior to licensing and it is not empowered to vary or indeed waive the legal requirements introduced by the maritime safety directorate of the Department of Transport.

I understand that, due to the stability issues identified in 2009, the vessel did not receive a valid safety certificate and, subsequently, the licensing authority could not issue the vessel with a renewal of the annual licence. I further understand that after the Mary Katevessel underwent restructuring works to resolve the stability issue, the vessel was issued with a valid safety certificate. The increased length of the vessel required additional capacity to gain a fishing licence. Records show that C.J. Gaffney Ltd did not purchase extra capacity.

Each European member state has fishing capacity ceilings in terms of gross tonnage, which is the total volume of a vessel, and in terms of kilowatts, which is the vessel engine propulsion power, for its fishing fleet. This requirement is set out in EU Regulation No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy.

In Ireland, capacity is a privately-owned asset that is tradeable on the tonnage market, in which the licensing authority has no role. Capacity may be held in an owner's account and may be used as replacement capacity in order to licence a vessel or may be disposed of by sale as the owner sees fit. The licensing authority does not hold capacity for sale or allocation. Licensing authority records show that the vessel was sold by C.J. Gaffney Ltd in 2014.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Coughlan. Only members may pose questions, but in deference to Deputy O'Sullivan, who is representing our Chair at the committee today and is outside the precincts and therefore not in a position to become involved, I am going to pose questions that were raised by Deputy O'Sullivan. The officials from the Department of the marine or the Department of Transport may address them at this stage or a later stage.

Why is the Department refusing to draw down these EU funds? Will the Department explain its pattern of inconsistency on several levels regarding Mr. Gaffney and his family's numerous reasonable requests, but then introducing measures that it claimed could not be introduced? Why did the Department refuse to produce promised reports? Why did the Marine Survey Office originally agree to support the case but then withdraw support? Why did the MSO threaten - these are the Deputy's words, not mine - C.J. Gaffney with arrest if he went fishing? Why has the Government and its Departments not highlighted the fact that there are vessels in EU waters that are not seaworthy? This is a monumental injustice to Mr. Gaffney and family; not one perpetrated by the EU on this occasion, but by the Government and its Departments. Will the Department now take action to draw down money from the EU compensation fund and give a timeline for same?

There may be other similar questions and, rather than giving the witnesses an opportunity to answer them now, they will have an opportunity to answer before we conclude the meeting. However, I ask members who want to raise questions to do so now.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the Department's statutory role on fishing vessel safety? It is the be-all and end-all. From reading the reports, the Department seems to have the final say on everything. Is that really the case?

Ms Noelle Waldron:

It depends on the length of the fishing vessel. If it is over 24 m, that comes in under EU legislation, whereas 15 m to 24 m comes under the Department's regulations from 2007, and less than 15 m is the code of practice.

That is how it breaks down according to the length of the vessel.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I go to Germany or Holland and buy a boat and take it to Ireland, when the MSO comes down, would it have to do all its inspections first before it could go on the Irish register or does it do a draft survey?

Ms Noelle Waldron:

I will hand over to my colleague from the MSO, Mr. Wallace, on this, but I understand that there were particular surveys that were required. If we are talking about the time of the Mary Kate, the only requirement there was a tonnage survey. At the time that was undertaken, the MSO actually spotted that there may have been an issue with stability. In a letter from the MSO to Mr. Gaffney in 2007, which was sent on foot of the tonnage survey during which something was spotted, the surveyor informed Mr. Gaffney that he was requested in the interest of safety to have the vessel re-inclined as soon as possible. The surveyor also informed Mr. Gaffney that the vessel was last inclined when constructed in 1992, over 15 years before the MSO survey. That letter is from 7 December 2007. It is very important to mention that the MSO did spot that there was a possible issue and requested Mr. Gaffney to get a re-inclination test as soon as possible.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the MSO noticed there was something wrong, how come it allowed the boat on to the Irish register without making sure the work was done?

Ms Noelle Waldron:

Because at the time the regulations were not in place. They came into operation in 2007, but there was a phased implementation based on the keel laying date for the vessel. In this case, compliance for the Mary Kate was in October 2009, but I will hand over to Mr. Wallace to go through the survey's details.

