Before we begin, I want to draw attention to the fact that 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 they have a full defence in any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege. If they are directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue, they should follow that direction. Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third party or entity. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by the witnesses, outside of the proceedings held by the committee, of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement 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 he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via MS Teams to confirm they are on grounds of Leinster House prior to making their contribution to the meeting.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect 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. 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 that they comply with any such direction.

The agenda for today's meeting is the resumption of our discussion on sea fisheries protection issues. We are joined today by representatives of the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association, Mr. Kenny Ward, chairman and Mr. Brendan Byrne, chief executive officer. The opening statement has been forwarded to members. Giving the witnesses five minutes to go through their opening statement would probably not be sufficient because it is quite long and detailed. As a result, I propose to give them two minutes to provide a brief synopsis of the statement and then we will proceed to questions and answers. I will not be too strict about the two minutes.

I welcome Mr. Michael Tracy, who has had long experience in Brussels, to the Public Gallery. Many of us availed of his wisdom during his years there.

Gabhaim buíochas le baill an choiste as ucht an chuiridh agus an deis ár gcás a chur i láthair dóibh anseo i dTithe an Oireachtais. We greatly appreciate the invitation to attend. We also appreciate the work that the committee has undertaken on this matter and all that it has done since we were fortunate enough to see the fisheries committee re-established.

The Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association represents all sectors of the fish processing and exporting industry in Ireland. We are the second longest established fishing organisation the country. The committee should note that this is the first time in 15 years that the processors are appearing before an Oireachtas committee in their own right. It is a statement of what has gone wrong when a part of the fisheries industry as important as the processing sector has not had its opinion sought by a committee.

Today, we wish to address the Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, which gives legal effect to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA. We have circulated a comprehensive statement to members which speaks for itself.

It is important that this 20-year-old legislation is subject to a real, meaningful and deep review because it is so consequential to the entire sector, from catching to processing, and it impacts daily on how we function and how we engage in the economy.

From the outset, the committee's work is very welcome for us. We welcome the statement by the Minister of 3 March that he is to conduct a review and evaluation. It is long overdue. Rather than me criticise the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, or the Act, I think we should reference the Wolfe report, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, and the in-house Moran report. They all come to the one conclusion, that there are serious issues in how the SFPA functions and how the Act itself is drafted. The legislation, which was drafted in 2006, is of its time. It is self-regulatory and it has no oversight. There is no right of appeal. The entire Act bases everything on criminality. There is no other sector of the economy that is subject to that level of scrutiny or sanction. That is what we need to look at and particularly at a time when the fishing sector is under such pressure. It should have been looked at many times in the past but now at least we have that opportunity. I will yield back my time.

In the private meeting we made reference to the fact that where there is a lot of public debate on the price of oil and the implications for sectors, we have failed to see any mention of the marine sector. We agreed that we will write to the Minister about this. It is to be hoped the sector is mentioned when we read the press releases or hear the Minister make his statement in the Dáil today. Whatever difficulty that may be in the industry and the failing of it, it is not as simple as them paying 20% less. Maybe the witnesses will explain this to us at a later stage but I just wanted to let them know that we are concerned and that we have agreed to raise it.

I thank Mr. Byrne and Mr. Kenny for coming to the committee today to assist us with our work. The committee has undertaken to do a review of the legislation that is the basis under which the SFPA operates.

I have said it many times here in committees in the Oireachtas that I had an opportunity of seeing at first hand the operation of fish being landed into lorries full of water at the harbour in Killybegs and then being taken the short distance to Mr. Ward's factory and the level of scrutiny. Will Mr. Ward take us through what I would have seen with him that day? Will he give us a visual as best he can for people who did not have the opportunity I had to see the absolute overwhelming level of scrutiny the SFPA has on the operation of fish factories compared with other businesses?

I thank the Deputy. I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear. With regard to the Irish system, I believe that Killybegs is the most regulated or over-regulated port not only in Europe but probably in the world for landing of catches. Before a vessel even comes into the harbour there is what is known as a "hail". The master must estimate his catch and four hours before landing he must submit that to the fishery authorities, the SFPA. Before 1 kg of fish is discharged from that vessel the SFPA will board the vessel, do the various necessary checks and then they have to give an authorisation to land. That is the first two steps. There are about 13 more steps. Once there is an authorisation to land, then we have trucks that go to the quayside. Bear in mind that all the Killybegs processing factories are within 500 m of the quayside so it takes about two minutes to get a truck from the quayside to the factory.

All of the trucks are numbered, sealed and tagged by the SFPA and are under CCTV surveillance while they are landing.

The truck driver then has to get a transport document. Drivers have to write up transport documents for every load. Since 10 January, there is a new rule that drivers must submit these documents electronically to the SFPA, even though the office is looking more or less at the discharge before the lorry leaves the pier. The driver has to write the docket - and bear in mind we are only two minutes from the quayside - and submit it electronically to the SFPA before the truck leaves the pier. When the truck gets to the factory - the factories are only a maximum of 500 m away from the piers - it is under CCTV surveillance again. The truck can be seen reversing into the discharge area. It is numbered, and the entire envelope of the discharge area is under CCTV surveillance. Surveillance material has to be stored for six months. It is beamed live to the SFPA office on the pier 24 hours a day. The fish come out of the truck, which is held suspending water, into the hoppers and over the flow scales. This all happens on camera. The entire operation involving weighing, obtaining the weighing readout, the belt the fish are weighed on and the envelope of the weighing is covered by cameras. The factory gets the fish in after weighing, and we process everything in standardised 20 kg boxes. Everything can be quantified in a sequence of 20 kg boxes.

