Tá fáilte mhór roimh gach éinne. Is Seachtain na Gaeilge é an tseachtain seo agus an tseachtain seo chugainn. Iarraim oraibh más féidir cúpla focal Gaeilge a úsáid le linn na cruinnithe. Déanfaimid mórmhór ár ngnó i mBéarla mar is gnách, ach tá billeog curtha timpeall le cúpla focal i nGaeilge gur féidir a úsáid le linn ár ndíospóireacht agus ár gcuid cainte. It is Seachtain na Gaeilge so I ask colleagues, insofar as they can, to use cúpla focail during our meeting today.

Before we begin, I need to bring to the committee's attention, as I do every week, the note on privilege. Our 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 they have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at my direction as Chair. Witnesses should follow this direction and 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. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from these proceedings.

I advise and remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any member participating via Microsoft Teams that, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, that they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. Members are also 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, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative they comply with any such direction.

The agenda for today's meeting is the sea fisheries protection legal and legislative framework for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA. This is part of a series of meetings on sea fisheries protection that is feeding into a report for which Deputy Mac Lochlainn is rapporteurr. We are joined by the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Timmy Dooley. He is joined by officials from his Department: Ms Anna O'Sullivan, principal officer, and Mr. Donal King, assistant principal officer. I remind members that while the Minister of State may call on his officials to speak briefly for clarification purposes during the meeting where a specific or technical point arises, the Minister of State is the witness, whereas the officials are not. Officials can clarify issues for the committee but any follow-up questions from members should be put to the Minister of State directly, as he is the accountable person before the committee.

I ask the Minister of State to make his opening statement and then we will go to questions and answers.

Táim lán-sásta a bheith anseo ag caint leis an tÚdarás um Chosaint Iasmhaigh Mhara, SFPA, inniu. The Government fully recognises the critical importance of maintaining a vibrant fishing sector. The Programme for Government: Securing Ireland’s Future reflects this approach by committing to securing a sustainable future for the fisheries sector while supporting coastal communities that rely on this important activity for their livelihood.

Since my appointment 12 months ago, I have travelled widely and engaged with stakeholders across the industry. There is a considerable level of frustration currently with enforcement practices and the legislation underpinning same. There is a view of the current system whereby offences are dealt with under the Criminal Justice Acts is disproportionate. I also hear that the sanction with penalty points is fine but it is not harmonised with the rest of Europe. As I understand it, we do not have a harmonised system of penalty points across the EU.

I very much welcome the initiative of the committee under the rapporteurship of Deputy Mac Lochlainn to form a report, which I assume will be published and circulated in due course. I want to participate, obviously, in that work insofar as I can.

The SFPA's vision is to be a trusted regulator that promotes and verifies compliance, supporting sustainability in Ireland’s sea fisheries and seafood sector in a fair, proportionate and transparent way and, where necessary, enforcing national and EU sea fisheries and seafood safety law effectively. This means the fair regulation of all fishing vessels operating within Ireland’s 200-mile limit, Irish fishing vessels wherever they operate and of all seafood production in Ireland.

As the Minister of State with responsibility for this area, I am precluded by statute from getting involved in operational matters, including in relation to sea fisheries law enforcement. Section 68(1) of the 2006 Act provides that the SFPA is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts regarding the regulatory and financial transactions, the efficiency of resource use, and the evaluation of operational effectiveness. Section 68(2) provides that the SFPA shall account to this committee for the performance of its functions and "shall have regard to any recommendations ... relevant to its functions." I have no doubt that the committee will incorporate that in its report.

The consistent message I am hearing from all my industry engagements is that they want to see a fair and strong controlled framework, which is a key element of protecting fish stocks on which our seafood sector depends. While the SFPA is independent in the exercise of its functions, section 48 of the 2006 Act established the SFPA consultative committee "for the purposes of consultations and liaison with the sea-fisheries and seafood sectors and other relevant interests on matters relating to the functions" of the SFPA. I understand that the consultative committee is a very good structure but it needs to be more than just a one-way conduit for information flow. I have met almost all of the 14 committee members, who are excellent representatives. They understand the industry and its challenges.

Our Department is committed to ensuring that State bodies under its aegis achieve the highest possible standards of corporate governance. We work closely with the SFPA to ensure good governance in meeting its objectives. This includes confirming that the SFPA complies with the Department of public expenditure's code of practice. The SFPA's budget has developed in recent years to reflect new requirements in fisheries control beyond funding for capital projects to ensure the agency's ability to meet its existing objectives. The SFPA has embarked on an ambitious programme of digitalisation. The SFPA will implement a new digital inspection service in 2026 and will continue to develop new resources to meet requirements under the revised control regulation.

In terms of the SFPA's legislative framework, one important element in the EU fisheries control regulation provides for a Union fisheries control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy and establishing a level playing field across the EU on fisheries control. The current control regulation entered into force in January 2024 and updates and amends the previous 2009 control regulation. Our Department is working with the SFPA and other relevant Departments to introduce the required measures to implement at national level the relevant provisions of the updated control regulation.

I wish to advise the committee that I intend to carry out an independent evaluation of the 2006 Act in the near future. Specific terms of reference will first be drafted to set the parameters of the evaluation. I would welcome the committee's input to this phase of the work. Specifically, I believe we need to address the consistently raised issue that the Act requires criminal rather than administrative sanctions for minor infringements. It is also time to evaluate the governance and oversight provisions of the SFPA in the Act, and the committee's input would be helpful in this regard.

I want to make it clear that my desire to review the Act in no way casts any aspersions on the implementation of the law currently by the SFPA. I have full confidence in the SFPA as it is currently implementing the Act. It is the Act that I want to review in this regard.

The SFPA completed an organisational capacity review in 2020. PwC was commissioned to undertake a capability review of the SFPA, focusing on identifying actions that were necessary to strengthen the organisation in order to operate more efficiently and effectively.

The review report was published by the SFPA in April 2020 and included a total of 46 recommendations. Following the publication of the report, the Department nominated a three-person independent advisory board, with expertise and-or professional experienced in senior administration, public sector governance requirements and management, not related to the sectors regulated by the SFPA, to assist the SFPA management in strengthening the capabilities of the organisation.

The SFPA has taken significant steps to address the report’s recommendations through the appointment of an independent advisory board and the appointment of a director of transformation. The implementation of these recommendations was completed, I believe, in 2023 and the SFPA's current strategy integrates these recommendations.

Additionally, our Department has provided significant additional resources to the authority in recent years to strengthen the organisation and ensure that it delivers to a high standard on its core responsibilities.

In conclusion, I am satisfied with the SFPA's current governance and accountability requirements, as I have outlined, are functioning. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these important matters with the committee today and thank the Chair again for the invitation

Go raibh maith agat a Aire. Tá deis ag na baill anois ceisteanna a chur. An gcuirfidh cainteoirí a gcuid lámha suas más mian leo caint? We will open the floor to questions from members.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in. This follows on from when we had representatives from the SFPA in here in November. That day it was very much a case the SFPA representatives saying that under law they did not have to answer the questions. With every question put to them, there was deflection and they said back to us that they did not have to answer questions. As I said before, I am from an inland county, so I did not know much. However, I went to Killybegs last summer at the invitation of Senator Boyle and met fishermen and processors. When you hear their stories and then read about the SFPA talking about operators bringing their factories up to modern standards, mainly requiring the installation of CCTV, landings and factory weights. In one of the factories I was in, it was like being in a film about gambling at an American casino given the number of cameras that were overhead. The cameras were watching people and they were all around the plant. The week I visited a load of fish came in. Senator Boyle, what was the name of the fish that came in?

