Before we begin, I must read out the note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that, as witnesses, they have 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 by me to cease giving evidence on an issue. 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 - although I do not believe this arises today - will be asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses 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 of information by the witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee in respect of any matters arising from proceedings.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement to the effect that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams - we do not have any at the moment, but that could change - prior to making their contribution, to confirm verbally that they are on the grounds of Leinster House. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct members to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

To provide some context, this is one of a series of meetings the committee is undertaking with regard to sea fisheries protection. We have heard previously from representative organisations of the seafood and fishing industries. The committee has commissioned significant research comparing the various fisheries protection regimes in operation across the Continent of Europe, primarily within the European Union, and in Britain. The committee has appointed Deputy Mac Lochlainn as rapporteur. He will prepare and bring a report based on today's discussion and discussions at previous meetings, drawing on the research the committee commissioned.

Today, we will hear from witnesses representing the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. Tá fíor-fháilte rompu. You are very welcome to the committee. We are looking forward to a very positive and, no doubt, forthright engagement, but a good one that will be interesting for all our members and for many of those watching in and following the work of the committee. From the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, we have Mr. Paschal Hayes, executive chairperson, Mr. Michael Finn, authority member and senior executive manager for operations, Ms Louise Murphy, senior executive manager for corporate services and director of finance, and Mr. Barry Murphy, executive manager for legal services.

The format for the meeting is that we will take the opening statement, which has been forwarded to members. We will allow five minutes for Mr. Hayes to read it into the record or provide a synopsis and then we will move to question and answers.

There will be seven-minute slots. I hope we will get a second round in. I remind members those seven minutes have to include time for questions and responses from witnesses. There are four clocks under the screens. They will be counting down initially for the five minutes for the opening statement and then for each seven-minute tranche. I ask members and witnesses to bear that in mind. I thank the witnesses for being here. I invite Mr. Hayes to make his opening statement.

I thank the committee for its invitation to appear today. We welcome interest in the role of the SFPA, in particular our work as a regulator for the sea fisheries and seafood sectors, and to have an opportunity to outline how we seek to ensure effective and fair regulation of the areas under the authority’s mandate to support safe, authentic and sustainable seafood.

Effective regulation and oversight of the sea fisheries and seafood sectors is essential to the achievement of our shared ambitions for the development of Ireland’s seafood sector as well as ensuring that Ireland’s shared marine resources are sustainable for future generations of fishermen and fisherwomen, coastal communities and Irish and international consumers. The SFPA plays a key role in promoting compliance, verifying it and, where necessary, using the powers provided under legislation to enforce sea fisheries and seafood safety laws for all areas under our remit. This includes all seafood produced in Ireland’s seafood processing companies, all fishing vessels operating within Ireland’s 200-mile limit and almost 2,000 Irish registered fishing vessels wherever they operate. The SFPA’s scope of work is broad and varied. In total, the SFPA has 191 employees with 88 of the grade of sea fisheries protection officer with a further nine senior port officers based at key locations around the country predominately in the major fishing ports. This enables our organisation to fulfil our statutory requirements as laid down in the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, several of which include direct interaction with the sea fisheries and seafood sectors. This includes official controls of seafood processing establishments, aquaculture production sites and wild shellfish fisheries; regulation of the commercial sea fishing industry and verifying compliance with the EU Common Fisheries Policy; seafood trade supports and controls, including the provision of catch and health certification for exports and the application of seafood import controls; and promotion of compliance across the seafood sector.

Our 2024-26 strategic plan focuses on three core areas, namely, the protection of sea fisheries and seafood safety, organisational excellence, and communication and engagement. In line with wider Government and public service strategy, we are advancing organisational efficiency through best-in-class support for staff, processes, systems and data. We have embarked on an ambitious programme of digitalisation that aims to enable us to optimally deliver on our mandate as a regulator. In line with our strategy, we have worked to enhance our position as an effective regulator, an employer of choice, an active participant in Ireland’s climate action journey and an important stakeholder in our global food production ecosystem.

To give some context as to the importance of the fishing and seafood sector to Ireland, the total GDP of the Irish seafood sector in 2024 was €1.24 billion with just under 17,000 livelihoods dependent on the sector, most of which were in coastal communities around Ireland. Over the past six decades, the consumption of fish per capita has tripled, with an average 22 kg now being consumed annually. Ireland has an excellent reputation as a high-quality producer of seafood and the SFPA plays an important role in maintaining this reputation with robust monitoring and inspection programmes in place.

For this area of our remit, we operate under a service contract with the FSAI. Under this contract, the SFPA is tasked with approving seafood processing establishments, including fishing vessels that freeze or process onboard, or both, and the implementation of an inspection programme in line with the risk assessment associated with the processing activity, size and compliance history of the establishment. At present, there are 182 approved establishments, 49 Irish registered fishing vessels approved to freeze onboard and one Irish registered factory vessel. Samples of products are taken for analysis in line with the regulatory limits and where samples are found to be outside of acceptable limits, follow-up action, including the withdrawal and recall of product, may be necessary.

Protecting seafood safety is crucial, not only to the reputation of Ireland’s seafood offering both at home and abroad, but ultimately for the health and well-being of consumers of Irish seafood products. In 2024, the SFPA promoted and oversaw compliance with relevant food safety legislation in 2,290 food businesses. Overall, a total of 2,593 food safety controls were carried out. Of these official controls, 476 were categorised as inspections of approved establishments and 1,965 consisted of official control checks, such as checks prior to certifying a consignment of food being exported to a third country, temperature checks and labelling checks.

Shellfish production and wild shellfish fisheries are a significant sector and the SFPA is responsible for the implementation of classification and biotoxin sampling plans to ensure that products are safe for consumption. Annually, just under 1,800 samples of shellfish are taken by the SFPA for analysis by the Marine Institute and additional phytoplankton samples and biotoxin samples are taken by the SFPA. Offshore fisheries for species such as scallop and razor clam are also required to be sampled.

Much of the fresh and processed fishery products are exported from Ireland to markets in the EU, the UK and Asia predominately. We are responsible for certifying product for export from both an IUU regulation compliance perspective-----

I ask you to draw your remarks to a conclusion. You have overshot the runway by two minutes. The Chairman asked that you do a synopsis of the contribution, which we have. I am sorry about that, but you may have an opportunity at a later stage.

Okay. Thanks very much, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

It is just in conformity with what happens here.

The first member who indicated was Deputy Mac Lochlainn. Remember, there are seven minutes for the questions and answers.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. One of the tasks our committee has taken on is to compare the powers, resources and so on of the SFPA, as best we can, with those of its counterparts in other European member states. That work is ongoing and we have been assisted by the Library and Research Service of the Oireachtas. I have here the list of Union inspectors per member state. It is a document from this year. Ireland has the highest number of registered inspectors at 266. France has 237 and Greece 212. I am taking these in order of size. Spain, which like France has a huge coastline, has 152. How does Mr. Hayes explain Ireland having the highest number of inspectors in the EU?

I thank the Deputy. As I said in the opening statement, the organisation has 191 employees in total. Of those, 88 are sea fishery protection officers and nine are senior port officers. Those 88 and those nine are registered as union inspectors but so are all the Naval Service personnel who go to sea and conduct inspections at sea. The difference between the 101 inspectors who are employees of the SFPA and the list the Deputy has of Union-approved inspectors can be explained by the Defence Forces personnel who are also registered.

I do not have the exact distances in front of me, but surely that is the same for every other European member state. When it comes to designated fisheries officers I am sure it is the same in the Spanish, French and Greek navies, and so on, so I again ask Mr. Hayes to explain there being 266 registered under Ireland in this document, which is the highest compared with any other state.

I do not know how other member states operate. I do not know whether they have that number of defence forces personnel or whether they have their own control authorities going to sea rather than their naval service. The situation in Ireland is our at-sea inspections are generally carried out by the Naval Service and all the personnel who could potentially be involved in an inspection at sea are registered as Union inspectors, so if the number registered is 266 and 101 are SFPA then the difference is Naval Service personnel.

Mr. Hayes does not dispute that this is an official European Commission document and if you look at the document, the number of fisheries officers designated to Ireland is higher than any other European Union state.

That is because all the Naval Service personnel who might conduct an inspection are registered as Union inspectors.

Okay. Will Mr. Hayes undertake to check with other member states whether it is the case this includes their navies and designated authorities?