Mr. Ean Wallace:

Registration is a separate process from certification for safety. A vessel can be registered with the registrars of shipping and it identifies the ownership of the vessel. Registration is done under the Mercantile Marine Act 1955 and is done by the registrars of shipping, who are employed by the Revenue Commissioners. For vessels over 24 m, the certification for the vessel's safety certificate is done under the EU directive, while vessels less than 24 m are done under the 15 m to 24 m regulations. Vessels under 15 m are done under the code of practice. For vessels over 15 m, which would include the vessels over 24 m , the Marine Survey Office undertakes that survey and it is a third-party certification process. We will survey the vessel from top to bottom. We will apply the regulations and if the vessel meets the requirements for the regulations, we will issue a certificate of compliance and that entitles the vessel to go to sea. It certifies that it meets the regulations.

My understanding from my colleagues beside me is that the Department requires that certification in order to issue a fishing vessel licence. That is separate from our role.

For the under 15 m sector, those surveys are undertaken by code of practice surveyors, who are not direct employees of the Department of Transport, but we do oversee their appointments to the panel and we verify their qualifications and ability to carry out those surveys. They are done in accordance with the code of practice, which, again, is a comprehensive set of safety standards which are required in order to get a fishing vessel licence. The code of practice surveyors will issue that declaration and the code of practice certificate.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The boat was taken and 5 m was added to it for stability. Was the MSO involved in that process from the start? A 5 m piece was put into the boat. It was there to help the stability of the boat. Was the MSO involved? At the end of the day, the MSO was going to have to sign off on it to say it was seaworthy and everything else. What kind of feedback or input does the MSO have in situations like this? Was an MSO official standing there to see what was being done or not being done, or does someone just go down, go out on a sea trial and if the vessel responds okay, it is signed off on then? Is it more of a visual test that the MSO carries out?

Mr. Ean Wallace:

With that type of modification to a vessel, which was a major insert in a mid-section, we would have agreed the works with the owner. We would generally agree the welding standards.

The issue here was that the vessel did not meet stability requirements. They opted to put a mid-section insert in. With that type of work, we are involved overseeing that the work is done correctly. We do a third-party certification. We will verify the steel materials, welder qualifications and the welding process. We are involved practically in that way. When the vessel is finally completed, we witness an inclining experiment to make sure that the experiment is done correctly with third-party certification again for that.

The naval architect or ship designer would present a stability book to the Marine Survey Office. We will verify that stability book by running it through our stability software which is generally different software from that used by the naval architect who has submitted the book. If our figures match up, we accept that. My colleague here, Mr. Bryars, is an expert in stability. That would be an approved book. We would have approved that the stability met the standards. In the case of the Mary Kate at the time it was registered, that approval process did not exist. It is important to remember that while the vessel was required to have a stability book in place under the 1998 health and safety welfare at work fishing vessel regulations, it was not required to be approved.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we have no further questions from members in the room, I pose questions from Deputy Whitmore who is online outside of the precincts of the House. Does the Department believe that an investigation into the purchase of the Mary Kate and the subsequent gaps in the process is warranted to learn from what happened and to ensure that similar problems do not arise again? Will the Department conduct an investigation into this issue? Who wishes to answer that? The Deputy did not state which Department these questions are for. Bear in mind we have questions already from Deputy O'Sullivan.

Ms Noelle Waldron:

From the Department of Transport's perspective, there were no gaps in the system. Once the regulations were reinforced for that particular vessel with the keel laying date in 2009, the surveys were done that picked up an issue. Prior to that, even before the regulations came into force for that particular vessel, there was an issue spotted. From our perspective, I do not see where the gaps are.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To relay a message from Deputy Whitmore, she would like a response from both Departments.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

From the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's perspective, I concur that there were not any gaps in our process either. As I outlined in my opening statement, it is a requirement that a safety certificate is in place at the time of granting a sea fishing boat licence. The licensing authority ensured that such certification was in place at the time. When that licence expired in 2009, the Mary Kate vessel was not in possession of such a safety certificate. The licensing authority was not in a position to furnish the renewal of licence. That is the process on our side.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will raise the questions from Deputy O'Sullivan. Why is the Department refusing to draw down the EU funds? I presume this question is for the Department of agriculture witnesses.