It was blue whiting.

It was blue whiting and when it was put through the chute to be sorted, all it was fit for was fishmeal. When you hear these stories, it does not instil confidence in the SFPA. We all know the SFPA is needed and is there to do a job but you see how fishermen are being treated. There is a box at the harbour, the fish are put into it and are weighed. You guesstimate your catch from that box and if you are out by 10%, you face a criminal prosecution. It does not stack up.

The day the SFPA representatives were at the committee meeting they were just brazen. They said they did not have to answer our questions. They knew they are untouchable. That is the impression I got. I only met them for two and a half hours and I said in the Dáil last week during statements that you could not like them if you reared them, which is an old Monaghan saying. That after only two and a half hours of meeting them, so how do fishermen who are dealing with this day in, day out feel? Other people said that ships that are not even Irish will not steam into Killybegs to unload because of the SFPA. They will steam up to somewhere else because they feel it will not be as strict. There is a bit of work to be done. We understand we need the SFPA but it has lost the room with fishermen. How we get that back is another thing.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn brought up the case we had heard about the last time.

He pushed it, as did other members here. It related to a fisherman and the case went on for however many years and then was thrown out of court. I read about it. The feeling I get is that the SFPA and other groups think, "We're a big outfit, we have money behind us and we'll push this on to the last." The case fell. It is not out of our pocket, but for that poor fisherman there was a financial and mental cost and everything else. I get that Government bodies feel they can take cases on for as long as they want because they have bottomless pockets. Deputies Gallagher and Ward and Senator Boyle asked about that court case and the response was that the SFPA could not answer the questions they asked, in the committee meeting, so it was a moot point. In other Government Departments there is a feeling that they have bottomless pockets and that they will put the small man down because his pockets will run our before theirs and if they lose the case it makes no odds.

I thank the Deputy and I appreciate that, like me, he has informed himself about matters that may not be germane to his upbringing. I had to go through the same learning curve myself, although maybe I had to do it more quickly. I thank those, including Senator Boyle, who brought me to Killybegs to see it.

There are two important issues here. From the SFPA's perspective regarding the investigation and prosecution, it carries out the investigation according under the law and a file goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. The DPP ultimately takes the case to the court, so sometimes you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. We need to put on record that the DPP is in the middle of all of that as well. The SFPA is precluded from including any conversations it would have had with me about addressing the specifics of any case. While we would always want to know why a case that does not end up in a prosecution was taken, the authority genuinely would not be in a position to comment.

I am not going to lecture anyone on communication. There are times I get it wrong too in how I might address a committee. Because of the role of the committee, however, it is important that any agency coming before it would try to elaborate to the greatest extent possible and in a general way the issues they face. That is not at all to suggest the SFPA or any agency should breach that fundamental principle set out in the law whereby it cannot discuss an individual case. Maybe that needs to be explained a bit more to the committee and maybe there will be an opportunity to do that again, but I am clear that would not be something it could do.

I hope it is something that can be reviewed but it is a consultative committee that currently exists and I have met representatives of that. I would like to see that being reviewed as well because, not speaking specifically to the SFPA but generally, there were responses in the past to regulatory gaps that existed and these regulatory authorities that were put in place did not have a higher level of oversight and were effectively self-regulating. I would like this to be part of the review or evaluation I intend to carry out to see if that is fit for purpose because it is part of good governance, generally, to go back and look at how legislation works.

The Deputy's original point was about the issue I raised earlier relating to criminal sanctions versus administrative fines. There have been a lot of technological advances in the 20 years since this Act was first enacted in 2006. We are now in 2026. Even more recent developments in artificial intelligence and all of that can be combined to accurately establish the counting and weighing of fish, in this case. I too have found it difficult to understand how somebody could be penalised. This is not at all a reflection on the SFPA; it is how the Act works. Anything I say here today relates to the work of the Oireachtas rather than the work of the SFPA. Somebody has to guess what is in the hull of the ship based on certain sampling taken from it, yet all of that is then transported to a factory where it is weighed and scrutinised and all of that data is captured.

Yet while you know at the end what you ultimately had, you somehow can be penalised for what your guesstimate was a day or so earlier. That does not add up for me and that is why I want to see it reviewed.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in. First, along with my colleague here, Deputy Maxwell, I was here when Mr. Hayes of the SFPA came in here. In fairness, he sat where the Minister of State is sitting. Under the legislation, he could give us no answers. How are we going to change the legislation in order that we can get answers? At the end of the committee meeting he said he was answerable to us, yet he did not answer one question we asked him. How can we change that?

The evaluation I intend to commission will look at the effectiveness of the legislation in terms of policing the sector. I want the review or evaluation to look at the sanctions that are meted out for infringements. Where I believe some of the issues I am hearing - it will not be for me to prescribe what the ultimate decision of these independent people will be - but it is to address the concerns of the sector that people are being held criminally liable for misdemeanours, some of which may happen without their intention but which happened by virtue of the work that they do, as I have already outlined. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to change the legislation to allow the committee here to prosecute every case, to try every case or retry a case that has already gone through the courts.

Like any police force, I do not think we would expect any part of the Garda Síochána Act to change so that were it to seek to investigate a case, were it to go through the DPP and ultimately were it to fall that we would end up with a situation in which it went back before the justice committee. I do not want to give the Senator to believe that this is my intention in terms of this evaluation. My intention is generally to address the sanctions and whether they are fit for purpose and anything else that may arise. Where I think there may be some potential, what I said in my opening statement is that I want to engage with the committee. I am conscious that Deputy Mac Lochlainn has already produced, through the committee, a rapporteur's report, some of which may be helpful in guiding the work we are trying to do here if there is to be a reform of the legislation.

It is very early stages. I see an opportunity for some oversight where the SFPA would not necessarily be self-regulating and that there would be a supervisory authority. That is a possibility. I do not want to be prescriptive in terms of what the answers to the evaluation might be but I think it could be in that space. Maybe the consultative committee might have an oversight role. Again, I do not want to be prescriptive.

I see where the Minister of State is coming from but at the minute, it is ludicrous that a skipper can get a criminal charge via a guesstimate when he is out there fishing. It is pumped into the hold of the ship. He does not know exactly what is in. He makes a guesstimate. If he is out by the 10%, they will take him to court. That is ludicrous.

I have been very taken by that recurring message that I have received in Killybegs, Castletownbere, Dingle, Galway and wherever I have been, no matter who I have met, including representation from nearly everybody around this table. Everybody is conscious that we want a regulator that is fit for purpose. We do not want and nor do the fishermen to go back to the old days either, quite frankly, but they want to feel that the sanctions are proportionate to the indiscretion in certain circumstances. We want to ensure that we are not penalising, as a State, our fishermen in a manner that is not consistent with the application of the control regulations across the European Union, and that our fishermen and fisherwomen are treated exactly the same in a fair and equitable way as everyone else.

The Minister of State and I could get a box of Lego. I could throw it on the floor and tell him to count how many red, blue and yellow pieces there are.

It is exactly the same.

I will move on. There is so much CCTV. The Minister, Deputy Heydon, was in Killybegs two weeks ago. He saw CCTV in operation. It is unreal. Why are we being so regulated? At the end of the day, the fish comes into the pier and is put into the tanker, and the SFPA can see it being put into the tanker. It can follow the tanker the whole way up to the factory where the fish is processed. It goes through the sampling up there. Everything is on camera; nothing is being hidden. Why, at the end of the day, can the figures compiled in the factories at the total end of the catch not be acceptable?