Before the end of the day, the factory operator has to submit what is known as an official pelagic weighing record, OPWR, to the SFPA. This is completed with a list of all of the details of the catch. There is also a sampling regime that is covered by CCTV. Automatic chutes take a 25 kg sample at random from every truck. We have to have people on the ground who sort through the sample under CCTV. Whatever is in the sample is extrapolated to the full quantity of the truck. Then we have to submit sales notes and all of the various documentation.

I have been around a fair few ports in Europe, including in north Scandinavia, and in other parts of the world. I have never seen any level of regulation or scrutiny in respect of landings such as that which we have in Killybegs. What is particularly difficult to understand is why European Union member states such as Denmark, France and Spain do not have equivalent regulation. What is equally very difficult to understand is that while we have this very strict and regulated system in Killybegs, we have Dutch-registered freezer trawlers, which are essentially floating factories at sea, with no scales, no cameras, no observers and no sampling operating up and down the west coast. We operate under the same EU legislation. For us, it is mind-boggling that this is allowed to continue in this day and age.

I thought it was very important to get a step-by-step understanding of what we are dealing with. I also want to share with the committee that I have observed this at Ward Fish. I have seen all of the CCTV and the weighing scales, which are sealed with cable ties and cannot be interfered or tampered with. When I went upstairs, I saw, I think, eight TV screens. These are on the premises of Ward Fish, and images from them are beamed simultaneously to the SFPA. The only comparison I can give is visiting old prisons after the conflict in the North. I am thinking of Long Kesh, for example, where there were all of these screens.

That is what I would compare the level of scrutiny to. I challenge anybody to tell me of any industry in Ireland that would tolerate that level of scrutiny of its practices. It interferes with the efficiency of the operation of companies. Seafood companies are struggling to survive and cannot afford inefficiency and additional layers of bureaucracy, yet that is what I have observed. I have said this in many committee meetings. I am pleased that Mr. Ward is here to confirm what we are dealing with.

Mr. Byrne is a CEO. Our factories in Ireland, including Killybegs, have to endure a level of inspection that does not exist in other European harbours. Other fish factories and harbours face no inspections. Super-factory ships involve the industrialisation of fishing in Europe at a huge level. These floating factories face none of this inspection. Have European bodies, including the equivalent of the SFPA, the overarching body, confirmed that they regularly inspect these vessels? Is it the case that they do not have the capacity to do that? I ask for a statement from Mr. Byrne on all of that.

I thank the Deputy. One of the points Mr. Ward may have missed but which we need to note is that there are 16 cameras and sets of CCTV in Ward Fish, which is remarkable.

On the Deputy's question, he is aware of the reality of Dutch vessels. Let us call them what they are. In terms of blue whiting, they have twice the quota of Ireland. Some may have an equivalent quota to the national quota of Ireland. This is fishing on a massive scale. There is no CCTV. With the exception of one boarding of a factory ship by the SFPA last year, one would have to go back to 2014 to find a previous case. I raised this issue at a meeting of the European Fisheries Control Agency, EFCA, in Spain and again last week. One of the issues is that these vessels are too big to board. There is a fear of boarding them when they fish on the high seas.

The legislation we and all of Europe are governed by includes the right to bring vessels to port but that is not happening. There is a complete imbalance in how we are applying the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. It has been that way forever and a day. Last year, there was a farcical situation in terms of the Belgian fleet. It overfished by 75,000 kW days in Irish waters and no one did anything about it because the view of the SFPA was that it was a matter within the competency of the Belgian authority. Yet, there is one rule book, one common fisheries control plan. We need to get real as to why stocks are diminishing in Irish waters. The reason is not the Irish fleet. At best, if the real figures were collated, we would find we are catching less than 10% of the fish that is caught around the island of Ireland. Some 90% is being caught by other member states and there is zero oversight. There is even zero interest in enforcement and control.

We are regulating the industry to death while turning a blind eye to the activities of others. It is happening in plain sight and in real time, and has happened consistently for the past 20 years. The only difference now, as someone who has followed fishing for the past 25 years, is that there will be more scrutiny through this committee and the dedicated Minister and this will become such an issue in the years ahead that it will have to be dealt with. There is one hell of an elephant or, to use the fishing term, a whale in this room and we have been dancing around it long enough.

I thank Mr. Byrne. I agree 100% on having a standard playing pitch, in particular with the super trawlers. I have called for onboard monitors of those boats because we need to bring a level of transparency to what is happening at sea with the foreign vessels and what they are catching.

To come back to the reason for these regulations, it is to ensure there is not overfishing. Is that right? At the moment, it would appear that they are only being applied to Irish boats. When foreign vessels come in, for example, if they land in Killybegs, will they be subject to the same process? Is the issue that they are avoiding landing in Killybegs, as they would rather go where there is not the same level of scrutiny?

I thank Deputy Whitmore. Yes, foreign vessels are subject to the same regime. That is why in one particular year we had a 58% fall-off in foreign landings to Killybegs. That has come back slightly over time.

We also need to address another issue. If you are a fisherman or fisherwoman at sea and you have a valuable quota, are you going to come to Killybegs to go through a regime of 14 or 15 sets of documents and multiple declarations, and if you have a latch or a hatch wrong, you are going to be criminally prosecuted, whereas if you go in to Skagen, you are going to be welcomed because you are doing business with the Danish economy? In my view and in the view of the IFPEA it is nothing only constant harassment and hassle to do business in any Irish port at the minute. As I see it, that is the kind of work ethos the SFPA has. That is a serious charge for me to make. I am conscious of that, but that is the reality, 24-7, that fishermen and women see at present in Ireland.

I am trying to get to the crux of the issue. I agree that we have a sort of imbalance. The foreign vessels should be monitored and inspected and held to the same standards. There are two issues for the Irish vessels or the vessels that are coming in and landing in the Irish ports. There is the level of regulation and the level of surveillance. Would they be the two concerns?