How other member states conduct their policies under the CFP is a matter for them rather than for me. Ireland has chosen to use the Naval Service as the primary at-sea inspection service. Other member states may or may not do that.

My next question is about the serious concern at the recent court decision on Sean Ward (Fish Exports) Limited. As that has been adjudicated by the court, it is not sub judice and our committee can deal with it. It was ten years before the case found its way to court. What is deeply alarming is the case was taken under the Metrology Act, which meant it leant heavily on the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, which deals with checking weighing systems, in this case in a fish factory. The judge, as the officials know, dismissed the case. There was no basis in evidence for taking it. Is Mr. Hayes going to conduct a review of everything that happened in that case and will that review be published?

I thank the Deputy. The case may or may not be sub judice at this point in time but in any case I am prohibited under statute from discussing that or any other case that has been or may be before the courts.

The NSAI did not find any issue with the weighing system whatsoever, the case went over ten years, the case was referred to in a leaked audit report document to the European Union in two separate parts and officers who gave evidence in the case apparently worked on that audit. Does that cause Mr. Hayes concern?

As I said, I cannot comment on this. Section 68 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 prevents me from commenting on that case or any other such case.

Okay, so Mr. Hayes cannot comment on a court case after it has been adjudicated. Is the authority appealing the case?

Does the Deputy want me to read the section?

No, but is the authority appealing the case to a higher court?

I cannot comment on the case.

Mr. Hayes cannot comment on the case. I am going to reiterate this point. The authority took a case over ten years. The case was based on the Metrology Act. The NSAI, in evidence to the court, made it clear there was absolutely no evidence of any issues with these weighing systems, and indeed, that one of the SFPA's officers may have interfered with the weighing system. It was absolutely damning and Mr. Hayes has no comment to make on that case.

So, what-----

Mr. Hayes has no statements, no comments, no review and no actions taken in relation to that court case.

What I am saying is that the legislation of this House prohibits me from commenting. It might be useful to the Deputy if I describe the process that is normally used for cases and contraventions of regulations when we in the SFPA come across them, in general terms. It the SFPA detects a suspected non-compliance, the first thing that happens is there will be some internal checks put in place in relation to the detection. The master of the vessel or whoever has been detected will be given an opportunity, under cautioned interview, to put forward his or her side of the story. A file will be completed by the sea fisheries protection officer. That file will be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP will then determine if the case is to proceed. There are a number of checks and balances along the way. If the DPP determines there is a case to be answered, it will put the case before the court. The SFPA does not prosecute anybody for a fisheries offence. As far as I am aware, it has never prosecuted anybody for a fisheries offence. These cases are taken by the DPP. I am telling the committee what happens in the general case.

My issue is that the case was taken under the Metrology Act. That would lean heavily on the NSAI to confirm that it has found the weighing equipment to be faulty or interfered with. That would be a strong determining factor. Devastating evidence was given. I have looked at the court reports. It is of profound concern to me and, I would suggest, to any fair-minded person who read the report of that case, which was thrown out by the judge. It did not even find its way to a jury. Will the SFPA review taking cases under the Metrology Act that the NSAI clearly does not subscribe to and has not asked the SFPA to take? The NSAI has clearly not said that it has found an issue. Will the SFPA conduct that review? Will it take cases under the Metrology Act even when it is clear that the NSAI, which is the designated authority to examine weighing devices and check that petrol and pump stations work effectively, did not find any wrongdoing whatsoever? That case was pursued under the Metrology Act and would have relied heavily on the NSAI. Is the SFPA going to review that?

I repeat that I cannot comment on the individual case as per section 68 of the 2006 Act but I will say again that in general, the DPP takes cases. The DPP prosecutes; the SFPA does not prosecute. There are a number of checks and balance before that process happens. The DPP is the decision-maker as to whether a case proceeds.

I thank the witnesses for being here and for taking the time to come in and fill us in on their roles. My first question relates to the depleted navy that we now have. How has it hampered fisheries protection in the country that we have only one ship in the Atlantic at any given time? I believe there is now a smaller ship in the Irish Sea. Has this impacted the role of the SFPA within fisheries protection in Ireland?

I thank the Senator. It is common knowledge that the Naval Service has had its issues in recent years with retention and recruitment and putting vessels to sea. There is no doubt that it has affected it. That is for sure. We would like to have more assets available to us on the sea, wherever they come from. Some policy decisions come into this. Obviously the Naval Service has other tasks besides fishery protection. Our role is not policy related. I do not want to get into the issues of maritime security or any other competing tasking that the Naval Service may have. We do, however, make use of all the resources that the Naval Service has available for fisheries control. If there were more available, we would make of use of those too. We also make use of the European Fisheries Control Agency, EFCA, resource when it is in our exclusive economic zone, EEZ.

We have put an SFPA inspector, who is also a Union inspector, obviously, on board the EFCA vessel when it is in our EEZ. The EFCA vessel conducts inspections within our EEZ and picks up as much slack as possible in circumstances where it is created by the issues that the Naval Service has had in recent years.

I am happy to tell Mr. Hayes that I was in Grangegorman last week and a significant number of recruits are coming through. The flag officer has assured me that the Naval Service has turned the corner, so I am happy about that.

Mr. Hayes will forgive my ignorance but it has been a long time since I was anywhere near the fisheries organisations. I recall some time ago hearing that if you are fishing, for example, for mackerel and land other species, those species have to be returned to the sea. Is that not a gross waste of fish stock? By the time they are landed on the vessel, they are dead anyway.

That situation would have pertained a number of years ago but, due to a fairly significant campaign that was conducted at EU level, a measure called the "landing obligation" was brought into play. It reversed the trend of having to discard fish. All fish must now be landed under the landing obligation. There are some exceptions but, in general, they all must be landed. There are certain conditions in the regulations that attach to that.

I thank Mr. Hayes for his comprehensive answers. I wish him well.

The witnesses are very welcome. The first comment I will make is that it has been very disappointing to listen to what has been said. The issues around the Ward factory went on for ten years. That family went through the wringer. For the witnesses to come in and say they cannot comment beggars belief. People at home are looking in. We have cameras here. This is where we want to get answers and we are not getting them. That is disappointing.

I have been working in Killybegs for 38 years. I started in Campbell Seafoods and went then to Polar Fish. I made a lot of great friends, who I still have today. I gained a lot of knowledge of how to handle and process fish. Today, Killybegs is destroyed. We cannot get foreign vessels to land at the port, apart from the Pelagia Killybegs plant, which is a massive employer. The community deserves support.

I want to try to get clear answers. In April 2025, a vessel with 750 tonnes of blue whiting for human consumption landed in Killybegs. Who made the decision to carry out a pier-side monitor that day?

On the Senator's first point, I understand the disappointment. For clarity, it is the legislation of this House that prevents me from commenting on a particular case. That section refers to attendance at committees. It states: "In carrying out its duties under this section, the authority shall not ... be required to account to a Committee for any matter which is or has been or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State". It is the legislation of this House that prevents me from commenting.

The legislation needs to be changed. A family have been sat at home for ten years with pressure on their business. We cannot get answers. This committee was set up to get answers. It is very disappointing and is something that the committee will need to consider to see if we can change the legislation.

Moving to the Senator's question about the landing of the blue whiting, I will again talk in general terms and not in particular-----

No, I would like Mr. Hayes to focus on this event. I was only in these Houses a couple of weeks. That whole weekend I got the run-around. I know Mr. Hayes. I would rather get a specific answer to that question. Who made that decision?

That decision is made by the officers on the ground when a vessel is landing. It is based on a risk assessment. A number of risk factors are taken into account. If I can take it up one level, there is an obligation on the SFPA to conduct a number of inspections. It is required to inspect 5% by the number of landings or 7.5% by volume of certain species that are being landed, including blue whiting, as a pelagic species.

We are obliged to reach those benchmarks. However, within those benchmarks, we have a risk rating for vessels. A decision will be made in relation to a particular vessel on the basis of various risk factors.

As Mr. Hayes knows, on the pier at Killybegs, pelagic fish are being landed on one side and blue whiting are being landed on the other. The monitor applies there. There is stuff for human consumption. This has been going on for six or seven years. Why can the factory monitor not happen in respect of blue whiting? Mr. Hayes knows the situation because he ran the machine. Blue whiting is a soft fish. More handling reduces its quality, meaning that the factories cannot sell it. If it goes to the factory and is produced right up there, however, there is no problem. Why can the factory monitor not count for blue whiting?

We need to be careful about identifying individual companies.