I thank the Senator. Again, I have seen that at first hand. I spoke to the Minister on his way back or when he was there and he raised the same issue. It is for that reason that I want to initiate the evaluation of the law as it stands to establish if it is fit for purpose in light of the issues raised and the advances in technology - particularly cameras, sensors and weighing systems, coupled with advances in artificial intelligence - that would seem to suggest that the practices that were necessary when the legislation was drafted may no longer be necessary. I do not want, however, to prescribe that we can change that without a review of the legislation. The response, from a policy perspective, is an evaluation of the legislation. If the determination at the end of that is that we should amend the legislation, that is where we will go. I want to do that in a collaborative way with this committee because we meet very regularly. I think it would be appropriate that we would work on this together. I am committing to collaborating with the committee in that process.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in and for his opening statement. I have a question for him. Has a fisheries Natura plan ever been submitted with regard to the impact of the large-scale removal of foraged fish on bottlenose dolphins in the lower River Shannon SAC?

It is an important matter. I do not believe that I have received such a submission, but I am happy to check that out for the Deputy and come back to him. I recently met with the whale and dolphin group, which has a responsibility for the management of the mammals in that region and a very strong role in developing that and in their protection. I will happily check with the Department to see if we have ever received any submission in relation to that.

Why would the Minister of State think a submission has not been put in?

I have no idea why a submission would or would not be put in. What I am saying is that I do not know whether one has been submitted, in what context it has been submitted or who has submitted it. If the Deputy has further information on it, he might tell me. Obviously, he has some information available, so he might let me know if something has been submitted.

Okay. I will come back to the Minister of State on that.

Farmers have been screening out slurry tanks for environmental impacts because they are close to a Natura site. As we are well aware, they will have to do the same for the nitrates derogation. Why would such operations and large-scale commercial fishers in the SACs not be bound to the same rules?

It is a separate issue, but my understanding is that large-scale fishermen are bound to the rules of all of that. No one has raised with me before this that there is an issue in that regard. Is the Deputy talking specifically about the processing sector or the fish farms?

Both.

As the Deputy knows, a fish farm is a licensed entity. Some have existing licences and some reach a certain point where they have to be reviewed.

When a licence is being reviewed, they have to provide all the necessary assessments in line with the location of their farm. If it is in a Natura-designated site. they will have to submit an application to MARA and that will be determined based on the various screenings that are done and the environmental impact assessments that are necessary. The licence may or may not be granted based on the assessment of MARA. There is then an appeals process where the decision would come to the Department to issue the licence. However, that can be objected to if somebody has a view that it has a negative impact. It would then go to the independent Aquaculture Licence Appeals Board, ALAB. There is a strong regulatory regime in addressing such a concern that somebody might have. The decision is ultimately taken based on a recommendation to the Minister for the issuance of a licence. Sorry, it is actually the Marine Institute and the Department that decide on the licence. It would come back to the Minister for decision and ultimately, if the decision was not in keeping with the views of those who objected to it, they could appeal it to the ALAB.

In an SAC area, should the same rules not apply for everybody?

I think that generally they do. There are different threats or issues in each area concerned. If there is something specific the Deputy wants me to answer, I will try to answer it.

Is large-scale commercial fishing going on in SAC areas without the same rules as apply to other individuals?

When the Deputy says large-scale fishing in an SAC, I remind him that we introduced a ban on trawlers over 18 m fishing inside 6 km. Many of the SACs the Deputy refers to are within bays. This year, there was a limit of 2,000 tonnes of sprat in that area. There is still some fishing within those limits by larger vessels for species other than sprat. From next October, that will be eliminated and it will be just the smaller boats. I am not so sure of the about the impacts the Deputy is referring to. Again, I am happy to engage with him if he want to submit some of his concerns in that regard to me.

What I am asking is this: do the same rules apply to them that would apply to farmers who have to screen out slurry tanks for environmental impact reasons? Would the same rules apply to both large-scale commercial fishing trawlers and the farmers?

I think what the Deputy is referring to is the effluent run-off from slurry tanks. Is that correct?

Yes.

I do not think that large-scale fishing and large-scale trawlers have the same effluent issues that we are talking about here so I think we are trying to compare apples with oranges. I am not sure what issue the Deputy is referring to.

I am asking why the same rules are not there for both.

They are two very different practices, if the Deputy does not mind me saying so.

To a certain degree.

They are two different practices so I am not so sure that the same rules apply. I will get a note prepared for the Deputy that sets out the rules as they relate to the trawling issue. Other than whatever minimal discharges there are in relation to whatever pollutant might come from the diesel engines, my understanding is that the bulk of the trawling is effectively taking the fish on board and that there is not any discharge back into the water or into the SACs concerned. I am happy to get some more information for the Deputy on that.

I welcome the Minister of State In the revised statement that we only got sight of, it says there is a view that the current system whereby offences are dealt with under the Criminal Justice Act is disproportionate Does the Minister of State also share that view?

I am concerned that the law is not consistent with the reality of the fishing operations today. I believe that the quality of technology or the advances in technology can potentially resolve the issues so I do not want to make a determination or offer an opinion until I get the expertise and the detailed analysis of what we are at. As a layman, yes, I can only depend on the information which has been given to me in good faith, but in my role as a Minister of State, I have a different responsibility. I must have all the evidence and I must have an evaluation done. The Senator can take it that I have concerns because of the information that has been provided nearly everywhere I go.

Senator Boyle tried to bring us back to the committee meeting where representatives of the SFPA were before us and did not answer any questions. I feel the Minister of State did not answer that question. He actually deflected. The Minister of State's statement noted that section 68 provides that the SFPA shall account to this committee for the performance of its functions. The Minister of State deflected in his response to Senator Boyle by saying it might have been the way that questions were framed or asked of the SFPA. However, I asked questions, not to do with legal cases, but with the number of on-board inspections it had done and with the number of on-board inspections on non-national boats and I still did not get those responses. In fairness to the committee here, it was not just legal questions that there may have been a question over. It was ordinary questions and we did not receive one single response in that. How will the Minister of State address that?

At a committee previously when I was asked about this particular issue, I said that the SFPA, in carrying out its functions and in its capacity to come before the committee should be able to speak in general terms without the specifics of any individual case. If the questions are general I am not so sure there is anything that would preclude the SFPA from talking about numbers and statistics in a general way. Maybe a change in the SFPA's interaction with the committee needs to come about. Perhaps that might be reflected when the committee gets an opportunity in advance of the SFPA coming before the committee. Perhaps the committee could give the SFPA a heads up as to the data or information it wanted. I do not see any reason why the SFPA would be precluded from providing the committee with data, statistics, or general observations on its functioning

I felt that the committee was totally disrespected in that regard. I do not know how that will be resolved and it has to be resolved. The Minister of State's statement says that he intends to carry out an independent evaluation of the 2006 Act in the near term. Will he give us a rough timeline?

I would like to have it started within the second quarter, so before June. We already have a significant piece of work under way, which the committee is familiar with. This is the task force to look at the significant loss as a result of our loss of fishing effort due to reduction in quota based on scientific advice. We are a small unit within the Department, so I conscious that I do not want to overburden an already burdened team. The work of the task force is due to be completed by the end of June.

From then on, I would like to have that evaluation process ready to go as soon as that work is completed.