In fairness, we can work our way through the regulation. We have done that. We are under CCTV scrutiny. Mr. Ward clearly outlined the level of that for the last three and a half years. We can work with that as an industry, but we need to look at why the Swedish or Danish vessels, or even the vessels from Northern Ireland which have massive quotas, refuse to come into the port of Killybegs. They are just fed up with the harassment that there is there in doing business in that port.

Could I clarify the position? For me, if you are okay with the principle of CCTV surveillance and it does not bother you from privacy perspective, it is just sort of in the background and the lads will just get on with their work. They will deliver the fish and process it or whatever. The issue is not the level of surveillance. People keep talking about harassment but what exactly is the harassment that they are talking about?

If we compare Killybegs Port - it could be any port in Ireland but we will just focus on Killybegs for the sake of the argument - to Skagen or any other port in Europe, there seems to be a much more business-friendly approach on the part of the competent authorities in those other countries. We are working off the same rule book. I think we all accept that. I always quote the case - I think I referred to it in the opening statement - of the Swedish vessel that was in different ports across Europe, yet when it first came to Killybegs there was a charge found against it. I think it was a latch or a hinge or some such thing. The Irish competent authority notified the competent authority of Sweden to say that this was wrong and it should prosecute it. However, if we look at that vessel, in the days or weeks before that occurred it was in a European port and a non-European port. The point I am making is that we all know there are rules governing everything, but does every rule that was ever written anywhere have to apply when a vessel comes? There is no tolerance or discretion, yet there is massive tolerance and discretion if we look at Europe. Here we are gold-plating every rule and regulation and applying them to the nth degree.

If that is done on any sector of the economy, it will strangle the free flowing of the sector. The Deputy is correct; we have been working under CCTV. We installed those at our own cost at a time when there was massive downturn in the industry. We are working with them. However, if we look at that and the burden of administration and regulation and the amount of scrutiny, it is disrupting the efficiency and effectiveness of how we function.

When Mr. Byrne talks about the burdens of regulation and administration - if we set aside the CCTV because it is operating in the background and does not impact on efficiency or anything like that and in actual fact it may add to the efficiency of monitoring - what exactly is he talking about? Is it the number of forms? How many forms would a skipper have to fill in?

I will expand on that. To answer the Deputy’s question, between the time the fish are caught and when they are exported, there are at least 15 separate administrative processes. I will expand a little bit on that point. As processors or, I am sure, as fishermen, we have no problem with regulation or CCTV. We are now at the top level of regulation. As a fish processor, my bugbear is that the rest of Europe is not at a similar playing field of regulation.

There is another sort of undercurrent, which is the criminality. Under the 2006 Act, which is what we are here to discuss, every sanction is a criminal sanction. It is nigh-on impossible for us to attract vessels into Killybegs Harbour when every vessel, for the most minor infringement, faces not a District Court case, but a Circuit Court case. We believe there are more than 200 pending court cases in Donegal Circuit Court for very minor infringements which, in any other jurisdiction, are administrative sanctions dealt with through a small fine. For example, a skipper with 1,000 tonnes of bulk catch in his vessel has to estimate that. If that skipper is as much as half a tonne or a tonne outside the tolerance, he or she will be criminally prosecuted. Why would a skipper from Ireland, Denmark or wherever come to Killybegs when there could be a potential court case coming down the line, and all this over-regulation? I can go to Skagen, Norway or Scotland and I will not have those issues.

I absolutely get that. I imagine even the risk factor has a chilling effect on people, and if they can avoid it, they do. It is the simple thing. With the legislation, did the witnesses say that was going to be reviewed? Has the Minister committed to reviewing it? Did Mr. Byrne mention that?

Yes. I am just reading from a statement made on 3 March. I watched it online. I know the Deputy was not there. The Minister has committed to doing a revaluation and review of the 2006 Act. This is very much overdue, because that legislation, similar to other legislation, was all about self-regulation. We saw how that worked in terms of building and financial self-regulation. This is the last piece of monolithic self-regulation that we have on the Statute Book that needs overhaul. It is further complicated by the fact that all prosecutions are criminal proceedings, as I said in my opening remarks, and there is no governance or oversight of the SFPA, as we have discussed on many occasions. There is no right of appeal either. On top of that, to copper-fasten it, there is the 2020 penalty points system. As the Deputy knows, one can virtually never clear the penalty points, because if a person is prosecuted on a minor infringement again, it accumulates to the last. If that was to be adopted in motoring terms, 60% of people of Ireland would be off the road. That is the reality, yet it is legislation.

I refer to the last occasion that the SFPA was here. It credits the legislators in the Houses of the Oireachtas as having drafted the legislation. It is now time to reconsider it.

That is a valid point. It seems that, with regard to the flaws, when we dig into it, the SFPA is applying the legislation to the absolute and the legislation is far too stringent in some regards.

Is there an opportunity as part of this to consider ensuring certain foreign boats fishing in Irish waters have to land at Irish processors?

I thank Deputy Whitmore. We have asked that of the Commission multiple times, even as late as the occasion when it allocated an extra 50,000 tonnes of blue whiting quota from the Norwegian quota in respect of Irish waters. There is total reluctance to have any economic link whatsoever. If there were an economic link, Ireland, being the closest country to the fishing ground, would be in a prime position to get the activity, but there is absolute reluctance on the part of the Commission to go into that space.

There might be an opportunity. I understand the Minister, Deputy Heydon, is to chair the AGRIFISH Council in June or July. Maybe this matter could be raised with him. Ultimately, if the connection were made, it would make a huge difference economically for Irish processors, as well as ensure proper regulation of what happens at sea.

