Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Sheahan for raising this issue. All matters relating to the operational enforcement of sea fisheries law are, by statute, matters appropriate to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. SFPA is the independent law enforcement agency of the State for sea fisheries law.

As Minister of State, I do not have responsibility in regard to the issues raised by the Senator. Responsibility in these matters rests with SFPA, which has a challenging job to do. Its statutory responsibility is to enforce EU and national law under the Common Fisheries Policy. It also has responsibility to provide a level playing field for everybody in this industry. If one boat or two or six boats are overfishing deliberately, it is not a victimless crime. It has an impact on others who are law abiding and who are catching in accordance with the quotas allocated to them.

The market situation for pelagic fish is currently challenging, as Russia has banned the importation of pelagic fish and Russia has been an important market for mackerel, in particular. If illegally caught fish are being placed on the market, it displaces and reduces prices for those operators, the majority of our industry, who are abiding by the rules set down. In my view, it is in the interest of the industry as a whole to have strong and fair arrangements in place that give confidence that the rules apply across the board and that all operators are abiding by the quota allocations made available to them.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority has sent me a report on the issues that have given rise to the current situation, the actions taken and the current state of consultation between SFPA and the industry. Arrangements for the monitoring and control of fisheries is set down in the EU Control Regulation 1224/09. Article 60(2) of the Council regulation requires that weighing of fisheries products shall be carried out on landing prior to the fisheries products being held in storage, transported or sold. SFPA has allowed a derogation from the EU regulations and permitted the weighing of pelagic fish post-transport in every plant since 2012, based on assurances that proper systems and procedures that accurately recorded catches were in place in these plants.

However, there have been substantial indications that fish have been landed in weights that exceed those recorded by the weighing systems in factories. These indications have arisen through the routine course of SFPA's work and as a result of joint inspections with other organisations, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland.

SFPA has set out some of the issues that gave rise to concerns. These include a high level of divergence between spot checks by SFPA and the official factory weight, even taking account of some divergence relating to water content; a trend of individual trucks recording substantially more fish when subject to SFPA official control compared to instances when not subject to such controls; and one instance of a simple on-off switch on the belt weigher in a factory which had the effect of allowing the belt to transit fish without being recorded on the meter. If used in this way, fish would not be weighed or recorded.

The permits which allow in-factory weighing have lapsed due to SFPA's overall lack of confidence in the operation of the weighing systems. SFPA has entered into discussions with both catchers and processors to implement systems and procedures that will restore confidence in the weighing systems in factories.

The authority has set out to the factories certain requirements necessary before permits can be granted, thus allowing the renewal of in-factory weighing. These requirements include provisions to give assurances that weigh belts in the factories are recording when moving. They include confirmation of product flows into and out of plants and checks involving weighing of a sample of landings on the pier side as a means of validating factory weighing.

Several pelagic fish factories have in recent days applied for permits under the new requirements, albeit generally qualified by statements around non-acceptance of some of the requirements described by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. These applications are being considered by the SFPA.

While the representative bodies for the pelagic industry have acknowledged the need for change, they are not yet willing to support the SFPA requirement for a continuous remote monitoring facility to increase assurances of accurate recording. Furthermore, the industry is not yet willing to provide stock movement records at the level of detail set out in the SFPA request. Catchers have indicated they are not willing to move to recognise the validity of weighing at landing, even as a component cross-checking arrangement of an overall system of supporting factory permits.

I understand and appreciate that the new arrangements sought by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority for the effective control of pelagic fisheries involve some changes in practices. However, in the long run it will be in the interests of the industry as a whole to commit to strengthened controls that give all catchers and processors assurances that there is a level playing field across the industry. I encourage the industry to continue its dialogue with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. The SFPA is considering existing applications for in-factory weighing permits and is awaiting further applications from the remainder of the factories. If there are additional technical issues to be sorted out, the authority has assured me that it remains available for further discussion with industry representatives.