When?

I would like to have it started before the end of June.

Started and finished?

I do not want to be prescriptive about the timeframe until people are appointed and we have a scope of the terms of reference. This is the offer I made to the committee. Over the coming weeks, and working with members, I want to try to define the terms of reference of that piece of work. It is not a long-winded one. This is meant to be an evaluation of the existing Act. I do not want to give the Senator a time and then have to come back on it, but when we establish this evaluation, we will give it a timeframe.

When will the report be published?

It is difficult for me to give the Senator a time on the publication of the report until such time as we have appointed the group to do the work. I have said to her that I want to have it started before the end of June. At that stage, we will time-limit it in the same way as I did with the task force.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in. I will start with the issue surrounding blue whiting when they were coming in and getting weighed. According to the Seafood Ireland Alliance, SIA, this practice can jeopardise quality if they are not weighed in the factory. They are therefore double-handled, which is absolutely correct. I myself have worked in a fish factory in Burtonport. We did roe, and when we did the herring roe, there was a product that basically went into scrap, that is, it would go into fishmeal or whatever. However, as regards treating blue whiting, which is a very expensive fish, as soon as that fish was weighed in the manner it was weighed, it was not fit for human consumption. It was damaged. We are talking about practices.

Regarding the SFPA and Mr. Hayes, who was before the committee, we were talking about the cameras and the tower in Killybegs. I think it was Deputy Maxwell who asked them if it was in the tower in Killybegs. The answer was that it was further down but still in the tower, just in the wrong place. This was the frustration we had as a committee dealing with the SFPA, which is under the Minister of State's remit. That performance was unacceptable. As people who genuinely work for the fishing communities in Donegal and all over Ireland, to be treated with that lack of respect was pathetic, to tell the Minister of State the truth.

I will get on to my questions. Part of this is that we tend to criticise the SFPA and its over-the-top regulations enforcement. It is far stricter than equivalent bodies in the other EU countries. The reality is that it is acting under instruction by the Government, with the powers given to it by the Government, particularly following the 2019 inquiry, so there is a level of responsibility. I know that this is a new role and that it was under the Department of agriculture before, but there needs to be a reform of the SFPA, which I think everyone can see. We are turning Irish fishers into criminals when their European counterparts are getting away with it. That is the feeling on the ground. We all know it. We all feel it. We talk to the fishers of Ireland and they feel that they are treated as second-class citizens in their own country. Now they are looking to the Minister of State and to us as a committee to try to change this culture. I know the SFPA was brought in to change things and to make things better, but it seems now that it is out of control and having a direct effect on the fisheries.

I have given the Minister of State a lot to digest there. I will let him get on with it.

I thank Deputy Ward for his ongoing interest. He raised the issue about blue whiting and the double-handling and the impact it has. Effectively, it takes it from potentially being used for human consumption because it is a very soft species and it gets damaged. I saw that at first hand. That was one of the things that guided me in having views about the evaluation of the law as it stands. Is it entirely necessary to perform secondary and potentially tertiary checks when the ultimate system is now there to meet the standard just by one check, with cameras, weights and all that in the factories? It is that that has motivated me in this regard, and I think we can get beyond that.

I am also taken by Killybegs in particular because of the kinds of activities there and the amount of paperwork that is required to take fish from a boat to the factory a few hundred metres away or sometimes less. That is why, as regards this whole designation of the port, which has been regularly raised by the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Deputy Mac Lochlainn, Senator Boyle and others, it is a matter of getting that derogation. I have agreed that that needs to be done, but there are a number of steps to get there. I have asked officials to prepare a pathway for that and we are working through that. There are a number of issues, I think, in relation to the ownership of certain parts. Some are private and some are public, but that should not be a barrier to getting it done. It is a matter of getting it done. It obviously has to comply with the control regulations and all that, but I think that would help and would improve matters there.

The Deputy spoke about the reform of the SFPA. For me, the evaluation of the legislation should come first to establish if it is fit for purpose, and from everything we are hearing, it is not. It is not as effective as it might be, based on advances that have taken place. However, I do not want to make a determination on that without the independent expertise that would evaluate all of what we are trying to achieve, ensure that we are complying with the control regulations such that this is in line with what the Commission expects, and ensure that it protects and preserves our fish stocks, our controls and so on, but in a proportionate way and as expeditiously as possible, without creating unnecessary burdens, particularly where there are minor infringements that do not provide any benefit to the fishermen concerned. That is really where we need to look at it.

I thank the Deputy for his questions.

In the Minister of State's presentation he stated that he is looking at the EU fisheries control regulation and ensuring compliance. He talks about establishing a level playing field across the EU. I want to read to him a post on the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association's Facebook page. It stated the following:

In Ireland pelagic fish processing is compelled to have the following under requirements placed by EU Commission:

Standardised weighting equipment with 30 minutes zero outing: all newly installed and paid for by industry, state of the art flow scales across the sector

These weighing systems must be under CCTV, that is live fed to the Competent Authority, and retained by each individual processor for 6 months - that is 370,000 hours of CCTV images maintained by Irish processors.

We are subject to a sampling plan and weights extrapolation that must be carried out under CCTV

Between landing the fish, weighing the fish and exporting the fish - 14 different sets of documents, declarations, stock returns or electronic transport documents must be filled and returned to the competent authority. All of these are to strengthen cross compliance.

Subject to routine full inspections - and audits; multiple in course of year.

What about the Dutch processing at sea operating under the same "common plan"

Flowscales - No

CCTV - No

Image retention for 6 months - No

Sampling under camera - No

Cross compliance - No

Subject to inspection by Irish competent authority routinely - No

Subject to any audit while fishing west of Ireland - No

This is just shocking stuff. Deputy Maxwell talked about seeing it for himself. I will never forget the level of CCTV oversight of the weighing scales at the fish factory I observed in Greencastle, which was going directly to the SFPA offices. I do not know any business in Ireland that would tolerate that level of intrusion. The SFPA can, unannounced, at any time call in around the back and check to see, for example, how many boxes are on a trolley to ensure, for example, 60 boxes of 20 kg weigh 1.2 tonnes. It is not rocket science to establish all of this. It is just bananas. There is no comparison; there is no level playing field with the rest of the EU and a lot of these vessels are voting with their feet and landing in other European ports. Why would you go through the hassle at Killybegs or wherever?

This is the reason the committee was so aggrieved when we asked the SFPA to answer our questions and it referred to the legislation. What really got to me was that a court of law threw out a case, expressing shock at how poor the case was and that it had ever found its way to court, yet, under law, the SFPA is not accountable to this committee.

As far as the Minister of State understands, if the SFPA goes to court and the case is thrown out, is there a review? Are there any lessons learned? Is anyone looking at it independently? A lot of authorities in Ireland that enforce the law are accountable to another independent body. How can it be that we have given the SFPA such incredible powers, way beyond those of any other agency with similar responsibilities in Europe, and there is no oversight of the organisation? I want to get a sense of that for now. I will have a few other questions.

I thank the Deputy. I appreciate his questioning. On his final point, the SFPA will carry out the investigation. Ultimately, the decision as to whether a case goes to court is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am just setting out the facts, as opposed to using that as a method of avoiding the question, which we have to be mindful of. That is as much as the law requires of the SFPA. It puts the case together. Oversight of its investigation, for a want of a better explanation, is the process whereby it feeds into the DPP. It is no different than it would be for An Garda Síochána. The Garda carries out an investigation and the SFPA carries out an investigation. They will present a file to the DPP, which will decide whether there is enough evidence to take the case further and, if so, it then goes to the court. The Deputy knows how that system works.