I am glad we are writing to the Government about the marine subsidy. I have been pushing hard on this for the past couple of days. It is totally wrong that we are left outside again. Both small inshore vessels and large vessels need a marine subsidy to keep going, just to keep the wheels turning. I am glad the committee is going to take this on.

I welcome Mr. Byrne and Mr. Ward. I am sorry it took 15 years to have them here, individually or as a group. They need to be called back more often because we need to hear from them.

I will start with Mr. Ward. He is the manager. Like me, he has witnessed the decline over recent years related to sampling, weighing at the pier and foreign vessels refusing to land mackerel, herring and horse mackerel at our ports. He outlined to Deputy Mac Lochlainn the problems in this regard. Can he see any way in which we can survive if this continues?

I thank Senator Boyle. The entire sector is on its knees. Everybody is aware of that. As fish processors, we need fish. There is no point in having big factories and no fish.

There are probably two sides to the argument. One concerns the decline in quotas. The drastic decline this year is unfathomable. At the same time, however, there is no good having quotas if we cannot attract vessels into Killybegs Harbour due to the regime that exists. We are facing an existential crisis at the moment in both the fish processing sector and the catching sector due to the decimation of quotas in the North Atlantic by non-EU countries. I refer to the 70% cut in mackerel, the 41% cut in blue whiting and the 38% cut in boarfish. It is hard enough having those cuts, but when you are trying to attract vessels into Killybegs Harbour to process under the regime that is in place and with the unlevel playing field, it is nigh on impossible. Unless we address the 2006 Act and the unlevel playing field, it will be very difficult to get any boats into Killybegs, regardless of what quotas we have in the future.

I have just one more question. I do not know whether I am prohibited from asking it. Can I address the court case of Sean Ward Fish Exporters, which was ongoing for ten years? Can I talk to Mr. Ward about that?

The Senator can ask any question he wishes under privilege.

I thank the Chair. I am aware of the stress the Ward family was under in the past ten years. It is a great family and many is the time it dug my family out of a hole. After ten years of stress, the court case was thrown out by the judge. How much did it cost Sean Ward Fish Exporters? Will it get back the money spent on the case?

It went on for ten years and put the Ward family under wild strain.

Yes, it was a tough ten years. We were finally taken to court last October for an alleged incident that took place in September 2015, ten years and one month after the incident. Off the top of my head, it cost €160,000 in legal fees for a court case that was thrown out - it was not that we won it - by the judge after hearing evidence for three days because there was no evidence. He threw it out for a lack of evidence. Yes, it was a long, hard ten years. It is hard enough for the family to run a business in the current environment. Fish processing is an exports game. We are a worldwide market and the fish processors have had to endure every shock in the system, from Covid to the Ukraine war. If fuel prices go up, freight costs go up. We already have the day-to-day headaches and stress of running a business, without all of that. I would love to get the money back and I think we should get it back. It is unfathomable that the SFPA can bring a court case, without any evidence according to the judge, and then we are handed a six-figure legal bill. The money has been paid and I hope that we can get it back.

What is Mr. Byrne's view of the independence of the SFPA from the Department of the marine?

That is a very good question. Reading the legislation, the SFPA is supposed to be very independent. I have no proof of the SFPA's independence from the Department. Principally, politicians will be blamed for enacting the legislation but it was drafted by the Department back in the day, in 2006. The penalty points, while rescinded in 2018, were also drafted and then subsequently introduced in a very draconian manner by the Department in August 2020.

Outwardly, I do not see any independence between the SFPA and the Department. Legislatively, there is supposed to be massive independence. When the review, the re-evaluation, is undertaken and we delve ever deeper into where we need to go to find out why a sector of the Irish economy has been decimated by regulation, we will find there will be a contagion effect into the Department. We may need to look at how the Department was fully decentralised to Clonakilty, including the decision-makers, and whether that decision has served the industry well since. We need to look at whether there a silo mentality and silo behaviour within the Department.

We are at a critical point in time and history when it comes to fishing. We either get our act together and get things right or we will see the dawn of the day, in the next five years, when there will be no Irish fishing sector. That is the point we are at and it is a point that I, as a representative, and my colleagues have continuously made. Every matrix and statistic shows that the industry is going down the toilet. Nothing has changed, in my view, as regards how the Department approaches anything. Members witnessed that at first-hand when the SFPA appeared before this committee. Legislatively, this committee is the only body that the SFPA is supposed to be answerable to. Members can imagine, given how the committee was treated by the SFPA, how we are treated when we engage with it.

In answer to the question, statutorily and legislatively there is supposed to be massive independence and the SFPA is supposed to be at arm's length from the Department, but I see no outworkings of that on a day-to-day basis.

What can the committee and politicians do to secure a level playing field for the sector? From what I have heard from skippers of foreign vessels this last while, the sampling process in Killybegs is not used in other places. It is so laborious. Why is sampling done in Killybegs? As Mr. Ward said, he has visited a lot of ports throughout Europe and they do not do it. Is it being done elsewhere, but differently?

I have seen what happens at the fish machine. A man has to climb up on top of a tanker and pull a 25 kg basket out of the tanker, with no word of health and safety or anything else. He then has to drop it down the side of a lorry, go over and weigh it and then dump it into a fish bin where it sits until the process is complete.

Why can the sampling not all be done in the factory? The whole thing should be at end of use at the factory. At the end of the day, the factory is the total end for the product. Why not have it all up there?

I always quote other people because if I say something, the powers that be, be they in the Department or the SFPA will say that of course I would say that. Looking at the script of the Minister of State when he was here on 3 March, he was very fair and open. When he referred to the SFPA, his line was that he knew there was a considerable level of frustration with enforcement practice and the legislation underpinning same. I will answer by initially quoting the Minister of State. He and this committee have got it right, including the work that Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn is undertaking, in that the compiling of a report into this will be essential. Likewise, the Mulvey report into the functioning of the whole Department and anything else that is engaged in the industry will be critical because we are on life support here.