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

I will take three funds in sequence. I beg your indulgence because it is quite complicated. Bear with me. The Department has conducted a review of Mr. Gaffney's interactions with it. The first one we have a record of is Mr. Gaffney seeking a grant to lengthen the Mary Kate vessel in 2011. He then sought a decommissioning of the vessel in 2012. If we take that Mr. Gaffney sold the vessel in 2014, what we would consider is that he was looking for compensation for losses on the disposal.

That is how I am going to-----

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to be clear. Did Mr. Gaffney sell the vessel or were the banks foreclosing the vessel and they sold the vessel?

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They sold the vessel.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms McSherry is after stating that Mr. Gaffney sold the vessel, but Mr Gaffney stated in the previous session that the banks seized the vessel, and they sold the vessel. Who sold the vessel?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Licensing authority records show that we have a bill of sale from C.J. Gaffney Limited to the new purchaser. That is the only information that I have to go on.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Ms McSherry to continue.

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

In relation to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the fund we operate is the one that accompanies the Common Fisheries Policy and the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy. In those funding provisions, any aid paid to operators must have an appropriate legal basis and comply with EU state aid rules. In the time that Mr. Gaffney has been looking at this, three funding programmes have been implemented. The first one was the European Fisheries Fund, EFF, 2007-2013. The next one is the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF, 2014-2020. The current funding programme is known as the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, EMFAF, 2021-2027. Any aid issued under these funds must comply with the respective EU regulations which govern their implementation.

To be clear from the Department's perspective, we are not empowered to take any action or use these funds in a manner that is incompatible with those EU regulations. The types of financial supports that have been sought by Mr. Gaffney since 2011, in respect of the Mary Kate, have not been compatible with those regulations. That continues to be the case. If we take the initial fund, the EFF funding programme, article 25 governs that. The issues faced by Mr. Gaffney did not address the lengthening on the vessel. In relation to the request to decommission the vessel, any funding for decommissioning of individual vessels is not permitted. Funding for the decommissioning can only be provided in the context of a decommissioning scheme. In that, the EFF regulation makes provision that a decommissioning scheme can be funded only in a case where it forms part of a fishing effort adjustment plan in accordance with articles 16 and 11 of the Common Fisheries Policy regulation. That would have been the regulation in place, namely regulation 2371/2002.

I am trying to keep this short, but I am going to go through a couple of funds. If we move forward into the eligibility for support under the EMFF programme from 2014 to 2020, the vessel was disposed of in 2014. Funding for lengthening the vessel or decommissioning the vessel was not applicable for consideration under the terms of the EMFF programme and would not have been eligible under the regulation. Reviewing all the other articles of the EMFF regulation 5508/2014, there is no provision that would facilitate an ex gratia payment of any sort of compensation in the case that considers economic losses arising from either the stability issues of the vessel or the sale of the asset at a loss.

Under the EMFF programme, article 11 stated that increasing the capacity of a vessel was not eligible. Article 32 states that works to comply with the national health and safety laws are ineligible. On that basis, the works that needed to be carried out on the vessel were required to comply with the national health and safety regulations by the MSO. Therefore, that would have been ineligible. Regarding any requests for decommissioning, funding for decommissioning under the EMFF could only be implemented again as part of an action plan under article 22(4) of the Common Fisheries Policy regulation, which came into force in 2023.

I will move to the current fund, the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. The basic thing is that the EMFAF cannot fund operations which have been fully completed before the application for funding is submitted. Therefore, it cannot fund cost predating the commencement of the funding period which is 1 January 2021. As the vessel was disposed of in 2014, the EMFAF regulation is not relevant. Would the Leas-Chathaoirleach like me to continue? There is quite a bit.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What Ms McSherry is saying, in short, is that as far as the Department concerned, it does not comply with the first fund, the second fund or the most recent fund, which is the EMFAF.

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

Three programmes have been in place since the Mary Kate came on for which it is ineligible.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just going through the detail. I am conscious of the time.

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

That is fine.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What Ms McSherry is saying is that the Mary Kate would not fit into any of them.