The Senator asked general questions about a factory.

He named a specific company.

Well, we can erase that and just use the term "a company".

I apologise if I named a company; I did not mean to. I am sorry.

I will answer it a bit more generally, but the Senator can come back to me. If I can, I will be more specific. Not every processor in Killybegs is availing of the derogation that is available under the control plan. They are obliged to inspect at least 5% by number of landings and 7.5% of volume of landings that are done under the control plan. If a processor is working outside the control plan, any monitoring done on that processor does not count towards the metrics that are required under the control plan. I do not know how clear that is, but it is very difficult to answer without going into the specifics, particularly in view of the fact that there are very few companies that are dealing with fish for fishmeal, namely industrial fish only.

I am talking about fish for human consumption. My Hayes knows the machine that is on the pier. Putting blue whiting through that machine is causing undue stress to the fish and reducing the quality. Why on God's green earth can it not be just pumped into the lorry and taken up to the factory and processed, with the weights being done there? We are talking about jobs and talking about quality. We seem to be going about everything arseways. The quality of the fish is essential. If we do not have fish that is of good quality, we cannot sell it. That needs to be made clear. Will this be ongoing as we move forward? Does Mr. Hayes still maintain that blue whiting must be monitored on the pier side?

The situation the Senator describes about weighing in the factory happens with 19 out of 20 landings. For every 20 landings, 19 are weighed in the factory. One out of the 20 landings has to be supervised and weighed by us. In the case of the supervised weighed landing, the obligation is on the operator to dewater that fish. They can dewater it as much or as little as they want, but that obligation is on them. However, it is one out of 20. The other 19 are weighed in the factory. The one in 20 is a requirement under Ireland's control plan. So, the default, namely the level playing field for Europe, if you like, is that every fish should be weighed on the pier side. Ireland decided to apply to the European Commission for a control plan giving us the derogation to allow 19 of the 20 to be weighed in the factories. One out of the 20 has to be weighed under the supervision of the control authorities at the pier side.

Surely-----

Sorry, I am going to bring in Deputy Maxwell now. I hope we will have an opportunity to for a second round.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I am from an inland county and do not know much about the fishing industry, but I visited Killybegs during the summer. It was a horror story to see boats tied up and factories closed. What we have heard so far today has been as clear as mud. We asked about the court case; we cannot comment on that. The SFPA does not take court cases. The DPP is responsible for taking cases.

Is it not right that the DPP will ask for evidence as to why it should take the case? Somewhere along the line, the SFPA had to direct the DPP and say this case was worth taking. I will not go over what Deputy Mac Lochlainn said. It was all about weighing. The NSAI came up and said there was no case to answer. While the DPP took the case, it had to get direction from the SFPA. There are no two ways about it. The DPP in Dublin did not sit and say it would take this case for it then to be proved after ten years, and what it put a family and a man through.

I will again just deal with that in generalities. Nobody directs the DPP, as Deputy is aware. The process is that the DPP gets a file from us.

Yes. In the file, the SFPA must have directed that there was a case to be taken here.

It is not a direction and nobody directs the DPP.

Okay, we will move on; that is clear.

I was up in Killybegs and I saw the machine that Senator Boyle mentioned. I spoke to people who said that whiting was put through and it was made into fishmeal. Mr. Hayes is saying one in 20 have to go through that machine; that is the law of the land. While I will not name the factory in case it gets me into trouble, I visited a factory. You would not see more security cameras at Dublin Airport than the number of security cameras that the SFPA made that factory install for weighing, yet people are emptying fish into a box on the pier, whether it is mackerel, blue whiting or whatever. I am told that we are asking a trawler owner to guesstimate what he has in his hold and the overall number is extrapolated from that box. If he is 10% over, he is in trouble.

I read an article at the weekend; I think a journalist wrote it. He wrote about the Marine Times industry newspaper. It mentioned that Mr. Cormac Burke had said that the SFPA needs to be reduced in size and power. It described the relationship between the industry and the SFPA as toxic. It stated that Mr. Dominic Rihan, head of the Killybegs fishermen, suggested that the SFPA displayed a level of heavy-handedness and that, at times, vessels felt they were being targeted and victimised. It also stated that, for the most part, the participating Oireachtas Members nodded along. Either the journalist made up that quote or someone in the SFPA gave him that quote. I do not think I am just nodding along. I take offence at that quote about nodding along.

We are hearing that the biggest obstacle to the Irish fishing industry is the SFPA. Mr. Hayes will tell me it is not. Every fisher, every processor and even people who are supplying services to the fishing industry whom I meet will say that about the SFPA. I am told about the number of foreign boats coming to land. Killybegs has a state-of-the-art pier. I do not know how many millions of euro were spent on the pier there. There is a tower like an aircraft control tower, where SFPA staff sit watching the pier.

No.

If they do not, who sits in that tower?

The harbourmaster.

The SFPA has nothing in that tower. Where does the SFPA monitor all the cameras in Killybegs?

I might take the questions in order.

The cameras in that factory have a live feed back to the SFPA. I am told there are cameras on the pier. Where do SFPA officers sit to monitor those cameras?

They are on the ground floor of that same building.

So, they are not on the top floor, but on the ground floor. However, they are in the building. So, the harbourmaster sits at the top of the building.

It is his office, yes.

Who owns the building?

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

However, the SFPA has a space in the building and all the live feeds go back into that building.

Let us just deal with the live feeds.

Where do they go?

They go into that building, yes.

Deal with them then. What is the problem if I am asking where they go?

The first issue that I have is the way this is presented - it is not just by the Deputy - in that the narrative is that the SFPA makes the processors install those cameras.

That is not the case at all. I mentioned the derogation available to Ireland to move from weighing on the pier side to weighing off the transport in the processing plant. Part of that derogation is the operator has to be licensed to weigh in his facility. If the operator wishes to be licensed, the control plan sets out the conditions that have to be met for that licensing to happen. One of those conditions is the operator has to have CCTV installed in certain areas of the processing plant. It is up to the processor as to whether they want to avail of the control plan or not. What happens is the processor installs those CCTV systems according to the control plan and comes to us to say they are now ready to apply for the licence. If we are satisfied with it, we will permit that operator to weigh the 19 out of 20 landings at its premises.

Since we cannot name any operators today, I will say that what I saw in that factory was that the operator had all his cameras with a live feed on all the intakes. He even had three or four cameras on where a man had to work at the fish, looking at every angle. This person seemed to have everything in place but his factory was closed up - this was back in June. There were no foreign ships coming in to land anything. He seemed to be abiding by the law and doing everything right. He had invested a lot of money and there he was, closed up.

Why are the foreign ships-----

Apologies, Deputy Maxwell. I will move to Deputy Whitmore before he begins a new question.

I will just finish on this. Why are the foreign ships not coming to Killybegs and landing fish?

Sorry, Deputy, but we would have to provide an opportunity to answer which would eat into another member's time. There will be a second round.

Apologies, Chair, for interrupting-----

I understand, Mr. Hayes, but we are bound by the clock and we have to make sure everyone has an opportunity.

It is just that this is one question that both-----

You will have an opportunity to respond at the end. That is how we format the meeting. I have reminded members and will do so again. I ask them to allow sufficient time for witnesses to answer their questions during their seven minutes. We have to move on to allow everybody to speak. I will be sure to give the SFPA witnesses the opportunity at the end of the meeting to respond to anything they have not had an opportunity to speak on.

I am trying to take on board all the different conversations and debate. To respond to one point that was made, the biggest problem for the Irish fishing industry is a lack of fish and the sustainability of the sector. I just wanted to make that point.

I will go backwards and forwards because I am trying to get an understanding of how things happen and how the SFPA monitors. There are, I imagine, a large number of EU-registered boats which fish in waters and do not land. Does the SFPA have figures for that?

Is the Deputy referring to those that fish and do not land?

Yes, those that do not land.

I do not. It is the flag state control authorities which have the responsibility for the control of those vessels when they land in whatever port. In the same way that Ireland, as a control authority, has responsibility for the 2,000 Irish-registered vessels, no matter where they fish, control authorities in other member states have a similar obligation.

I am thinking particularly of the very large vessels, the super trawlers, factory ships or monster ships, however you want to call them. The capacity to catch fish is enormous. I read somewhere that one of the factory ships had the capacity to hold essentially one third of the Irish quota on board. The potential for a boat of that size, if it was not being monitored properly, to do damage to stocks is enormous and we cannot underestimate that. When an EU-registered boat of that size is in Irish waters fishing, what monitoring of that boat happens?