The Senator is right about sampling. When Mr. Ward and I conclude this meeting, we will have a virtual meeting with the SFPA to again discuss sampling. However bad the sampling outlined by Senator Boyle is, my understanding is it will greatly deteriorate even further. I will wait until the virtual meeting at 2 o'clock, but I think sampling will get worse. When we are at the juncture we are at now, where does our trust lie? The SFPA will tell me it is forced to do this by the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG MARE, and the Commission. The Commission will tell me, when I eventually get to Brussels, that it is a common rule book and the same rules apply to everyone. If I eventually get to the EFCA, it will say it is supervising the rules and the rules are common to everyone, yet the reality is not that.

We will be the only country. We are the leading pelagic processor in Europe; the Vice Chairman will know that, as he was a pelagic processor himself in his day. This regulation will hammer us into annihilation and no one seems to be animated sufficiently to try to change anything, nor have they been. Fault certainly lies with the industry; we should have been more robust. It also lies with the SFPA. Is it being pushed around at European level? Have we a Department that is just arm's length from everything and stuck in a silo mentality neatly parked away down in Clonakilty? These are the questions that will all have to be discussed in terms of any review if we are to have any future.

I have one final point. Mr. Ward mentioned the 2006 Act. There are 200 cases pending. From talking to fishers, I know it is very hard to gauge whether they have a tonne of herring, a tonne of scad or 2 tonnes of mackerel. It is like throwing a box of Lego out there and seeing how many colours are red or blue. When you are out there on the high seas, being rolled about and pumping fish, it is very hard to have a good guesstimate. Why can that figure not be done so that when your boat is finished, you can send the totals to the SFPA? You could say you had 1 tonne of herring, 1 tonne of scad and 300 tonnes of mackerel.

That is a very good question. It is my belief that the sampling regime as currently enacted is deliberately designed for us to record inaccuracies. As processors, for many years, we could segregate and quantify the catch to the nth degree. The sampling regime we are currently obliged under law to use means we have to knowingly record inaccurate information about the catch. What we are recording is incorrect because of sampling. It does not match with what we get in the catch. The Senator mentioned the 200 court cases. This is directly linked to those cases.

I will expand on sampling a little because it is very nuanced. As the Senator said, a skipper could be catching pelagic fish at sea, let us say, 500 tonnes.

That could be 500 tonnes of mackerel and maybe in October there is a little bit of herring through it. They will take samples on board as best they can and estimate as best they can the quantity of herring. Let us say it is 1% or, rather, that it is 10 tonnes. When that skipper gets to Killybegs, we might not get exactly 10 tonnes of herring in the sample. Let us say the sampling showed 12 tonnes. That means that skipper is outside his 10% margin and has a criminal sanction. Yet if we are allowed to do it correctly, we can actually quantify and separate the catch because we have to separate it. Sampling as it exists means that for every 25 tonnes that comes to the factory, we have to take a 25 kg basket that is taken automatically by a chute completely at random. If that basket does not contain that herring then it did not exist in that truck. Similarly, if that truck holds 25 tonnes and in that basket one hake of 5 kg is recorded, the sampling regime would say that single 5 kg hake is the same as 5 tonnes of hake, even though it is only one fish. We have to legally record 5 tonnes of hake even though we know it is not there. It is inherently inaccurate and, as Mr. Byrne alluded to, we think it is going to get even worse. This is the reality we have to work under. That has a knock-on effect for the vessels, the court cases and blocking up the court system. The 2006 Act has to be reviewed, criminal sanction has to be taken away, a Minister’s sanction has to be taken in and the sampling regime has to be totally changed.

I also welcome our guests. It seems we are repeating ourselves at every meeting. The witnesses have outlined how stark the situation is. It is extremely worrying to hear about checks, estimates and a sort of guessing game going on while on the other hand for these factory ships and outside fleets, checks are pretty much non-existent.

The Irish fishing industry is on its knees especially when it comes to quotas. I referred to the factory ships. For those who have not seen them, they are like floating cities. They are amazing to see but the harm they are doing to our industry beggars belief. I have mentioned in the past they are raping our waters. There are no proper checks. The witnesses mentioned that they are so big they cannot be boarded, which is another worry on top of all the other issues going on. All we hear about is reducing further the miniscule quotas that already exist. We are hearing about compensation and vessels being tied up. We hear about trawlers being decommissioned at a time when fisher men and women want to fish. It is their livelihood, their tradition and what happens in coastal communities. They do not want to decommission or be tied up and be out of a job or business. Our industry is being destroyed and it seems to everyone that nothing is being done about it. The real question is what can be done even at this very late stage. What can the Minister do? Is it a matter for the European Commission? Is it a matter for the European Court of Human Rights? We have the Presidency of the European Union coming up. That may be an opportunity. Can we get legal advice on the best way to tackle this?

Otherwise each of us are going to be saying exactly the same thing at the next meeting and the one after that and the one that. It is time to call "stop". Mr. Byrne outlined that the Irish fishing industry will not be in existence in five years. Time flies, as we in politics are all finding out, especially going from one election to another. We are into the second year of this term of Government. In two more years we will be talking about the next election. Then the problem will be passed on to the new Government and, perhaps, new Members. We need to act now. It is very late in the day as we all know only too well. I am not saying for one moment it is an easy task. It will be an extremely difficult task. What exactly can be done now to try to claw back some of our quotas and save our industry and the livelihoods of coastal communities and our people?