Without getting into parallels with the Garda, we have learned over recent years the importance of ensuring the Garda is not self-regulating and of having layers above the Garda, whether the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission or the Garda Inspectorate, although I know the former has changed. As I said, as part of that review, it will be worth looking at the oversight of the regulatory aspect of the SFPA, so that it is not self-regulating. That is to help the SFPA in the discharge of its functions and to ensure it is not being misrepresented on the basis that it does not have that oversight. That is why I suggested that the consultative committee spoke to that in the legislation, to some extent, but it does not have teeth.

On that, the feedback I have received on the consultative committee is that it is just an information-sharing group. As far as we can see, it is not taking on board criticism, constructive feedback or considering changes in approach. It merely deals with information. You could put it up on a website and get the same outcome.

I think that is what I reflected in my opening statement - that it is an information flow and we have to look at how that may have teeth. I make those comments as thoughts rather than directions because I want the process I am establishing to be independent, to be best practice and to look at how similar approaches are being taken at European level. We are also learning more about regulatory function - we have it here already in the CRU, ComReg, etc. - and how we manage that better. Other Departments are seeing there are certain gaps in a self-regulating regulatory regime. We had it on the financial services side. There is room for improvement. That is not a criticism of the SFPA but of the legislation. I think that is where we need to do this.

I thank the Vice Chair and the Minister of State and his officials for being here. Following on from Senator Boyle’s comments, if a skipper goes out to sea and puts out his nets, he hopes to have a good catch. He then comes back to port. Has that skipper any way of weighing the fish he has caught on the boat before he comes back into port?

I am not an expert on this but my understanding is it will be based on the volume of space on the boat, etc. The weighing, from the authority's perspective, is done under a number of ways. It can be required by the SFPA to be done as the fish come off the boat. The process requires it to be done again in the factory anyway. The fish get taken by truck to the factory. They are processed through very sophisticated systems that count, weigh and get all of that right. There is a number of steps to establishing what is on board.

The issue that seems to arise is where a skipper is expected to do what is not so much an estimation of the weight but an estimation of what he or she has on board by doing a dip into the tanks, bringing up a sample and establishing if there is a by-catch or mixture. If they are out fishing for a particular species and there is a mixture - say, eight of one particular species and two of another in the first capture - that is meant to be extrapolated across the entirety of the catch, which could be very large in tonnage. There is sanction if you get that wrong. It is not wilful act on the part of the skipper or his or her team but it is very hard to do by just doing a small dip or small sample.

That would be a very unscientific way of measuring the weight of the catch. The fish goes into the factory or wherever and is then weighed. If it is over weight by over 10%, there can be a criminal conviction on that person.

Yes, absolutely. That is the issue, or one of the issues, that seems to require further investigation and that is what I want to do in terms of evaluating the law as it currently stands to establish what the best way to address the necessity to establish what is on board. It seems the relatively archaic method of guesstimating is now superseded particularly with the systems that are now in place at the factories. That is why I want a group to evaluate that to see if it is as necessary as it was or if it is fit for purpose across all the space.

I would certainly welcome that happening. The Minister of State said in his opening statement: "The SFPA has embarked on an ambitious programme of digitalisation [...] will implement a new digital inspection service in 2026 and will continue to develop new resources to meet requirements under the revised control regulation." How will that work? Is this a new measurement of checking the number of fish that come in or the weight of the fish? What is proposed there?

A new control regulation is coming in but obviously we want to work with the industry as well as ensuring it meets the standard. The control regulation coming is a European one and we are working towards the implementation of that, so we can have a debate on that particular regulation here in more detail.

There seems to be a feeling out there that these foreign vessels are getting away with murder and the local fishermen seem to be very strictly controlled. That is the feeling I get when listening to fishermen.

It is expected where boats steam through what we consider Irish waters but are referred to as European waters that member states have a certain entitlement to catch fish in those waters. The expectation is that when they return to their ports of origin that the same regulations would be there consistent with EU rules and regulations. It is also worth noting that not all Irish boats land fish to Irish, or, indeed, European, ports. It is permissible for any Irish boats if they catch fish closer to Norway to land fish in Norway. I have heard some anecdotal information that some would have concerns about that. I have not seen anything specific on it. Some would also raise issues in relation to landings in other third countries, such as parts of the UK, etc. Comments get made about that all the time. I cannot speak to the veracity of it.

Tá áthas orm a bheith anseo inniu chun ceisteanna a chur ar an Aire Stáit maidir leis na fadhbanna atá ag tionscail na hiascaireachta agus tá súil agam go mbeidh sé in ann go leor acu a réiteach amach anseo. When we met the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority back here in November, I left with the impression that it was beneath the authority's executives to come before the committee and be questioned. It was totally infra dig that questions should be asked by us; we, who were elected by the people to represent them, and in this case, to represent the industry, rather than to scrutinise the actions of that committee. We have a very reduced quota this year and we should be trying to attract other vessels from other countries into Ireland to sell their fish here. However, the reputation of the SFPA has gone ahead of it. Those vessels, whether they be from Northern Ireland, Norway or whatever they come from, they will not come because of the reputation. They are not looking for anything other than fair play and that they would be treated in a fair way, as they would in their own country or in any of the other European countries. How can we justify having a Common Fisheries Policy and as far as the performance of the SFPA is concerned, it is totally different?

I was in the Department of marine with the same responsibilities as the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, in 2004 to 2006 and I saw the ludicrousness of all of this. I took the officials with me to Europe to meet Commissioner Borg to outline for him what I felt should be done. I invited him to Killybegs Seafood where we saw the principle of it there and afterwards, he agreed it was wrong. When I was going to Europe I was advised by the officials that I was going too far looking for weighing-in factories whether it be for herring, mackerel or blue whiting. They told me to just go for one of them because I would not get the three. I said I was going to go for all because it is the same principle, and Commissioner Borg agreed to that. The only stipulation was that they could not come from outside the 40 km limit. That 40 km covered Rathmullan, where there were vast landings at that time, Burtonport and Kincasslagh. It worked well. Now, there is a responsibility to revert to that system. We should be trying to ensure all the fish that are being landed are landed for human consumption. However, as was pointed out by colleagues, if they are weighed on the pier and they are going out to ambient temperature and back in again, it just does not work. Senator Boyle put it well comparing it to throwing Lego on the floor and counting it, or using different colours of balls. We are supposed to guesstimate what is in that basket.

That is factual as far as the EU is concerned and if you cannot guess that properly, you are committing a crime. I remind Deputy Dooley that he voted together with myself - I led out on it - on the penalty points. There was some question about the law. However, the penalty points one is ludicrous. Even at this stage it has to be changed. If you are going down the road you get stopped by An Garda Síochána for exceeding the speed limit, you will get penalty points. If you believe you were not exceeding the limit, you can go to a court to challenge it. In this case, however, if you are proven to be right, the penalty points are still on your licence. All of that has to be changed.

I would be anxious to hear the Minister of State's view on the evaluation. I welcome the fact that he is going to look at the evaluation. I like to think that he would have expertise on that and that the evaluators would visit every single factory to see at first hand the way the policy operates and the necessity to change this. Deputy Mac Lochlainn has spoken very clearly about the number of cameras and said that the footage will be held over for six months or 370,000 hours. Time does not permit me to elaborate and I do not have to because he has made it very clear.