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

It is not eligible. It is important to note that there are compatibility issues with the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, too. I was trying to give the committee some detail as to why that is the case.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure that if members require further information-----

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of clarification-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hold on a moment.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just on the same-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just one second, Deputy Maxwell. Ms McSherry has dealt with a number of the questions raised by Deputy Ó Súilleabháin and others may have taken notes as to whether those questions were applicable to their Department or another Department.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to the Department, when did Mr. Gaffney sell the boat? What was the relevant date?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

I have the exact date.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the year?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

The year was 2014.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Gaffney, in his written statement, stated that in 2012, the bank repossessed the Mary Kate and the fishing licence attached to her, selling both at a loss. Which is right? Did the banks repossess the boat in 2012 and sell it at a loss, along with his fishing licence? That is where we are lost.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

I cannot speak to Mr. Gaffney's private affairs with his institution. All I can speak to are the records we have in the licensing authority, which show the transfer of the vessel, the Mary Kate. That is documented on a bill of sale from C.J. Gaffney Limited to the new purchaser.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a deed of transfer. The bank repossessed it, but it was still Mr. Gaffney's boat and this licence was his. All Ms Coughlan has is the deed of transfer going from Mr. Gaffney to whoever the new owner was. The banks did sell it. If you lose a property and the bank repossesses it, your name is on the deeds. When the bank sells it, you have to transfer the deeds if it goes from Mr. A to Mr. B. Would that not be------

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

I cannot comment on that.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To say that Mr. Gaffney sold the boat is wrong. The banks repossessed and sold the boat. The deed of transfer was from Mr. Gaffney. We need to be clear about what happened. From what I can see, the banks repossessed the boat and his fishing licence because it was a valuable commodity, too. They must have sold the fishing licence to somebody and they sold the boat.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

The fishing licence cannot be sold. It is particular to the applicant and the boat. The Mary Kate was issued a fishing vessel licence in December 2007. Licences are generally for the period of one year. In the intervening year, the stability issues were discovered. The vessel was not issued a safety certificate and the licensing authority could not renew the licence. An application was not made for the renewal of the licence.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why could the licence not be renewed?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

It is a requirement that a safety certificate is in place at the time the licence is granted.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought that when the lengthening of the vessel was done, Mr. Gaffney got that certificate but because the vessel had been lengthened, the number of tonnes of fish he could catch increased and he had to look for a new fishing permit for the increased catch. That was hard to come by, he could not buy that extra tonnage of fish and the boat lay there. Am I wrong?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

It is a combination of those factors, but not in that order. The initial fishing licence was valid until the new regulations came into place. At that point, the vessel was not issued a safety certificate. The licensing authority could not issue the licence. The Gaffney company was aware of that fact and did not make an application for a fishing licence at that time.

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I only became familiar with the details of the case when the matter appeared on our agenda. To put it mildly, it is a bizarre case.

The Gaffney family bought a German-registered vessel in good faith. They registered it in Ireland. It was later found to be unstable and 15 to 20 tonnes heavier than it should have been. They were refused the insurance pay-out. They were then time-barred from taking legal action against the sellers. They were unable to avail of the decommissioning scheme. They increased the length, and paid for that. They were unable to fish because of delays and the increased tonnage. They decided to sell. They found a buyer in the UK, but were refused registration due to the history. They suffered significant losses. The vessel was then repossessed. To me, or any other layperson, that sounds unfair. Should they be compensated? In my opinion, they absolutely should. Your heart would go out to the family. I do not know the family at all. This should never again be allowed to happen. Strict guidelines and rules need to be put in place. I feel so sorry for the Gaffneys. I cannot say any more. It is so disappointing and bizarre. I cannot pick out anything that they did wrong. They did everything in good faith. They were punished and the vessel was repossessed.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was more of a statement than a question. Are any other Deputies offering?

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not a member of this committee but I know the Gaffney family. I said earlier that I have known them for 30 years but I think, in fact, it is closer to 40 years. One thing I know is that they are straight. Their contribution, what they have done in Arklow, is incredible. I am here as an elected official. Like every TD, my job is to try to protect my constituents. I am new to politics. In my 15 months here, I have not seen a clearer case of genuine, hard-working people being treated unfairly. Around every corner they turn is a wall. It has been going on for 17 years. I know it is having a detrimental effect on the family in Arklow. I am appealing. We must try to move this forward in some way.