All our monitoring at sea, on surface, is done by the Naval Service and we also have an agreement with the Air Corps for monitoring. They would generally be the at-sea control authority for us but we also make use of the European Fisheries Control Agency, which has surface vessels and aircraft as well. When it is operating in our zone, we make use of those as well. Generally, it is the Naval Service but also, sometimes, EFCA.

However, the reality is that the Naval Service is very limited. It really does not have the capacity to do a huge amount of monitoring. Is there an opportunity for the SFPA to have onboard monitoring of those ships, such as someone who stays on board and keeps an eye on what is happening?

This is proposed under the incoming control regulation to be deployed on high-risk vessels in 2028. It is also going to be required by the Scottish authorities for pelagic vessels fishing in its area from 2027. There is nothing better than an onboard observer to be able to monitor what a vessel is doing and the best type of onboard observer is obviously an electronic observer who does not have to sleep, eat or do anything else other than monitor what is going on. It has been a proposal at EU level for a long number of years that this electronic monitoring would be introduced. Unfortunately, the industry in some member states have rejected and have stood in the way of the implementation of this. It is now in the incoming regulations, so therefore it will be done. A pilot was conducted two years to 18 months ago, which member states participated in. At the time, I wrote to all the producer organisations in Ireland asking them to volunteer vessels, so that Ireland could have a say in the shape of how this REM would be carried out. Unfortunately, out of our 2,000 vessels, we got one volunteer.

We have a number of years before this is in place. I understand under the regulations that the SFPA can ask for that ability to have that physical-monitoring observer on board. Is that something within the regulations that the SFPA can request of the EU?

That gets us more into the policy sphere than it does the control sphere.

Therefore, that would have to be a policy decision by Government. Has Mr. Hayes ever requested that the Department put observers onboard?

Not that I am aware of, or not in my time, certainly.

Does Mr. Hayes not think that if we are looking at at-risk fisheries and also at-risk vessels, that this would be something very useful and proactive for the SFPA to do? We are hearing that a lot of Irish vessels feel there is an overemphasis on Irish vessels versus EU vessels. When you have a large EU vessel that can cause such enormous damage because of its size, even to demonstrate to the Irish industry that everyone is being held to account for what they do while they are out fishing, would it not have been valuable for Mr. Hayes to make that request and to try to have the discussion with the Department? People could be put on board these vessels, so that while they are in waters there is a pair of eyes looking at what happens on that boat.

Regarding the inspections of Irish vessels versus EU vessels, the statistics do not back up whatever the narrative is in relation to that. Our statistics certainly show that there is higher rate of inspection on the vessels of other members states and foreign vessels than of Irish vessels. I can provide the statistics. Some 10% of the inspections were carried out on Irish vessels while other member states had 57.4% and non-EU had 13.16%.

Even setting aside that argument, if we are just looking at the potential damage or impact that a large vessel like that could have on Irish waters and Irish fisheries, is it not something that Mr. Hayes should have been proactively raising with the Minister to seek that policy change? It would be very comforting to know that there was someone from his organisation on these boats to ensure the boats were operating how they should be in Irish waters.

Again, this moves into the policy sphere but my understanding of it is that we could request observers on Irish boats. States of other flags would have to put their observers on their boats.

Will Mr. Hayes raise that with the Department?

I can, yes. Does the Deputy mean for Irish vessels?

No, for EU vessels. My understanding is that Irish observers could go onto those boats. While there is an interim period while the electronic monitoring is happening, that would be a very useful interim plan to put in place, so that we know what those boats are doing while they are in our waters.

Okay.

I am somewhat familiar with all of this because I happened to be the one with the authority back in 2024 to 2026 when I realised the destruction that was being caused to the pelagic fish in particular. They were being weighed out of the freezing ice, onto a weighing machine and into a tanker with ambient temperature. That was affecting the weighing. I invited Joe Borg, the Commissioner at the time. He came and saw the ludicrousness of what was happening and this resulted in the weighing in the factories. The weighing in the factories was at considerable cost to the processors. I think it cost €2.4 million to provide the cameras. Do any of the witnesses know who supervised the installation of the cameras, or whether they did? On the location of the cameras, did the SFPA indicate where the cameras should be so that the information was fed back to the harbourmaster's office? SFPA officials and officers can see this from the comfort of that building, far away. I worked in a factory in Killybegs and I know it is not as comfortable as it is in the harbourmaster's office.

When the SFPA advertises jobs, is there a competition for them?

I presume the Deputy meant the timescale between 2004 and 2006 rather than 2024 to 2026 when he was Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries? However, he then went to Europe and in 2009 we had a new control regulation and in 2011 we had a new implementing Act. It is under that current control regulation and that implementing Act that the onus to weigh on landing, or get a derogation, comes in. That is why Ireland has a control plan. The Minister of the day decided that Ireland would apply for a control plan and that allows 19 of the 20 landings to be weighed in the factory while one is to be weighed under supervision at the pier side.

We do not supervise the installation of the cameras. If a factory wants to apply to be permitted to weigh at its plant, it has to meet the criteria set out in the control plan. Then it applies for its permit and we will inspect its premises to make sure the cameras are where they are obliged to be under the control plan. However, we do not supervise the installation.

As regards jobs, there is a competition for every job. It would depend on the job as to who holds the competition. For example, the 2006 Act sets out that the competition for an authority member has to be held by publicjobs.ie. For roles at more junior levels, we might operate under licence provided by publicjobs.ie to recruit ourselves through a recruitment agency, but there is a competition for every job.

When the executive chairperson was appointed to the SFPA, was there a competition at that time or was it the Minister's prerogative to appoint someone?

Yes, a competition was conducted by publicjobs.ie and then the legislation states that the Minister makes the appointment. When the publicjobs.ie process is finished, the candidate's name is given to the Minister and the Minister makes the appointment.

I am aware of 7.5% of the catch having to weighed on landing but is it the view of the executive of the SFPA that it is targeting vessels that have large quantities of fish rather than vessels that would have smaller quantities?

It is done on a risk basis. A vessel carrying a larger amount of fish - and we are probably talking about pelagic species here if we are talking about large vessels carrying large amounts of fish-----

It is only pelagic fish that are weighed-----

Well, it is not actually.

-----or that are weighed on the machine.

That is in the Deputy's case, in Killybegs.

Larger vessels in the pelagic sector catching mackerel, herring, sprat, blue whiting in large volumes will be higher on the risk rating under the inspection regime. They can expect to be inspected more often than a 12 ft vessel that is operating out of a port in Mayo.

Does Mr. Hayes accept that the weighing of blue whiting in particular means that, as I said about fish going out the road in Killybegs, it is not possible to process those for human consumption?

More and more of this fish is being processed for human consumption. The figure is about 60:40. The obligation to de-water and weigh rests with the operator, not on the SFPA. There was a lot of grief about this two years. When this was brought up in the past, I asked BIM to get involved and help the sector in modifying or devising a machine that would be gentler on the fish during this process. I understand that BIM was prepared to do that but it did not happen. The people in the processing sector are very resourceful and I am sure they could come up with a way to de-water without damaging the fish, if that is what is happening at the moment, but the onus rests on the operator.

Would Mr. Hayes reconsider one of his previous answers? He said that the SFPA did not decide. Is it not true that the SFPA instructed the location of cameras and, on occasions, insisted on moving those cameras? Mr. Hayes might not have that information to hand but I am asking him to reconsider his earlier reply.

The factory will apply for a permit or officers will go out and inspect. If the cameras are not located where they need to be under the control plan, they will advise the operator that it cannot be permitted unless the cameras are laid out according to the control plan. There may have been a circumstance where one of our officers did that inspection. It is generally the fish processing areas that have to be covered by the cameras. They may have found that the camera was not covering the correct area and may have advised the operator that this camera needed to be moved. That is quite different-----

That was not Mr. Hayes's earlier answer. I will leave it at that. BIM is not and was not involved in any process.

I thank the witnesses for attending. I will pick up where Deputy Whitmore left off. What does Mr. Hayes say to the accusation by some that the SFPA is jeopardising the competitiveness of the Irish fishing sector and is biased against Irish fishing boats? Mr. Hayes responded to Deputy Whitmore's question by saying that the inspections were more on foreign vessels, but does the SFPA's reports clearly show how many physical at-sea inspections are done on foreign vessels versus Irish vessels? By that, I mean real boardings as opposed to administrative checking of e-log books. There is an argument that, although only 15% of fish caught in Irish waters are caught by Irish vessels, the majority of inspections are targeted at Irish vessels. What does Mr. Hayes say to that?