I ask about the port listing designation of a port. I have tried on numerous occasions to have it raised as a Topical Issue. I had to go home early one day when it was chosen. I hope I am not penalised because of that.

The Deputy may get penalty points for that.

We should be doing something about this. It is not happening quickly enough. In other countries, it is happening much more quickly. Something will have to be done there. To give the Minister of State an opportunity to respond, I will leave it at that. I hope I may get a second round.

I thank the Deputy. He has raised this point with me consistently. He wanted a more involved view in terms of the evaluation. I am not entirely wedded to this. I will certainly take the views of the committee on board. The kinds of skill sets that should be on the evaluation committee are legal in the first instance, but there is also a need for expertise under the general headings of navigational and oceanic knowledge, understanding the law of the sea, and enforcement. I am conscious that we have to find parallels, as was the case previously, for people outside the specifics of the fishing and the SFPA sector and we have to drive that.

The Deputy raised the issue of the designation of a port, or the derogation that would be sought to exclude the port based on the systems that are now in place. I have asked the Department to advance that. I hope to be able to come back to the committee relatively quickly with a workflow, a timeframe or an action plan as to what is involved in making that happen. It is a stated decision of mine that I want this done but it is about how quickly we can get it done while recognising the elements that still have to be addressed. I will continue to keep the committee informed on that as we make progress.

Has the Minister of State decided in his own mind what expertise he will have on the evaluation committee that he hopes to appoint?

Yes, that is what I was saying. We need legal expertise; probably someone at senior counsel level at least. There needs to be somebody with oceanic, navigational and perhaps military experience who would understand that area. Then there is the enforcement. I am thinking of a parallel in some other area that would look at that. We need someone who is familiar with the kinds of challenges that are faced. I also expect the input of this committee. The rapporteur report that Deputy Mac Lochlainn is pulling together on behalf of the committee could be a very useful input into that. It is to take the issues that have arisen. My intention is to come back to the committee with the terms of reference, which we will prepare, and to seek its input. Obviously, I will have to take that decision at the end of the day but I do not want to do it at the exclusion of committee members, so I will be open to at least listening to the thoughts they may have on that.

Will it be before the summer recess?

Yes, very much so.

I thank the Chairman.

Tá cúpla ceist agam féin ar an Aire Stáit ar an ábhar seo sula dtosóimid an dara round.

The first question relates to the SFPA budget. What proportion of that budget, if any, comes from the European Union?

I will have to come back to the Chairman directly on that. If he had raised it with me last week, I would have had the file on that but I will come back to him.

Would it be fair to say a portion of its budget comes from the European Union under EMFAF?

It may come under EMFAF. I do not have the percentages with me but there is some money coming from EMFAF. I will come back to the Chair with the specifics on it.

Following on from that, if we take it there is some EMFAF funding going into the budget, is that for specific programmes?

In 2026 €800,000 comes under the EMFAF subhead. In 2024, that was €1.56 million and in 2021, it was €1.6 million. It seems to be reducing. It was also €800,000 in 2025.

The political question is whether there is perhaps a potential conflict of interest, where the agency of this State tasked with policing both Irish and EU flagged - and indeed third country - vessels operating in our waters is part funded and dependent on the European Union for a part of its budget. Does that perhaps colour or give the possibility of colouring its approach to EU vessels?

No, because the funding provided to the SFPA comes from the Department. The Chair asked for the breakdown of the funding that comes from EMFAF. That is departmental and provided through the vote of moneys directly to the SFPA. It is agnostic to the source of the funding. Its guiding principle is the 2006 Act and it must follow that Act. I would not have any concerns whatsoever about the source of the funding.

Is the Minister of State aware of any other enforcement agency attached to any other Department of Government that has some of its budget funded by the European Union?

I am not aware of that but I am happy to check it out. I would not be at all surprised if quite a number of others might source certain funds from the European Union, where their role involves matters of a wider European context.

Is it currently possible for a fisherman to be subject to both an administrative and a criminal sanction for the same offence?

I do not know the specifics of each of the offences but I will happily try to get that information for the Chair.

I am open to correction but my understanding is that both approaches are currently open and can be applied simultaneously.

The points system operates separately from the criminal sanction system. The points would be more administrative in that nature but "Yes" is the information I have.

I would wager this is out of kilter with any other system of enforcement for any other sector in the State that there are both criminal and administrative sanctions applied by the same body side by side, on foot of the same investigation.

Half of at-sea inspections carried out by the SFPA are conducted on Irish fishing vessels. Again, I would wager an awful lot more of fishing activity carried out by vessels in our EEZ are not carried out by Irish vessels. Certainly, Irish vessels have much less than half of the quota in those waters.

Does the Minister of State think it is a fair interpretation of that discrepancy that there is a disproportionate amount of at sea inspections carried out on Irish vessels than other EU vessels?

The Chair is asking me now to do a full analysis of the activities of the SFPA in terms of its calculation of risk, etc., and I would not be in a position to do so.

That kind of oversight is for a body that is independent of the Minister. I think this could be done through the committee, unless there is some reason I cannot bring to mind. However, that is the kind of discussion the committee should be having with the SFPA in terms of its overall operational activity in a general way, rather than on a specific case-by-case basis.

Based on the Minister of State's response, I do not know if he is suggesting this but it strikes me that there may be a risk profile the SFPA uses to decide what vessels it will carry out inspections on at sea. If 50% or more of those vessels are Irish, without having the figures in front of either of us, we can assume a significantly larger percentage of vessels in our EEZ currently fishing are not Irish flagged vessels. Does the SFPA consider there to be a greater risk of overfishing by Irish vessels? This would lead it to disproportionately target Irish vessels for at-sea inspections. I would like to see what that is based on.

Again, I cannot answer that. It is not that I do not want to answer it, but I do not have that information, and nor would I or should I, rightfully, have it. The function of the SFPA, under the legislation, is to address operational matters.

As regards risk profiling done by the SFPA, it obviously has to manage its activities and cannot board or check every vessel. It will have some methodology of deciding what vessels it boards, when it boards them and how it manages that. Those are matters for the SFPA and, subject to correction, that is information it could easily provide to the committee in terms of its overall activities. Perhaps the committee could write to the SFPA to seek its view on it.

We may need to ask the Minister of State to support us on that. Our experience in this committee of getting answers from the SFPA has not been fantastic, to put it diplomatically. It is concerning that there does not seem to be a level of transparency or oversight, as far as I can see, regarding the risk profiling done by the SFPA. When transparency is absent, it allows any agency or people operating within an agency to select a risk profile. It may be a case of selecting the low-hanging fruit or boarding a vessel because it is easy to board. It may cost less resources to board certain vessels because they are fishing closer to shore or there is less need for administrative work, such as the translation of documents or engagement with other fishery protection bodies. We need to be careful of that.

I have one final question. If the Minister of State was designing a sea-fisheries protection system from scratch for this State, how would he envisage accountability, transparency and answerability being baked into that system?

I do not want to create false hope or expectation. The system we have is what we currently have. I am more interested in how we move from the architecture deemed necessary in 2006 to today's environment, in order that we address the challenges that exist and have probably changed in nature and character from that time in terms of fishing activities.

I ask specifically about transparency and accountability because that is where much of this issue resides. We all accept there has to be sea-fisheries protection but it has to be accountable.

I hope the Chair will understand me, and I am not trying to be evasive, but I do not want to be prescriptive at this stage. I am mindful that I want to give the committee an input on this. I am also mindful that I will be appointing some external independent people to do this work, and I will then have to review that.