Every elected official here this morning has said they feel that the Gaffneys have a case for compensation. What has jumped out from what the Leas-Chathaoirleach said is that there are other boats on the water today that have issues similar to those affecting the boat we are talking about. That means there are other seafaring people, though perhaps not from Ireland, with such boats. We have a moral responsibility to address the issue that the Leas-Chathaoirleach brought up. Why is that not happening? Why are alarm bells not going off for those other boats?

I really feel that the Gaffneys are being hard done by. The boat was registered in 2007. In 2009, they got a certificate. They did not get the renewal of the licence. Will the witnesses explain to me why the Gaffneys got a licence and when it was applied for again, they did not? I am expecting the answer to be that there was a change of regime or a change of law. That should not be on the Gaffneys' heads. I will allow the witnesses to answer.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

I thank the Deputy. As I outlined, the vessel was purchased in Holland. It was brought to Ireland by the Gaffney family. It was registered, based on the certificate it had. I cannot speak to that any more than what the Marine Survey Office has already outlined. Perhaps its representatives will come in on that point. From a licensing authority point of view, the safety requirements in 2007 were in place, the licence was given and the vessel was fishing.

The stability issues came to light subsequent to that.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for cutting across, but was a mistake made if a licence was given but the stability was not correct?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Stability was not a requirement. As has been outlined, that was not part of the requirements. A certificate of total survey-----

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse my total ignorance on this fact. You can get a licence for a boat and the stability is not checked on the boat.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

The safety certificate was issued for the vessel. It is a requirement for the licensing authority to ensure that a safety certificate is in place, and it was in place in 2007. The licensing authority-----

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Coughlan mean 2009?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Excuse me, yes. In December 2009. In 2007, the vessel was issued with a fishing licence based on the safety certificate that was-----

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Coughlan said previously that the boat was registered in 2007, but in 2009 it got its certificate of compliance stating that it was able to operate.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

The vessel was brought into Ireland in 2007. It was registered in 2007. It met all the requirements for a sea-fishing boat licence in 2007 and was issued with a fishing licence in December 2007. It is generally an annual licence, so by the time the licence came up for renewal, the stability issues had come to light and the vessel did not have the valid safety certificate that would enable the licensing authority to renew the license.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be posing questions later and one will be on whether there was an anomaly there at the time. Are there any other members who want to raise questions? There is also the consideration that some of Deputy Ó Súilleabháin’s have not been addressed yet.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The boat came in in July 2007 and the regulations changed in September. This is what Mr. Gaffney said. There is a three-month gap. My question is on the timeline of the Mary Kate. Ms McSherry went through the different EU rules and why it was time barred and we could not approve. In 2011, the European Commission responded by saying that Ireland could request EMFAF money to compensate the Gaffneys and recommended that the Irish Marine Survey Office formally pursue the issue with Germany, yet neither action was taken. Here was the EU telling us to look at this and compensate the Gaffneys, but nobody did anything and it lay there. Now we are told that the Gaffneys are time barred because they have missed the boat, if you will excuse the pun.

I agree with Deputy Brennan that what has happened to the Gaffneys is just awful. I do not know Mr. Gaffney, but from everything I have read yesterday and at the weekend, he did everything he possibly could for his boat. He bought it in good faith. It came with all the proper documentation, arrived in Ireland and was certified. He had it here for three or four months. We changed the rules on the boats in September 2007. He lengthened the boat because it was unsafe. It then met the certification. Then he could not get the fishing licence for the extra tonnage in fish. The bank repossessed the boat because it was just lying there doing nothing. It repossessed his licence, sold it off at a loss and the family was left there after doing everything. It is oft said in Ireland that the more honest you are, the worse off you will be.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to run out of time but there is some-----

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is the question on the 2011 money from Europe.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will get the Department of the marine or the Department of Transport to address that. Does anyone else want to take up the questions from Deputy Ó Súilleabháin that may not have been answered, or do the witnesses want me to repeat them? I will do it as quickly as I can. Ms McSherry dealt with the drawing down of EU funds. There is a pattern of inconsistencies at several levels regarding the Gaffney family's numerous reasonable requests and then introducing measures they claimed could not be introduced.