The Senator is zeroing in on inspections at sea but most of the inspections conducted by the SFPA are on land. The Naval Service or the European Fisheries Control Agency, EFCA, conducts the at-sea inspections. If the Senator wants the statistics on at-sea inspections, I do not have them here with me but we can provide those.

Does the SFPA gather and collate that information?

Absolutely, when they are inspected by the Naval Service, the Air Corps, EFCA or EFCA's air asset. We have two rigid inflatable boats that we deploy for in-shore inspections but they would not go more than a couple of miles off shore. Other than that, all the at-sea inspections are carried out under a memorandum of understanding.

What is the ratio?

Ratio between?

The ratio between foreign vessels and Irish vessels.

I just have the inspection figures on landing, if that is of use to the Senator, but I can send on the figures for at-sea inspections.

I imagine that it would be a similar ratio. They would be carried out on a risk basis so the risk factor should be similar. I would be very surprised if they were not on a similar ratio.

I go back to the long-running case involving a fish exporter that was adjudicated on this year. It collapsed due to the total lack of evidence. Would Mr. Hayes say that this has damaged trust among fishermen and the fishing community? I know he said that the SFPA does not bring cases and that it is the DPP that does so but the SFPA does provide the evidence. Would Mr. Hayes say that cases are being brought with insufficient evidence?

Again, I cannot comment on a specific case.

I did not say it was a specific case.

Sorry I understood at the start of the Senator's statement that she was referring to a specific case - my mistake. We implement the regulations. Anybody who is compliant with the regulations has nothing to fear from the SFPA. If somebody is breaching the regulations, there is an obligation on the SFPA to follow that up.

What is the ratio when it comes to cases bring brought forward and then collapsing? What percentage of cases are collapsing?

The final step in any case is an adjudication by the court. The court may find for or against. Is this what the Senator calling a collapse?

Yes.

I do not have those figures with me. The judge or the jury - whichever is the case - is the final determination of whether somebody has breached a regulation. That is the decision that is made on the day in the court.

Ireland is renowned for strong food safety standards, as Mr. Hayes said in his statement earlier. However, we have been banned from exporting salmon and spiny lobster to the US due to regulatory deficiencies attributed to SFPA oversight. How does the authority explain the failure to meet comparability standards with the US? If we look at a similar issue involving Irish brown crab a few years back, it would seem that the SFPA dropped the ball there while the Department essentially left it in the SFPA's hands. The French Government overcame the issue in eight months while our fishermen were left in a precarious position for around two years. Will that be the case here?

Does the Senator want me to deal with salmon to the US or brown crab to China?

Salmon to the US.

What the Senator said is totally inaccurate. It had nothing to do with the SFPA. The SFPA was notified of this issue three weeks ago. We sent an information notice to our customers, who would possibly be exporters of salmon and spiny lobster, known as crayfish in Ireland, to the US. The issue was identified by the American authorities - the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration there - by virtue of crosschecks it was doing with Irish legislation. It picked up something in the Wildlife Act 1976 that was not consistent with its standards and decided to stop the importation of aquaculture salmon produced in Ireland from 1 January 2026 and spiny lobster or crayfish. It had nothing to do with the health certificates or the export regime the SFPA oversees to any third country.

Many of the organisations have appeared before this committee would be on the same page and would say the same thing, namely, that they feel that there is disproportionate overreach within the SFPA. What does Mr. Hayes say to that?

I guess it is a matter of opinion. I certainly would not agree with that from my seat. We are implementing the regulations the European Parliament has put in place and the legislation these Houses have put in place.

Would Mr. Hayes say that regulations can be interpreted differently?

In the main, the fisheries regulations are so detailed that they are quite easy to interpret.

With regard to the speakers today, I understand what Mr. Hayes has said. I understood the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority was coming in and the case has already been referenced. I did listen to Mr. Hayes's reply, and if we cannot ask questions in here about a case that was in the public arena quite recently, where are we going? I am a new Member, like others in this committee, and if rules and laws of the House have to be changed, then we need to prioritise that. To generalise, a case that went on for ten years and the judge decided there was a total lack of evidence, that is shocking; it really is. I read the case and I followed it because I was aware the witnesses were coming in this morning. Can I ask a question that the witnesses may be able to answer? To date, have they a figure for the legal costs? I fully understand that the case could well be appealed. I appreciate that but have we any idea of the legal costs to date, especially given that it has gone on for so long?

Deputy Whitmore raised the issue of factory ships. I have seen factory ships, not up close but in the distance, and they do look like very large towns or small cities. They are raping our waters, there is absolutely no doubt about that.

Following on from the discussion earlier, we should be doing everything humanly possible to ensure electronic monitoring is on board. If nothing else comes out of today's meeting, we should be contacting directly the Minister, and indeed the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, in regard to this as a collective group to push that through as soon as possible.

We really need to do something in regard to getting answers to questions. If we as Members of the Oireachtas cannot ask questions or get answers, then there is a problem. I repeat what I said earlier. We need to address that and we need to do it rather quickly because there will be other groups coming in here and we do not want a repeat of what has happened and transpired here this morning.

A specific section in the 2006 Act refers to the authority's attendance at an Oireachtas committee.

On the Deputy's question about the cost of a particular case, I will answer this in general terms again. In situations where the DPP takes a prosecution, the DPP pays any costs involved with it. The Deputy would have to raise any question about the cost of prosecutions, be they fisheries or otherwise, with the office of the DPP rather than with me.

We cannot get answers, obviously.

Rescind that section of the Act.

I thank all the witnesses for coming in today. I will be brief because I have a number of questions. I will start with a quote. This is how the majority of Irish fishermen I have spoken to actually feel about the organisation, "He who stops being better stops being good." That quote comes from Oliver Cromwell and that is how the Irish fisherman feels. If he stops being better he stops being good, and you are absolutely strangling him.

I will just state this now when I am here. We are on about evidence-based and you provide the evidence. You still provide the evidence. People are absolutely put to the pin of their collar, particularly in Donegal and Castletownbere. All these fishing communities are being held to ransom while Norway and the Faroe Islands basically get to do whatever they want.

I will go on with my questions because I am conscious of the time. Is it currently possible for a fisher to receive an administrative and a criminal sanction for the same offence? How is this rational? Basically that is what the question is.

I presume that is speaking to the criminal case and the points case, and that this might be possible?

Yes.

Yes it is possible for them to do it. As to why it is possible, that is a policy matter the Deputy needs to ask the Minister about rather than ask me. The legislation says there are separate tracks, and if somebody commits a serious infringement, then they are liable to go each route.

Okay. I know there are calls for the SFPA to be reformed and accountable to the Minister and this committee. Is it correct that the authority is currently not accountable to anyone? Have there been any attempts to reform the SFPA in recent years?

What is interesting here is that before my time in the SFPA, the second last time the SFPA was before the committee, I watched it online and the criticism was that the SFPA was not fit for purpose and was asleep at the wheel in relation to the activities of the fishing sector. Certainly at that stage there was, and there still seems to be, an attitude within the fishing sector that unless somebody is caught red-handed breaking a regulation, then they are not breaking it at all. That is not the case. The regulations are there and whether we catch somebody red-handed or not, if they are breaking a regulation they are breaking a regulation. It is ironic that we are here today and the fishing sector is complaining to the committee and to others that we are now too fit for purpose and that we are overzealous in the way we are approaching our work. The bottom line is that what we are doing is implementing what is in the legislation of these Houses and the regulations of the EU.

So, Mr. Hayes blames Government policy?

I am saying we are implementing the regulations that are made at EU level and we are implementing the legislation of these Houses.

I am just going to go on. What is going to change for the SFPA and for Irish fisheries in January 2026 when the latest EU rules come into force?

There is actually little enough going to happen in 2026. They will come in over a phased period. I will let my colleague outline what is actually going to happen from 1 January 2026.