I want to get the best possible input, taking into consideration all aspects. We will begin a process shortly to define the terms of reference of that work.

I do not want to second-guess what the outcome might be or be prescriptive at all at this stage other than that I am cognisant of the issues and I want to find a resolution.

In his opening statement, the Minister of State talked about the review related to the EU fisheries control regulation. He said it is not envisioned that there will be a full-scale review of the original legislation. Our committee will conclude its work, I imagine, in April and will sign off on the final report. I want to get an assurance that the Minister of State will factor our report and recommendations into his review and that he will take them on board.

In June, Ireland needs to prepare and lodge a new national control plan. That will be for the next ten years for the catching and processing sector. To clarify, is it the Minister of State who lodges this plan? If it is him, it is critical that the plan include the full restoration of in-factory weighing. The Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association is coming before this committee in a few weeks' time in a dedicated session. I ask the Minister of State to pay close attention to the transcript of that session. Will the Minister of State give a commitment that the report and recommendations we bring forward in April will be factored into the review being carried out? He said it may well lead to amendments to the original legislation. Is it the Minister of State who will submit the control plan? Will he ensure that what caused the terrible experience that has had such an impact on our industry is changed for the next ten years?

I am happy to engage with the committee and its report. It is timely, if it is to be completed in April, that it would have a significant input into the group I have established to carry out the review. On the control plan, my understanding is the last time I think it was agreed between the Commission and the SFPA because there were some outstanding issues, which I understand predated that and had to be addressed. I will establish and come back to the Deputy as to the role I as Minister of State can play or the committee can play. I would be happy to get input from the committee in advance of the submission of the control plan. I will establish what the role of the Minister of State is in that regard and the input I can make. The Deputy will see I am trying to engage more fully with all sectors to try to ensure they are fit for purpose now in light of significant changes in the sector in its character and nature and technological advances. The Deputy mentioned an event taking place he wanted me to look at.

The Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association will be before the committee in about three weeks' time, I think. That will be a very important session particularly in terms of the control plan the Minister of State will draft. If it is he who signs off on it, it will be particularly important to pay attention to that session.

Is the organisation led by Mr. O'Donnell?

It is Mr. Brendan Byrne. He will be before the committee on his own, representing producers and factories across the State. That is a particular area of concern. It is just ludicrous-----

It is.

-----the level. The Minister of State has heard evidence from all of the members here today about that.

When the committee has its deliberations on that, it would be useful if it submitted to the Department its thoughts and views on the deposition of Mr. Byrne on it.

We will get the report recommendations to the Minister of State some time in April, I imagine. I ask him to please factor it into the review and deliberations. We will re-engage with him at that point.

I am pleased there will be an opportunity to feed the report, which Deputy Mac Lochlainn will do, to those who will be responsible for the evaluation of 2026. I have to impress upon the Minister of State the urgency of fast-tracking this so it does not go at the same snail's pace as the ports. That has been going on for far too long. The Minister of State has a number of items to deal with. He has to deal with the port and the evaluation of 2026 which are the priority. I am looking ahead. There might be terms of reference but whoever is responsible should have a very clear view that Irish fishermen should no longer be treated as criminals for minor offences. Even if those minor offences are overturned in the courts, they are still criminals. If our people or their families try to visit other countries and require visas, they will not get them in the technological age we are living in, with all of that information. Would the Minister of State consider appointing someone from this committee to that evaluation committee? It might not be the political thing to do, as it would mean we will have an input in advance. As regards the terms of reference, I hope this committee will have an opportunity to meet the evaluation committee to express our strongly held views.

I do not suggest there is not expertise in this committee, because there is a lot of expertise here, but this is to look at the law, its application and operation and to establish what we are now protecting and how. It is an evaluation of the law. We will get our slice if there are to be amendments to the law at a later stage, as they will be discussed here. I am not so sure we will take people from within the Oireachtas. There will be a report which will come back to us. I will it bring it to this committee in due course for its evaluation. That is where I see that happening. I recognise the Deputy's frustration with the pace at which we are progressing on the designation issue. We will work on that.

If it comes to the stage of checking in factories, factories are quite open to having the Department's officials present in them 24-7 if necessary. They have no difficulty with that because everything they do is above board. All they want to ensure is that they can have the tonnage of fish evaluated exactly. I think the Minister of State realised when he visited that the basket one was a no-brainer. That did not come from Europe; it was decided here. I wish the Minister of State well and I hope the next time he is here, he will have progressed all of these.

It will all depend on how much time the committee gives me. It has me in here nearly every week. Give me a couple of months and we will see how we go. I appreciate that.

Do not forget the factories are open to having officials in 24-7.

That has been mentioned. I am conscious, too, that in respect of our workforce planning, it may be arduous in terms of the timing, cost, etc. I accept it shows the bona fides of the processors but I am more interested in seeing how we can we can sweat the technological asset, recognising that it can be audited very easily. The Minister, Deputy Heydon, mentioned to me that when he was in one of the facilities recently in Killybegs, he observed the download of certain data that had been stored. Senator Boyle might have been there as well.

I have 30 seconds remaining. Without wishing to be facetious, the quotas are so low now, they could nearly all be weighed on an old Avery scales.

I have a question regarding the role of the navy in Irish sea fisheries protection. Is the Minister of State satisfied it is appropriately resourced to protect Irish water against illegal fishing by vessels from other countries?

I will have to get back to the Deputy on that. It has not been raised with me by the navy or the SFPA that there has been a shortage of resources in terms of their doing their work. That has never been raised as an issue directly with me but I am happy to ask the question.

The Minister of State has made a couple of announcements on the port listings. Progress is happening at a snail's pace. Denmark and Latvia already have approval for their projects. Is there a timeframe for this and will it be approved by April or May? Why is it taking so long? We seem to have all the CCTV in the world in Killybegs. A person cannot walk down the street without being on camera. Why is it taking so long for this to be approved?

I have asked our team to put together a plan for the listing and the work that has to be done. There are a number of outstanding items. Insofar as I can, I will try to get a timeline for implementation. There is already somebody in the Department who has been assigned responsibility in this regard. I do not have an update at the moment in terms of the timing. I do not want to say to the Deputy it will be April or May until such time as I can be definitive as to what work has been done, what has yet to be done and what the process is to get the approval on that. I will come back to the Deputy on it in due course.

The Minister of State might not be able to answer my next question either. Where else in Europe does it take 14 documents to get a lorry 300 yd up the road?

I am not an expert on all landings elsewhere but I certainly believe we need to find a better way to do business than what currently is the case in Killybegs.

I am hearing the same as Deputy Gallagher from the factory owners in Killybegs. They are more than willing to welcome the SFPA officers 24-7 to do their inspections. They have nothing to hide and they consider it the best way to do things. At the moment, skippers are going to court over a by-catch that is based on a guesstimate. When we look at the file in the factory, every tail and every gram is weighed. That is the place where the SFPA inspectors should be in order that it can get its final figure there and be sure that figure is 100% correct. The system is very inflexible. People are told either to take it or their licence will be pulled.

These factories are employing people and if fish were not coming into Killybegs, there would be nobody employed. As it is, coastal communities are dying from quota cuts. Unless one is up there, in the heart of it, one does not see it. All weekend, I hear about it and see it. What is going on is totally wrong. We should be welcoming in foreign vessels to try to enhance employment. It would be far better if they were Irish vessels, and they should be, but if we have to work with foreign vessels, we should actually work with them.