Why did the Department refuse to produce the promised reports? Why did the MSO originally agree to support the case but then withdraw? Why did the MSO threaten Mr. Gaffney with arrest if he went fishing? Why has the Government and its Departments not highlighted the fact that there are vessels in EU waters that are not seaworthy? There is the monumental justice to Mr. Gaffney, not perpetrated by the EU on this occasion but by the Government and its Departments. Will the Department now take action to draw down money? Will Ms McSherry address that? For any that have not been addressed, will somebody just pick them up and give us the answers?

Ms Noelle Waldron:

To be absolutely clear with regard to other vessels, the Department advised the EU's Commission on Safe Seas in July 2013 of issues with the stability of the Mary Kate and the Eurocutter class of fishing vessel. All EU and EEA member states were informed at the time, as was the European Commission. On foot of this the Commission made the UK, Netherlands and German authorities aware of the potential stability issues with the nine identified sister vessels of the Mary Kate under their respective flags. I want to be clear about that. I will also say, because I did not mention this earlier, that it is important to clarify that the Department of Transport, and specifically the MSO, has no role in the purchase of a vessel.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the MSO be asked for advice by one who intends purchasing a vessel? It does not make sense to purchase it first and go to the MSO afterwards.

Ms Noelle Waldron:

I can clarify with my MSO colleague, but I think that would be a huge conflict of interest. I do not think that is-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Say I am going out tomorrow morning to buy a car and then when I have bought it-----

Ms Noelle Waldron:

That would be like the NCT testing cars that you potentially want to buy. It is a huge conflict of interest. Safety must always be kept separate from private purchases.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree completely, but the MSO does not buy the vessel. However, if I went to Germany tomorrow and bought a vessel and brought back the logbooks of the MSO’s German equivalent and presented it stamped for safety and everything, they would accept that because it was an accredited body in Germany, which sanctioned this vessel that should not have been sanctioned.

Ms Noelle Waldron:

That issue obviously lies with Germany.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course, but Mr. Gaffney fell between two stools here because by the time it was found he had no legal redress to go back to Germany and he is caught.

Ms Noelle Waldron:

Unfortunately, the Department of Transport and the MSO have no role in a private purchase.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any other questions to be taken up from Deputy Ó Súilleabháin?

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They did not answer about 2011 and why we did not look when the European Union asked us to look.

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

The 2011 fund was the EFF fund, and the lengthening of a vessel was not compatible with the provisions under that fund. The second question was about decommissioning. Again, you would have had to have a national programme of decommissioning. Those are the answers to those two questions. I am unaware of what letter from the EU the Deputy is directly speaking to, but if the question is-----

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in our briefing pack.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Maxwell, please.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in our briefing pack that was-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know. Listen, I am being totally fair in this.

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

That is the answer to Deputy Maxwell's question. 2011 was the EFF, and neither lengthening the vessel nor decommissioning were available to the Gaffney family at that point.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At that time, I was familiar with many boats that had to carry out works to make them more safe. We made the case at the time that making them more safe was not going to increase the capacity of the vessels and we looked for free tonnage. However, in this case, according to the brief from the Department of agriculture, the increased length of the vessel required additional capacity to obtain a fishing vessel. Mr. Gaffney did not purchase extra capacity. What was the additional capacity required to lengthen the boat to make it more safe?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

I believe that the increased length required approximately 36 to 38 tonnage to be added to the vessel to qualify for a licence.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It says in the brief that Mr. Gaffney "did not purchase extra capacity". Was he allowed to lengthen the boat and increase the tonnage, the GRT, by 36 to 38 tonnes, and that he did not have to purchase that tonnage?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

It was a decision for the vessel owner to lengthen the vessel. It was a requirement for the licensing authority to ensure that the correct capacity and tonnage are available in order to licence that vessel.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not what I understand. I know of many people who had to obtain additional tonnage and, as other Deputies and Senators will know, they had to go out and buy it. I remember one time that it was about €1,000 and it increased much higher than that. In this case, Mr. Gaffney did not have to purchase tonnage. Would that not indicate that there is a liability by the Department?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Is the question that he did or did not need to?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The brief states that Mr. Gaffney "did not purchase extra capacity".