I might just take members back a little bit. Since 2024, some of the regulations have started to be implemented. For example, all vessels must have an automatic identification system, AIS and they cannot be turning it off, and if they do, they have to notify us. Fisheries monitoring centres, FMCs have to be 24-hour fishing monitoring centres now. Again, we were ahead of the game in that we have that here in Ireland. There was a change of regulations in relation to margin of tolerance. They came in during 2024. Next year coming in during 2026 we will have changes in relation to the vessel monitoring systems, VMS, for vessels 12 m to 15 m in length. Again, Ireland is ahead of the curve here and we already have all vessels with the VMS and electronic recording and reporting system, ERS, so there will not be any significant change for us. There will be changes in relation to harmonisation of points and serious infringements. There may be some changes in relation to recreational fishers fishing another vessel, etc., and the recording of catch and effort. Transport documents will be another section that is coming in during 2026. There will be some changes also in relation to sales notes and takeover declarations. For example, if an operator had a turnover of less than €200,000, they did not have to submit sales notes within the 24- to 48-hour period, so that is changed. There are also some changes in relation to the logbook for vessels over 12 m. They will have to record on a haul-by-haul basis, which will be new for them That is coming in 2026. There will also be requirements around lost gear and the recording of sensitive species that are captured, which would have to be recorded in the logbook.

Other aspects coming in will be around us sending data to the Commission and making sure that data is up to date. The whole area of risk is being looked at across the European Commission. The European Fisheries Control Agency, EFCA, has a large role in that so that we have harmonised approach across all the member states. There will be additional rules in relation to gear and the marking of gear but there will also be some exemptions for the smaller vessels up until 2030. That will give them the opportunity to be compliant.

For 2027, the ones that will probably impact us here will be the control regulations, the common controls we have with the other member states, and in relation to weighing. They were due to come in during 2026 but that stream is now back until 2027. A working group is looking at that.

When Mr. Finn says "weighing", could he be more specific?

It is in relation to the requirements for vessels for weighing and sampling. There is already a working group looking at that at EU-EFCA level.

It is a sensitive enough topic. To get it right, the Commission has said it needs another link and further time to consider that and the work being done by EFCA on behalf of the Commission on a scientific basis. There is a lot of conversation about that sampling regime and what the best way of doing it is. That scientific study is taking place. It is put back until January 2027.

That is fine.

We are dealing with Norway and the Faroe Islands. Have there ever been any issues with them regarding cases for which the SFPA has had to provide evidence?

Could the Deputy ask that question again?

Have there been any court cases in which evidence has been provided of, let us say, a Norwegian ship having come ashore?

There is a process whereby we can transfer cases to other authorities.

What are the outcomes of those cases when that happens? Are they dragged out for years and years in court, like happens here, or is it different?

That is a question about the Irish judicial system, which is not for me to answer.

I thank Mr. Hayes for the SFPA's opening statement. I have just a couple of brief questions.

First, has the SFPA had any incidents where water quality from rivers and streams has had a negative impact on aquaculture production sites? If so, how many, where, and is there information on the estimated financial impact of same?

We do not particularly monitor water quality, which would be a matter for the EPA and maybe Inland Fisheries Ireland if the issue were in a river or in inland waters. We test aquaculture sites and conduct sanitary surveys in aquaculture sites, particularly new aquaculture sites. I mentioned in my opening statement the type of sampling we do to make sure that the consumer is protected in relation to shellfish. It would not exactly be directly related to water quality but, obviously, if there were some sort of toxins in the water or something that was detrimental to human health in an aquaculture site and it showed up in the testing, we would take action on that sort of issue.

Has that happened in any of these sites in the past?

Sites are regularly closed, so yes, absolutely.

So the SFPA does not have a serious concern that there would be any effluent affecting the sites.

The monitoring programme is ongoing. There is regular monitoring. The sites have to continue to pass those tests; otherwise they are closed. If they are closed, they have to pass a series of tests again before they can be reopened. I think it is for three consecutive months that they have to test above a certain level before they can be reopened for production. We classify waters into different categories. A, B and C are the main categories. A product coming from water that is classified as A can be put directly onto the market for human consumption. A product coming from water with classification B has to be depurated first before being put on the market. There is a series of steps to go through, all to protect the end consumer.

That is very good. I thank Mr. Hayes for that knowledge.

Second, has the SFPA considered the use of unmanned airborne underwater or surface drones as a future component in supporting its role, for example, for effluent discharges or aquacultural and fishery monitoring? Has the authority ever engaged with the centre of robotics and intelligence systems in University of Limerick, which is doing an awful lot of work in this line, with regard to developing a pilot project that examines how these systems could deliver cost efficiencies and reduce risk to service?

Working backwards, yes, we have spoken to the centre in a sort of fact-finding capacity, if I can call it that. Some of the functions that are performed on aquaculture sites, particularly finfish sites, are done by the Minister directly rather than by the SFPA.

Drones are used in relation to that work. We have underwater UAVs, which we use to ensure compliance with the control regulation as regards what is under the waterline of a vessel, like discharge, hatches or whatever. We can use them when conducting inspections. It is an area we are interested in exploring further.

Mr. Hayes said that the SFPA had been exploring this technology with University of Limerick.

We had a conversation with it, but before we would move on to the next phase of something like that, we would have to be conscious of public procurement and making sure we are setting out exactly what we need and what we need it for. It would not just be University of Limerick that would be involved. It would be any operation, any company, any research facility that wanted to tender for the work plan.

Very good. I thank the witnesses.

I have a number of questions myself so I will put them now before we begin a second round of questions.

The first relates to at-sea vessel inspections. It is quite astounding that you are at this committee without having the figures and the statistics for at-sea inspections of vessels in Irish waters. I cannot understand why you would not have those figures coming to this meeting. I would like first to understand why you do not have those figures and if you can provide them to us. This is a critical part of what we are discussing today. I understand that there were 2,270-odd vessel inspections last year and, from a response to a previous question, that some 30% of those were of Irish vessels. Given that the vast bulk of the fishing effort in Irish waters is carried out by non-Irish vessels, that seems hugely out of kilter with the size of fishing effort. How are vessels chosen? What is the nature of that risk assessment that is made before conducting an inspection of a vessel? Is it fair to say that, if we are depending for the main part on inspections against the harbour wall or on land inspections rather than at sea, we are missing a trick and are missing a certain proportion of vessels that are effectively fishing in our waters with a huge amount more quota than the Irish industry - granted, that is not the SFPA's fault - but are subject to a much less stringent inspections regime and, in many cases, can return to home ports loaded to the gunwales with fish and never be inspected, certainly not by the Irish authorities, if indeed by the authorities in their home countries?

I apologise for not having the at-sea inspection figures but we can certainly provide them to the committee. It is information we look at daily in any case and we just do not have it to hand. As you can see, we have fairly large-----

May I just ask why? Is it an oversight? Is it a folder left on a desk? How do you not have that information?

No. As you can see, we have fairly large folders with us, but it certainly would have been useful if the committee had indicated beforehand the topics it wanted to discuss.

Not to labour the point, but sea fisheries inspections are a fairly significant part of your work, I would imagine, and a significant topic that you should have anticipated would come up today. It is a core piece of information that is missing from this discussion.

Well-----

I accept that you do not have the information to hand and that you cannot manufacture it here in front of us, so we will carry on.

My other question was about how vessels are chosen, the risk factors and your response in terms of vessels returning to their home ports.

Again, I apologise for that, but I do have a folder with 37 different tabs on it here. We tried to anticipate what the committee might ask us, but we did not speculate on-----

Okay. We will move on.

Okay. I think the Chair may have got those figures the opposite way around to how I read them out. I did read them pretty quickly. We are talking about pelagic landings, which seem to be the main emphasis for today. For 2024, the numbers inspected were - these are landing inspections, obviously - 10.27% of Irish vessels, 57.14% of other member states' vessels and 13.16% of non-EU vessels. Again, that is just pelagic fisheries we are talking about.

The remainder does not add up to 100%; 54%, 13%, 10%. That adds up to in or around 70%. Will Mr. Hayes clarify that? I am trying to understand how many of the total quantum of on-land inspections, because we do not have the figures for at-sea, are Irish?

I will go through the number of landings. In 2024, for Irish vessels, the figure was 331, for other member states' vessels, it was seven, and for non-EU, it was 38.

So, 331 Irish landings were inspected last year.

No, sorry. That was the number of landings in total. The number of Irish vessels inspected in 2024 was 34; the number of other member states' vessels inspected was four; and five non-EU vessels were inspected. It is the percentage of the total number of vessels.