We are surrounded by water and some of the best fishing waters, while our industry is struggling and disappearing at an alarming rate. We have so many knock-on jobs. There are processors and those who export. There are some fabulous small companies in my county. In my parish there is a small company and in Cromane next door to me there are small companies, as there are in Cahersiveen. Some of them export all over Europe and the world but they are still relatively small. They are big employers in the context of rural jobs. We have them in Dingle, Kenmare and along the coastline. It is extremely worrying. The Leas-Chathaoirleach knows more about the industry than I do because I have heard him many times over many years. I know it is close to his heart. All I am asking is where do we go and who is best to advise us. Is there a legal avenue here? What exactly can be done?

Indirectly, Deputy Cahill has asked a key and critical question, which is how the clock is running down in terms of the Dáil, the committee's work and the programme for Government. I am a former politician, as Deputy Cahill knows. I have no doubt that if I were in the Department I would try to run down the clock. There is a very strong commitment in the programme for Government to get things done this time. We have a joint committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas scrutinising everything and we have a dedicated Minister of State. Do not for one minute underestimate the traditional groupthink. I am looking over at a former Minister of State with responsibility for the marine, Deputy Gallagher. The groupthink traditionally in the Department has been to keep the industry and the politicians in the dark and to do its own thing. This culture has not vanished overnight and it will not do so.

I say to the committee, and the political body as one, that this has to be taken on for once and for all. The challenge of meaningful, deep and real reform to the Department, and to whatever else stands in the way, has to be taken head-on. This is where the politicians and committees of the day stand up and face the challenge head-on. We do not need legal advice for this. The power rests with the Houses of the Oireachtas, as elected by the people of Ireland. If I were to ask for anything or to plead for anything today, it would be for politicians to stand up and take on this challenge for once and for all. For the past 20 years the marine sector has been hidden from political scrutiny and public scrutiny. Now is the time to shine a light on every dark corner and take it on.

I thank Mr. Byrne for his stark and honest answer. We have a job of work to do. We need to talk to the Minister about this as otherwise we are going nowhere. This is turning out to be a talking shop, as I have mentioned already, because we are asking the same questions and raising the same issues at meeting after meeting while the industry is dying a death.

It is not a slow death anymore; it is moving at pace, as has clearly been outlined. From what Mr. Byrne has said, there is a need for a huge shake up. Can we achieve this? It is in our interests, of course, before it is too late.

I will take the opportunity now to make a few comments and asking a few questions. Mr. Ward went through what happens from the time a boat hails that it will be in port within four hours. It has to guesstimate the quantity of fish it will have. Of course, this is all done by way of volume and it can fluctuate. If the bycatch is outside the percentage allowed, then immediately, before the fishers have started, they have committed a criminal offence. It is ludicrous. Senator Boyle compared it to guesstimating how many colours there are in a basket in an Easter or Christmas competition. It is just not possible to do it.

What I will say, starting with supporting Deputy Cahill, is that the Minister and the Government have committed to a root and branch review of the 2006 Act. This is absolutely essential. We must ensure as members of the committee that it is done quickly. We are into the second year and if it goes on a bit longer I would forecast that if there were any banana skins or slippage in the lifetime of the Government, then another Government could be dealing with it. The Minister and the Government have given a commitment, and the committee will give a commitment, that we will exert every pressure to ensure this is reformed as quickly as possible. While we speak about the Common Fisheries Policy, there is no commonality when it comes to rules and regulations. This has been outlined very clearly by Mr. Byrne and Mr. Ward.

We all like to top the league but we do so for the wrong reasons. The national statistic is that Ireland has consistently been in the top three most competent member states in the European Union in terms of compliance and enforcement procedures and regulations. A common policy should be administered and implemented in the same way, whether in Spain, Portugal, Sweden or the UK when it was a member of the EU. They all deal with this by way of administrative sanctions. When the Department at the time laid before the House statutory instruments on penalty points I felt it was wrong. I knew it was wrong. I took it on, with support across the board, and for the first time in the history of the State a statutory instrument was overturned. By God, I was not too proud when that was overturned again and it was written into law some time afterwards. It was totally wrong. Those who did it regret it because it was pushed by officialdom at the time. We do not have time to talk about it and compare it to penalty points when someone goes to court for exceeding the speed limit. When that case is thrown out there are no penalty points but if a fishing case is thrown out by way of a court hearing, the penalty points exist. We must remember that nowadays when people travel, particularly to the United States, all of their records are scrutinised. If people have a minor offence which is criminal they may not be able to visit those countries. We have to fast-track the review of the 2006 Act. It is one commitment I will give as a member, and we are all at one on this that it must be done.

Another thing worth considering, if it is possible, is to invite representatives of DG MARE, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, to the committee to discuss how they can preside over this and the regulations and rules written by them, and how can they be implemented in different ways in all the maritime states. Whether they will come or not I do not know but I am sure we will get support from colleagues to issue that invitation to them.

I should know this but I do not because I did not get an opportunity to enquire by way of a Topical Issue I have put down a number of times. What progress has been made in relation to port listing of any Irish port under review under the new regulations for the last 16 months? If that was in place and there was a port listing, the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association would not have to go through the 16 stages it has to go through. There are lorry drivers employed to drive lorries. They are not employed to send details electronically from their lorry to the factory. This is just some people creating difficulties for the sake of creating them. It is difficult enough. I know it. It may be more difficult now than ever to run such a business without having all of those unnecessary obstacles.

I saw that as I grew up in the industry back in the days of 1974 or the days of the Munich Olympic Games when all the mackerel coming into Ireland went to fishmeal and if they could not take them as fishmeal they were buried in the bogs. I remember sending samples to Europe at the time. They came back and from then on, all the factories were full to the extent that some were suggesting that this young fellow was going to wreck the industry by doing this, but it worked out well. No one can dispute that. I am just making it as a point. I am not looking for any credit for that, but we never looked back.