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Yes. Our records show that extra capacity was not purchased and, therefore, there was not adequate capacity to enable the licensing authority to licence the vessel.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that mean that when the boat was lengthened the Department could not issue a licence for that boat to fish?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Correct. When the boat was initially licensed in 2007, before the lengthening, there was adequate capacity and tonnage to enable the licensing authority to provide the licence. The lengthening of the vessel required extra tonnage.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it correct that the boat could not go to sea post-lengthening?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Without additional tonnage being added. Whether that was purchased or not would be a matter for-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was the boat ever used for fishing after it was lengthened?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

No.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that correct?

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It had to be sold.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the boat was sold, whoever bought it had the extra tonnage.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the end, whoever bought it, fished it.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Yes.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the person who bought the boat from the bank or Mr. Gaffney purchase additional tonnage?

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Yes. They purchased the additional tonnage and the vessel was licensed to the new owners who fished with it until 2021.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The additional was purchased.

Ms Eimear Coughlan:

Yes.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator O'Reilly.

Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the rationale for making the gross tonnage of fishing vessels a privately tradeable asset in Ireland as opposed to the fishing quota, which is retained as a national asset?

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

I do not know the answer. Tonnage and capacity are privately traded in Ireland. It is owned by individuals as opposed to the Department. I cannot tell the Senator the detail of how that came about.

Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When schemes were mentioned earlier an emphasis was placed on decommissioning. As I am sure it is within the power of the Department of Transport, has the Department ever considered establishing a redress scheme for operators who are impacted by gaps in the safety certification of boats?

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

I reiterate that with the funding that we have available to us, whether that is under the EFF, the EMFF or the EMFAF, it is not permissible to use that funding to enable a vessel to meet health and safety regulation. I think that the Senator asked whether the Department, as the managing authority of the fund, could have used the funds for matters that are not compatible with the regulation, and the answer is "No".

Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Earlier it was stated that safety is paramount but this family has been punished for highlighting an issue of safety and everybody has turned their back on them.

This is not exactly encouraging people to come forward when they notice an issue with stability on their boats or an issue with the manufacturing or whatever. This family has been failed by everybody, by consumer protection and by all Departments. The Department could consider some kind of redress scheme. It does not have to be from an EU fund. Will Ms McSherry comment on that?

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

I will leave it to my colleagues in the Department of Transport to speak about the safety issues, because the Department does not look behind the safety certification that we get from the individual operators. However, I will comment on the Senator's question. I think what she is suggesting is an Exchequer-funded scheme. Is that what the Senator is suggesting?

Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am saying that it is not just EU money that is available to Ms McSherry's Department.

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

The only other money is Exchequer funding, so perhaps I will speak to that. Any Exchequer funding to private operators must have regard to the versions of EU state aid rules. That is the number one piece that we have to abide by. To give some context, those rules are designed to ensure that aid provided by member states is compatible with the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. A key principle underpinning the state aid rules is to prevent a distortion in the market. If any Department or State body were to provide aid to one operator that experienced losses such as those experienced by Mr. Gaffney, this would not be compatible with those rules, unless such aid was available to those who experienced similar losses. To put it simply, we cannot establish a scheme for one person.

The other key principle in relation to Exchequer funding and state aid is that aid must have an incentive effect. Again, these rules are set out for us. It may be Exchequer money but we are bound by the EU guidelines for state aid in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. I can go into more detail but what I am trying to say is that for the funding we have been responsible for, I have articulated the rules by which we are bound. As I think the Senator suggested, if we were to look at an Exchequer-funded scheme it would have to be compatible with state aid. The scenario in which Mr. Gaffney and his company and family have found themselves in is that it is not compatible with state aid.

Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is Ms McSherry's opinion on the call for an impartial investigation into what happened in the Mary Kate situation?

Ms Sinéad McSherry:

As I have said, neither I nor the Department have any role in respect of the safety certification of the vessel, so I cannot answer that question.

Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, maybe the Department can.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Delaney was online earlier and was in a position to ask questions but now he is not. I will pose the questions from Mr. Delaney. On many occasions, the EU Commission has stated that Ireland could request compensation from the EU maritime fund or subsequent funds due to the extraordinary circumstances of the case. Do both Departments not think this is extraordinary? Does the MSO not think this very serious safety case is extraordinary, given that there are four defective sister vessels? Will Ireland meet the Dutch and German authorities to jointly draw compensation for the affected owners? What about safety? The COSS letter by Ireland has obviously been ignored. The Dutch authorities were alerted to the fourth defective vessel in 2024, ten years after the COSS letter. Will you respond briefly to any of those in view of the time?