So, for every 34 Irish vessels to have their catch inspected, there were only five non-Irish, meaning EU and non-EU. If those are the figures, it is even more astounding than what I said in my opening question. It is massively out of kilter with the nature of fishing effort in Irish waters, where only 15% of total allowable catch is caught by Irish vessels, or Irish vessels only have that quota. Yet, the vast bulk of inspections on land, and I imagine it is a similar ratio at sea, shows the SFPA's efforts are overwhelmingly directed at Irish vessels.

Looking at these figures I do not agree. So, 331 Irish vessels landed, 34 were inspected. Seven other member-state vessels landed, four were inspected and 38 non-EU vessels landed-----

We do not have statistics here at this committee meeting for at-sea inspections, so Mr. Hayes cannot tell me how many foreign EU and non-EU boats are being inspected at sea. I have made the point that we have no oversight of vessels returning to their home ports having caught fish in Irish waters. If only seven vessels landed in Irish ports last year and SFPA inspected four of those, how can SFPA give us any assurance that it is conducting any level of inspection or monitoring of fishing effort in Irish waters by EU or non-EU boats?

My answer would be to say it is a Common Fisheries Policy. The obligation does not only fall on Ireland's control authorities in relation to other member states fishing in the Irish exclusive economic zone, EEZ. It falls on the control authorities of those member states as well. It is the member states working together at an EU level in relation to control of vessels fishing in Union waters, as the EU calls it.

I am going to put a question to the SFPA with regard to cases. I know witnesses are not going to respond. At some point in the future when we know an appeal is not going to be taken, because I think it would be a colossal waste of money, we might speak about an individual case. However, in the general sense, has there been any reviews by the SFPA on the cases brought or files presented to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which then makes a decision whether to bring a case or not? Has there been a review of the files that have been prepared? The SFPA might provide figures for the number of files. How many of those resulted in a conviction and how many were dismissed? Is there any planned review of cases that have effectively been thrown out? There is a difference between somebody not being convicted and a case being thrown out by the judge. We can all understand that. We do not have to be lawyers to understand it is different when a judge says there is a total lack of evidence and that they are dismissing a case summarily rather than going to a jury. Has there been any review? Is there a review? Does the SFPA plan to review that?

We review that on an ongoing basis. That would effectively be the work of one of our units. We have a system that keeps track of all this. Rather than giving the Cathaoirleach figures, some of which I have in front of me, I would prefer to send on to the committee what has been requested.

I ask that the SFPA send those on. In terms of the review being carried out on an ongoing basis, who is that reported to and how often?

It is reported to the authority.

From the authority, is it reported to any other agency of the State, the line Department or the Minister? Could that report, maybe on an annual basis, be furnished to this committee as well?

Some of the criteria the Cathaoirleach has outlined would be reported on. Some of them would be included in our annual report, which is publicly available. Some of them would be reported to the Minister and his officials without going into the individual cases, obviously.

Is there any place we could see all of these together in one document? Is that something the SFPA could prepare for us?

We will check if exactly what the Cathaoirleach has asked for is in our annual report. If it is, we will link the committee to it and, if not, we will provide it.

I do not think the full detail is in the annual report. A question about cost has been asked several times. We appreciate there is a legal cost of bringing a case and that is a matter for the DPP. The cost of preparing a file in a case where, because of what happens in front of the judge, the judge says there is absolutely no evidence, is of public interest in terms of money not being wasted and from an accountability and transparency point of view. That is in addition to the effort, stress and hardship somebody will experience in having to deal with that. I will leave it at that.

I assure the Cathaoirleach that the legal costs and every penny we spend are accounted for in our annual report and annual accounts.

I am talking about the cost to the SFPA and the public purse of preparing files that go to the DPP and are then effectively thrown out of court on the basis, to quote a judge, of a total lack of evidence. That was the question.

Just that we are clear, I have said we will provide statistics but that is a difficult statistic to provide unless there is a really good definition of what "thrown out" means.

I will hazard a definition. It is where the case is dismissed by the judge summarily.

We will now have a second round. I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

Can Mr. Hayes read out the part of the legislation that prevents him from commenting on court cases?

Will I read out the full section?

Can he just read out again what he read out earlier, please?

It is section 68 of the Act. It states:

In carrying out its duties under this section, [This section relates to attendance at an Oireachtas committee] the Authority shall not-

(a) question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy,

(b) provide information that might facilitate the commission of an offence, prejudice a criminal investigation or jeopardise the safety of any person, or

(c) be required to account to a Committee for any matter which is or has been or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State.

I am going through the SFPA website reading statement after statement issued by the SFPA following court cases that the authority has been successful in, but I cannot find any statement from it about court cases it has not been successful in. How does Mr. Hayes feel about that?

Maybe I should have read the start of the paragraph for the Deputy?

No, Mr. Hayes does not need to read anything to me. Mr. Hayes is referring to a part of legislation so that he does not have to comment on a court case that is frankly shocking and that has been reported on in the public domain. He is refusing to comment on it, yet I can find statement after statement. When it wins court cases the SFPA cannot be silenced in commenting on what has happened and in commending its officers, yet, in the instance of this court case where an officer of the SFPA apparently tampered with evidence and, according to the evidence of the NSAI, it found no wrongdoing but found an officer of the SFPA apparently led to an incorrect finding by leaning a spanner on the weighing scale. Mr. Hayes has no comment to make on that, yet I see comment after comment from the SFPA on court cases it is successful in. Is it the case that Mr. Hayes remains silent when a court case does not work out, but has a lot to say when court cases work in the SFPA's favour?

What message does it send to the industry that the SFPA does not learn from mistakes? It is just shocking that this case went on for ten years. I and, I would imagine, other members of this committee will note the SFPA's refusal to comment on it today and we will be looking for a lot more from the Minister in relation to legislation and learning from all of this.

I am going to leave it at that. I do not want the witnesses to respond but I have found statement after statement where the SFPA immediately comments when it is damaging to the industry but when it is damaging to the SFPA, it has not a single word to say. The witnesses were given a chance in this committee and they have not had a single word to say. They hid behind a legislative technicality in order to do so. That will be noted by this committee and the industry.

I want to briefly touch on the sprat fishery. There has obviously been a change in the rules, in that there was a quota in place for vessels over 18 m for this year that will now be no longer allowable, but there is no quota for vessels under 18 m. The 2,000-tonne quota was very quickly met once the fishery began. Do the witnesses know what landings of sprat for vessels under 18 m have occurred this season?

I am sorry, as we would not have the figures available yet, but we can have them later in the year and we can certainly send them on to the Deputy.

Okay. When does Mr. Hayes think it would normally be? The fisheries-----

The figures we have published would probably be about June but we can see if we can get something before that date.

Perfect. That would be very useful.

That would be June 2026 for the calendar year 2025.

Okay. If Mr. Hayes could get them earlier, that would be very useful. Can he go through the process of how the SFPA quantifies those landings?

The vessel is obliged to keep a logbook if it is over a certain size. That logbook may be electronic or on paper. In the case of the electronic logbook, the data are returned automatically to us. In the case of the paper logbook, it is handed into our office periodically and entered manually. That is combined to get a total landing and can be interrogated for landing by vessel size, port or whatever way you want to slice and dice it.

The people on site at the ports would select a certain number of boats and cross-check. Is that correct?

The system would automatically carry out cross-checks in certain circumstances and flag it up to our officers if there is something to be followed up.

Okay. I thank Mr. Hayes. If he could get those stats for me, it would be very useful.

I want to follow on from the case made by Deputy Mac Lochlainn. All I can say is there is an accusation that there is a lack of consistency when the SFPA applies section 68 depending on the result of a case. I will leave it at that. It is wrong that the SFPA can respond to those cases that are favourable to it but then it puts the shutters up when it comes to section 68. That is something we will pursue further.

In addition to that, I am sure - and this just a statement - that the DPP is totally embarrassed a result of this and the evidence that was supplied. It is only as strong as the evidence the SFPA supplied to it. It would be much better for the witnesses to come in today, put their hands up and say that they got it wrong and they apologise to the DPP - not to us or the fishers, but the DPP - for the lack of evidence that was produced. After harassment for ten years, there is no comeback whatsoever for that company. I hope the SFPA may change its ways as a result of this and be consistent.

Mr. Hayes referred to the Common Fisheries Policy. All the regulations are common but it is strange that the SFPA implements them differently. I would suggest that, if Mr. Hayes' people have not been to other countries, they should go there. Now that this case has not cost the SFPA anything, it should go there and see how they are implemented. They seem to be implemented more vigorously in this country than they are in other countries. Can Mr. Hayes tell me, with this case being cost-neutral to the SFPA, were all of the expenses from the investigations and the preparatory work a matter for the DPP? It did not cost the SFPA anything.