As my colleague said, there are people who will not go to Killybegs because of what is going on there and how controlled it is. There really must be a bit of give and take. We cannot afford to fall out with people who are willing to land fish at Killybegs. They create employment.

I am very conscious of the point the Senator has made. I had the pleasure of being in Killybegs on a number of occasions with him and with Deputies Gallagher, Ward and Mac Lochlainn and others. I am very clear that there are a lot of concerns about the 2006 Act. We are establishing an evaluation of the Act to address those exact issues and give clarity to the SFPA in terms of where the legislation now stands. I am conscious that the technological advances are significant, coupled with very significant advances in AI in the past 12 to 18 months.

It is prudent now to do that evaluation for a couple of reasons. As Deputy Gallagher said, we are in a much more challenged environment. We have had to establish a task force to address the loss of fishing effort. That work is under way and we are thankful to Mr. Michael Berkery for taking on that role. It is a challenge to all of us to try to reorientate the State system to support the fishing sector during what will be a difficult transitionary period until stocks recover. We need to see how the control measures meet the objectives that are set out in the law and to do so in a way that is consistent with best practice and consistent with the systems that are operational in other countries.

I absolutely accept that there are opportunities, including from other member states that have quota allocation in waters close to Ireland, which, if they were to come ashore at Killybegs, would provide meaningful income and employment for people in factories there from a processing perspective. That is why we want an alignment. It is to ensure the processes are not more restrictive here than they might be elsewhere. We need to look at that and the review is the place to do so. We do not want to focus just on the legislation rather than anything else.

I welcome our guests. The committee was previously informed that there are way more inspections of Irish trawlers than of foreign trawlers. If that is the case, it makes no sense at all. We should be coming down very hard on any trawlers that enter our waters from outside this country. Our waters have been raped enough by factory ships and foreign trawlers over the years, alongside quota cuts, etc.

I have seen the very high standards in operation in processing plants here, especially in my county, and the quality of the produce. The Minister of State has visited a lot of the plants in Kerry and probably, at this stage, in every county in the country. The quality of what they are doing is something of which we should be very proud. I have seen it in Renard, Cahersiveen, my parish of Glenbeigh, Dingle, Kenmare, etc. The quality of Irish fish, the way it is produced and how it is packaged and marketed, is exemplary.

Has the task force commenced its work? When is its report expected to be ready?

I thank Deputy Cahill for raising the issue of the fish processors right around Ireland. I had an opportunity to visit some of them, although not as many as I would like. I have visited some in the Deputy's constituency. Last summer, the Deputy and I were in Renard, where we visited Quinlan's, a small, very effective operator, producer and provider to restaurants. That company has its own restaurants as well, which is what we want to see - small-scale fishing connected to the local community and having a benefit in a coastal community. It has effectively taken out the larger middle men or middle women. That is where we can enhance and grow the return to the coastal communities. I have spoken to Bord Iascaigh Mhara about that. It is something I am interested in.

We have larger scale operations too. They, too, are important but, unfortunately, they are no longer able to source enough fish in Ireland. They bring fish from abroad and sometimes re-export it into large multiples. That is good employment business too. Sometimes these companies are reflected on negatively, perhaps by some of our fishermen, which is understandable, but they provide employment, often in coastal communities. We do not have the fish source here any more. I am mindful that the whole ecosystem is challenged because of the reduction in quota resulting from the drop in the stocks of species around Ireland.

On Friday, the Deputy and I visited Dingle. We finished up late in the evening and I had the pleasure of visiting one of the many fish restaurants in the town. I had not been to it before because it opened since I was there last. It is called The Fish Box. I was informed that the family who own it, the Flannerys, have a trawler. It is a wonderful restaurant. It was full, like lots of the restaurants in Kerry. I have been in many of them before and I do not want to single out one, but The Fish Box was new to me. I was struck by one of its unique selling points. The family brings in fish from its own boat, processes it and sells it in the shop. That is wonderful to see as well.

Deputy Cahill asked about the task force. It is up and running. It had its first meeting almost four weeks ago. There is another meeting on 22 or 23 March. I understand its chairman has written to the stakeholders who were at that meeting, asking them to make submissions to him. I understand he will have further engagement on a sector-by-sector basis with each of them because they all have different needs and expectations. The plan is to have a draft report by the end of May, or maybe early June, with a final report ready by the end of June. A lot of work has to be done in a short period of time but the chairman is driving ahead. I am confident it will conclude on time.

The work of the task force involves a multiplicity of State agencies in terms of a response. Not all of that will necessarily be provided for through our Department. The Department of Social Protection will be involved, as will the Department of Finance, and I understand the Department of public expenditure will provide somebody in due course. We have BIM, Bord Bia and the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. There are a number of other State agencies involved. That may not be an exhaustive list but we can provide that to the committee. I expect to be back before the committee to discuss that report in due course.

If there are no further questions, I will put one question to the Minister of State on the maritime security strategy announced last week. My criticisms have been ventilated at this point. We have another strategy, despite the repeated delays in investing in our Defence Forces and the security of the State and the difficulty we have in putting our naval resources to sea.

Where we really missed a trick, and this committee needs to take a strong view on this, is in not recognising that the biggest maritime resource at our disposal is our fishing stocks. The biggest security imperative for the State at sea is the protection of our fishery stocks. There may well be other threats. There may be future threats that we have not considered. There may be threats from state and non-state actors, certainly in terms of the use of our seas for the transportation of contraband, drugs, etc. There is a need to be serious about maritime security. Fisheries have not played a central role in that and much of the talk has been about issues relating to defence and foreign affairs. The Government has missed a trick in that regard. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's views on that. What role will he have in stewarding that resource? Following on from a question asked by Deputy Ward, would additional capacity in the Naval Service and Defence Forces, including additional technological capacity such as drones, assist us in monitoring overfishing by EU member states and, indeed, third-country flagged fishing vessels in our waters?

My understand is that the strategy is very much focused on defence as the Cathaoirleach said. Of course, there will be collaboration between the Department and the Defence Forces, as there is in any event. There is a service level agreement between the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the Naval Service in relation to enforcement, which was one of the questions asked earlier. Those are established principles that apply in defending our interests as regards our fishing stocks.

The desire with this strategy is to secure our undersea cables, in the first instance, and our underseas electricity and gas interconnectors. There are two on the gas side, as well as the connection from the Corrib field, which is a resource that is reducing. The other two are strong, however. We have all those communication cables that connect us and, importantly, parts of Europe to the United States. It is a whole-of-government approach. It is very much building on what was there, while broadening and widening it and developing a strategy for investing in key assets and infrastructure that are required, such as primary radar. It might be useful for the committee to have the Minister for Defence, who has responsibility for this area, before it for a conversation about that or, with notice, I will happily come back, in consultation with the Department of Defence, and address that in the future.

I appreciate that it is not the Minister of State's portfolio.

There is crossover, as the Cathaoirleach rightly identified.

It warrants pointing out that we all understand the strategic need to ensure the security of energy and communications infrastructure undersea. Given the growing global uncertainty, food sovereignty and food security are crucially important. We have a massive stock of protein at our disposal in the seas around our island. That needs to be a huge part of our security considerations. That is a point that needs to be ventilated at this committee.

It is a point well made.

As there are no further questions, on behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister of State. Gabhaim buíochas leis ague lena oifigigh as a bheith ós ár gcomhair inniú chun ceisteanna a fhreagairt ar an ábhair seo. Níl tuile le plé.