Ms Noelle Waldron:

On the issue of the sister vessels, the Department did its due diligence. It contacted the committee of safe seas and the EU then subsequently contacted the member states. Vessels that are under the flags of the Netherlands or Germany are issues for those countries. I feel that the Department of Transport has done its due diligence on the MSO.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I conclude, what stands out for me in all of this, going back to my time in Europe from 2009 to 2014 and again here today from reading the brief, is that when the vessel came into Ireland there was no obligation on the MSO to carry out a stability test because it was not necessary at that time. Could colleagues from the MSO who were there at the time have carried out simple tests that would have highlighted that there were stability issues?

If that had happened, we would not be here today.

Ms Noelle Waldron:

When the MSO undertook the tonnage survey on the Mary Kate at the end of 2007, the surveyor spotted that there might be an issue with stability. As I said, I have a letter here from the surveyor in question to Mr. Gaffney dated----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that the one you already read out?

Ms Noelle Waldron:

Yes. It is requesting him to have the vessel re-inclined as soon as possible in the interest of safety. That is dated 7 September 2007.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There seems to be a little bit of conflict because we are being told it was the Gaffney family who highlighted the issue about safety. Now the Marine Survey Office is saying that it did it. That has to be factual, so we will have to get clarification on that.

Ms Noelle Waldron:

We are happy to provide the committee with a copy of the letter in question.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was the boat registered at the time that letter was issued?

Mr. Ean Wallace:

In December 2007, I believe it would have been registered but we would have to verify that with the registrar's office.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important that it is, since we are preparing a report. What we are saying now is it was highlighted for the Gaffney family that there was an issue. On the other hand, that is after the boat was registered, not before. Anyway, it is a factual one and we will have to get that information.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On what Ms McSherry is saying, the officials are abiding by the rule with every question and that is fair enough, but this man was wronged. He bought a vessel in Germany and he landed into Ireland with the proper documentation, signed and certified by Germany's version of the MSO. Everything was above board. He found discrepancies and that the boat was not safe. Being a genuine honest person, caring for his crew, he decided to report that. He got the boat lengthened, the tonnage went up and then the catch rate had to go up and he could not buy the licence. Because he had done all that, he then sold the boat to the UK. The UK inspectorate picked up that there was an issue with safety in the boat and would not certify it in the UK. Mr. Gaffney was left sitting in Ireland, doing everything right. The UK authorities had picked up that the boat had a past history, because he had found it. The banks repossessed his boat and fishing licence and sold the boat at a loss. He is left and the doors have been slammed in his face everywhere he goes, for trying to do it right.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not intend to come in again but that is the first time I picked up that it was the UK authorities who highlighted this.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They would not certify the boat in the UK to allow the sale to go through in 2012 or 2011. He had to come back and then the banks repossessed the boat in 2012.

Mr. Ean Wallace:

I do not think that is factually correct. The UK authorities, from my reading of the file, would not take the vessel under their flag. They would not register the vessel and on that basis they would not certify it. It was because they were aware of the previous history of the vessel. It was not that they discovered the issues. They were aware of the previous history.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That brings the meeting to a conclusion. I want to thank all our colleagues who contributed. I thank the Gaffney team who were here for the first session and responded to questions. I thank our colleagues and others who were online. I have to apologise to the members who were not in the precincts of Leinster House. It is a total anomaly that they cannot ask questions. It happened to me as well. That is a matter for the authorities within the Houses to resolve because it makes no sense. I will be pursuing that through the Cathaoirleach with the Working Group of Committee Cathaoirligh. I thank the representatives from the Marine Survey Office and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for their full and frank exchange and for answering the questions. Sometimes we do not like the answers but the officials have answered them as factually as possible.

I am in the Chair today, but my personal view is that we should prepare a report.

I will be recommending that to the committee when we meet in private session. It is a matter for the committee, not for me, to decide at our next meeting in private session how we should proceed from here. Thank you very much.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second that.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but it will be more formal at a later stage. Okay, thank you.