I will bring Mr. Hayes back to a question raised by Senator O'Reilly in relation to the salmon.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, confirmed that the written responses from Ireland led it to banning salmon and crayfish. That report was out last week. Did the SFPA respond to the queries? Why is it that they are banned now? NOAA is blaming the responses from the Irish authorities for this.

To be clear, section 68 does not prevent the SFPA from issuing press releases. Section 68 refers specifically to our appearance at an Oireachtas committee. It is not that I am choosing not to answer the questions; I am legally prohibited from answering the questions. I want to make that clear.

Will the SFPA issue a press release dealing with these matters then? Will it make a public statement dealing with these matters?

I will not and there are other reasons besides section 68 here. We are still not past the time for appeals. It is a matter for the DPP as to whether it is appealed or not. I have nothing to do with that decision but as far as I am concerned it is still sub judice in that regard, in any case. However, to say that I am putting out press releases about successful cases and refusing to speak about this is not accurate. Section 68 prohibits me, at this committee, from talking-----

Has the SFPA released a statement following unsuccessful cases? Has it released a public statement following an unsuccessful court case?

I cannot remember putting one out, to be quite honest about it, but the reason we put out press releases of this type in the first place is so we can promote compliance across the sector. It is not with a view to beating anybody who has been convicted in a court over the head with a stick. It is so we can get the message of compliance out there and try to get the sector to be compliant. We would much prefer if we were not in a situation where anybody was breaching regulations.

I thank Mr. Hayes and call Senator Boyle.

I am sorry, Chair, can I answer in relation to the salmon?

There will be an opportunity at the end. We will try to get through all the members first.

With regard to what is going on here, there was a criminal case taken against a young skipper who I know personally. There was pressure put on that man and his family just because it was alleged he underdeclared his by-catch. Thankfully, the jury and the judge threw it out of court too. It is mind-boggling what is going on here, the pressure that is put on families. It really is. That poor man did not know if he would be fit to go to America or anywhere after it.

I know we are not going to get an answer on that so I will throw a question that we maybe will get an answer to. What progress has the SFPA made on lodging the application to the EU Commission on the port landing for Killybegs under the new regulations?

I assume the Senator is asking about the designation as a port under the margin of tolerance regulation.

Yes.

First, whether an application is made in respect of Killybegs is a policy decision that rests with the Minister. As far as I am aware, the Minister has not yet decided whether an application is going to be put in. When the Minister makes that decision and if it is in the affirmative that he is going to apply, then it is quite likely that he will ask the SFPA to put the application in but he may choose another route. He may ask his own officials to do it instead. In anticipation that it may happen, the SFPA has started carrying out an assessment of what would be required in Killybegs to support such an application. That assessment is pretty well advanced at this point in time.

How long does Mr. Hayes think it will take? Denmark and Latvia have already received theirs.

My understanding is that they got theirs back in a matter of a few months.

I have another question. Which agency is responsible for risk assessment of vessels from third countries in our exclusive economic zone, EEZ, such as the large Norwegian fleet operating in our waters every spring?

The risk assessment is done on a number of different levels. Generally speaking, it will be on a fishery level, a vessel level and a stock level. The process is normally initiated by the European Fisheries Control Agency, EFCA, and it can be added to along the way. Is it in EU waters or is it outside-----

I am asking about our EEZ waters.

The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, NEAFC, is responsible for what applies out there. When we move into the EEZ - or as the Commission calls it, EU waters - up to our 12-mile limit, the risk assessment is initiated by EFCA. We are involved in that process, which happens on an annual basis. Certain segments are identified as high, medium or low risk, and certain fisheries and vessels are similar. It is actually published on our website. Only the vessel risk rating is not published.

Is it correct that the SFPA has a good input into that?

We have as much input as other member states have.

I have found the morning highly frustrating. I see why fisherman have the angst they have about the SFPA. When questions were asked, rules our predecessors made were used against us to not answer questions. A silo was put up. Listening to this, you would think the fishing industry is absolutely rosy, going really well, and the SFPA is to be thanked for that.

It is something the committee has to examine We have to go back to our rules. People can come into this committee and use our rules against us to not answer a question put to them. It is not what we are here for.

I look forward to having the witnesses back again. I take it they have not been at an Oireachtas committee in a long time. Maybe they have. I asked Mr. Hayes about the live feed into the tower. He said "No" and then he said the SFPA was not on the top floor but admitted it was on the bottom floor. That sums up the level of answer we were getting here. I understand why Irish fishermen feel the way they do about the authority.

The tower is a very specific location.

It is.

It is important to be accurate when you are sitting in front of a committee.

It is important, and I asked whether the live feed went into the top of the tower. Mr. Hayes said "No". I made a mistake. It was not the top of the tower; it was the first floor. I had the wrong floor. That was the way Mr. Hayes wanted to take the question. He said: "Yeah, it's in the tower but we're not on the top, we're on the bottom." That is fair enough. If that is the angle he wants to take, that is no problem. If he is saying that to me having never met me before, then the disconnect is coming from how he deals with fishermen on the pier in Killybegs, Castletownbere or anywhere. That is what I am taking from the meeting. That is just one point. Other members asked him questions and there was a total disconnect. That is all I can take.

I can understand the frustration but that frustration is being taken out on me for complying with the legislation of this House.

I did not know that legislation was there. Maybe that is on me. I should have read the Act and known that before any question was asked. We have to look at ourselves to see how we can go forward and do better so that when we have someone before the committee, we can get the answers we want.

I look forward to coming back. Any time the Deputy wants to see me, I am happy to come back here.

I thank Mr. Hayes

I reaffirm what Senator Boyle said about heavy-handedness and disproportionate responses. There was a recent case of a man in his 60s who had changed an outboard motor for another and was waiting for his licence renewal. He was hit with not one but 14 summonses from the DPP. There was also a case last year where 30 armed response officers landed into a man's yard. That is extreme and excessive and it has a profound effect on people and their families.

I am still waiting for a response on who is responsible for resolving the compliance issue regarding salmon and spiny lobster exports. Who is responsible?

I thank the Senator. I am glad she asked me that because that is the one I wanted to come back on a while ago. We only heard of the issue with the crayfish and the salmon three weeks ago. In reply to Deputy Gallagher, we are certainly not the ones in contact with the US authorities on anything to do with this. We sent out an information notice because there was a risk of people exporting fish to the US which would be turned back. We delivered the message but we were not involved in any of the discussions related to this. The information I gave on this earlier is as much information as is available to me at this point in time. My understanding is the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is speaking with the US authorities.

As the chair of his organisation, who does Mr. Hayes report to? Who is he accountable to?

We report to this committee.

I thank Mr. Hayes.

On the east coast mussel seed fishery, I know there were delays for specific reasons but is there any update? It was supposed to open a number of months ago. There was plenty of seed there at the time. The likelihood is it is gone now by crab, starfish, etc. It is getting very late for trawlers to go out and gather it.

That is a question for the Minister rather than the SFPA. The Minister deals with opening and closing fisheries. He normally puts out a statutory instrument or a notice of some sort and then it becomes the SFPA's duty to make sure that notice is complied with. The opening of a fishery is a question for the Minister.

I have a question for Mr. Murphy, the executive manager of legal services. Will he clarify whether he is conducting a review of existing cases and making recommendations to the DPP? Would he say that, under his oversight, there has been a change in policy in dealing with legal cases, in what cases find their way to courts and in what cases a settlement is negotiated?

We review all cases on an ongoing basis. They progress through the courts. We have opportunities to review files at all times. That is the extent of the review process we undertake. We have always complied with our enforcement policy, which has been in place since before my tenure. The policy reflects that any enforcement action be proportionate and that not every infringement will result in a prosecution. That is set out in the enforcement policy. There has not been a change in policy. We avail of the tools provided for under the Act and under legislation. The file is prepared for the DPP and then, as has been outlined, the DPP makes a decision on whether to proceed to prosecution.

I think I speak on behalf of all when I say the time we had today was not adequate. This should happen at an early date. I am thinking in particular of small vessels that can only land at designated piers because sea fisheries officers are not available. We must put the fisherman before fishery officers. When they know there is a four hour hail-in to small ports, they should be available.

That is for another day. I do not want the answer now. I do want the SFPA to be reasonable in that respect.