Mackerel was so important. Whether that was to process them in round, headed and gutted or whatever. Ireland had a tremendous reputation, and not just for mackerel. It could be herring or it could be blue whiting. When it was decided they be weighed on the pier I happened to be in Europe at the time and was vice-chair of the fisheries committee. The Commissioner I had the greatest respect for and the best in my time was Commissioner Borg from Malta. He took the opportunity to visit Killybegs and saw exactly what was happening and the futility of weighing fish on the pier. It was coming in from ice water to ambient temperature and back in again, affecting the quality. He is the one who decided they should be weighed in the factories. I recall that time when we were successful in doing that but, for reasons best known to others, they decided they would revert to the weighing on pier.

The witnesses, Mr. Byrne and Mr. Ward, did not make much reference to the percentages that have to be weighed. Could they brief us on that? Regarding blue whiting, if blue whiting have to be weighed after they go through the hopper on the pier, there is only one way for those as I understand it, but the witnesses can clarify, which is out the road, as they say, to the fishmeal. Whereas, if it goes straight to the factories it can be used for human consumption.

Could the witnesses also give us a quick word on how they see the task force proceeding? Do witnesses see an opportunity for, or would they recommend, a market stabilisation scheme to assist the boats that are not going to avail directly of anything that might be announced today?

For those who may not have been in the meeting earlier, we took a decision that we would communicate with the Minister for Finance and Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, about assistance being provided around the price of oil. That is because, whatever one read in the papers last night before the decision was ever taken, immediately the three Opposition leaders decided they knew what was going to happen, and I still have not heard the word "fisheries" or the fishery sector mentioned. I made some comments but there may be a few questions Mr. Byrne might like to take up.

I thank the Leas Chathaoirleach. Industry is not aware of any progress whatsoever in terms of port listing. This is the one thing, of all the new regulations, that could immediately benefit Ireland. One would have to publicly congratulate Denmark and Latvia. Within weeks of the publication of the regulation they were in there. They obtained the port listing. Here we are, 16 months later with all the infrastructure such as cameras, CCTV, recording and all the rest, and as far as I am aware we are not progressing it. However, what I am anticipating is how Ireland approaches everything. I am anticipating a massive over-engineering of this by the officials who are working on it and a gold standard that is not comparable to anywhere in Europe. That is how we approach everything. We are so afraid of change. Little do we know that change is the mother of innovation. How did we lose that edge? That is the reality.

To be clear, port listing will only help in terms of the margin of tolerance, which is if the vessel is outside the hail or where two-sampling is getting different figures than what we have in reality. It will assist that. That will be terrific in that sense. However, it does not help us that we are still weighing on the pier. The Leas-Chathaoirleach is correct in his assessment. With all the degree of oversight, monitoring on cameras and retaining CCTV images -370,000 hours of it- we are still weighing that 5% and 7.5% on the pier. I know the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, will say that is no big deal and that it is only one out of 20, but that one out of 20 could be 2,000 tonne of blue whiting from a Norwegian vessel going into a factory. That is a big deal for any processor to buy. It is critical. We have a market for it. As we have seen in the past, the quality does not stand up. The machinery we use cannot stand up to that level of use. Here we are, as an industry, having invested in oversight, control, enforcement, and cameras coming out of our ears, and we are still the only member state in Europe running around the pier weighing fish.

The whole thing does not stack up to scrutiny. That is something that needs to be looked at and something that needs to be challenged. If the SFPA is correct that we are forced to do this because of Europe and if Europe is correct to say it is a matter for the member state to decide, the two cannot be right. The problem is that industry is suffering. Let us be realistic about it. In terms of the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, for mackerel, blue whiting might be the only bulk commodity we will be processing for the next five years. Yet, here we have a crazy regulation or interpretation of it, or something that is being forced on us depending on where the argument is coming from, and we are breaking ambient temperature and weighing fish on the piers. The whole thing is mad. There is so much that can be done but domestically in Ireland we need to get our house in order.

In respect of the task force, there is a massive issue in terms of the increase in price of marine diesel. That is affecting all the vessels around the coast. There is no doubt about that. Marine diesel has increased by 100%. However, so have the export costs of the processors. So have the unit costs for the processors. The entire sector, having suffered a 40% loss in quota this year on top of a 26% loss through Brexit that is recurring and will reoccur each year to 2038, is struggling. Yet, here we are at committee talking about nonsensical things like weighing in a basket in open temperature, losing quality and impairing the quality of fish while we are competing with other member states that have multiple times the size of quota as us, working under the same rules and regulations but they are weighing comfortably in their own factory and there is no big problem anywhere.

For whatever reason, known only to those responsible for it, there seem to be massive issues in everything relating to fish here in Ireland. That has to be called out and challenged. There has to be a forensic assessment of who is doing what and where behind the scenes.

I am running a bit over time. I will ask one question before we do another round. Regarding the 25 kg sampling and weights extrapolation, is Ireland the only country prosecuting fishermen for these offences? What overall impact has that had on the sector over the past three years? I will have another, more pertinent, question in the next round. That one can be answered, and then we will have another round of questions where members will have four minutes each.

On whether Ireland is the only country, well, we are certainly undertaking multiple prosecutions of our fishing vessels and masters of vessels. There is a backlog there that will probably take about six to seven years to clear in Donegal court because there is a criminal charge for those who have guessed or estimated wrongly. I do not know of any other country that does this. Lord knows, if it was a charge in Iran or Russia, we would be here jumping up and down in our seats about the injustice of it. Here, we have the State endorsing it. It is prosecuting Irish fishermen and fisherwomen because they have guessed wrong. It is so serious that we would begin to wonder what in the name of God is going on in this country. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

I read a commentary on this. It is a bit like what we see in the fairgrounds, where you see a jar of sweets and are asked to guess how many sweets are in the jar. If you are 10% out, do you get arrested on the way out of the fairground? It just defies logic that there is an accurate cast-iron way to measure exactly the number of one species compared with another, but the scientific way is not taken and it is sought to penalise people. It is astonishing.

I want to get to the nub of it now. In terms of the legislative change required, can Mr. Byrne take us through it? Based on his own experience and everything he has said today, what sort of headline issues in that Act need to be reformed and changed at this point?

I am not from a legal background, but we do not need legal backgrounds to adopt a commonsense approach. The first thing that has to be decoupled is this entire criminality aspect, where everything is based on a criminal offence in terms of fishing. That is nonsensical. It should never have been implemented in the first place.

The second thing we need to look at is the governance of the SFPA and the lack of oversight. No authority should be given the authority to be the authority over itself. That would be a basic democratic principle. Democracy is based on the balance of scrutiny and implementation. There is no scrutiny. This committee is supposed to have scrutiny of it, but it does not. That was self-evident on the last occasion its representatives were here, so there is this whole governance issue.

We need to strengthen the whole Act by bringing in administrative fines and sanctions that are proportionate. We can almost envisage that it will come in with an administrative sanction of €500,000 for some indiscretions, such is the scale of the way-out-there groupthink in the Department. There is a need for administrative fines.

Going back and cross-referencing it, and this is just me thinking here now, Kenny Ward outlined to the committee a case that cost a factory €160,000. This is at a time when there is massive strain in the sector, and there probably will not be any financial recompense. I have long held the view that there needs to be a fisheries ombudsperson with legal powers, whereby the State does not use the depth of its pocket to disenfranchise or criminalise the fisherman, fisherwoman or processor. We have heard the phrase, and I do not use it lightly here, that the State’s pockets are deeper than those of any fisherman or fisherwoman around the country, so it will take them on. We need to have an ombudsman who will protect the rights of the fishermen, as well as the rights of the State and the Department and any other piece of legislation, equally and fairly without having to spend a fortune.

That is something we need to get into the realm of. There is so much else as well. It is self-evident that the entire fabric and structure of this Act has to be taken down and rebuilt. It was perverse legislation that criminalised every citizen - man, woman or child - who engaged in fishing. It is perverse. I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

I thank Mr. Byrne. I appreciate that.

As people know, I have been working in Killybegs for over 30 years. To be honest, the sampling regime is totally wrong and criminalisation of fishermen is totally wrong. Let us call it out. Let us call a spade a spade. I do not know how things ever got to this juncture. Townspeople always went around with a smile on their face and they would try to work 24 hours a day. If you meet them on the street now, they cannot even get a day’s work. That is heartbreaking for me.

There will be a meeting at the end of March about mackerel. This committee should send a letter to the Minister saying that Ireland should be pushing for the 48% and not the 70%. I have one question for Mr. Ward. If we got down to the 48%, what would that mean financially? I am guessing it would be 8,000 tonnes of mackerel. That would make a big difference to the boats and crews and even to the factories.

Obviously, any extra amount of fish is always good. There would be more fish to catch, more wages for the crew and more fish to process. If the mackerel quota is reduced not by 70% but by 48%, that will mean there will be more fish to process and that would be a positive thing economically. There is no doubt about it. We should remember that the reason we are having these cuts - the 70% and the 48% - is the illegal fishing of the northern Europeans, including the Norwegians, the Icelanders and the Faroese, now assisted by the Scottish. The EU has done nothing. As processors, we have to work in the market with all these international firms. The EU has the tools and trade sanctions available to impose, but it has done nothing. More fish being available to process is always positive and always good, but I would like to see a tougher stance being taken at European level on those rogue nations - let us call them what they are - to protect the stock in future and ensure we will continually have more fish.

I have a final question. I have been working hard researching the port listing for Killybegs. To me, it is nonsensical that a lorry has to drive 500 m up the road and it takes maybe ten documents to get the fish up there. It is totally wrong. I have looked at the situation in Denmark and Latvia. They applied and got this within six to eight weeks. Mr. Byrne said there that we are not working on it at all. What is the problem here? Do they think we are going to open the door of the lorry coming up around the brae at Donegal Fish and take out fish? It is nonsensical.

It is nonsensical. Does it not speak to the culture we have to counteract, that here we are in this situation in a prime location and with all the infrastructure in place? It is almost as if that legislation was drafted for the benefit of Ireland, but here we are, 16 months later, and due to the inertia there - and it will be there until it is challenged - we are still talking about a port listing. We need to have a serious discussion as to who is doing what and who is not doing what, because time is no longer our friend in this industry.

It took these other two countries six to eight weeks to do it, and Mr. Byrne is now saying we have been 16 months at it. What is going on here? Anything that can make life easier for the producers and the fishermen should come in. As Mr. Ward said earlier, it would be great to attract boats in if they knew they would not be prosecuted for being a small bit over.

On that point, I think we need to move to get all the monitors back into the factory. We spoke earlier about there being 16 CCTV cameras and all the oversight we have. There is no reason for us to be weighing fish on the pier.

We are only 500 m from the quayside. The SFPA offices are there. We have all the cameras in the world and they are recording and transmitting. The SFPA officers can come and go as they please. I cannot understand why we are continually talking about weighing on the pier. Maybe this is something that can be looked at in the Act or the new control plan, but we need to get weighing and monitoring back into the factory where they can be done correctly and accurately.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

To follow on from there, all that can be done and you will have the same result as you would have by adopting the procedure that is there at the moment, but of course that does not put pressure on the processors. There is enough to worry about at the moment with the Brexit fiasco, the reduction in the quotas and the overfishing by Norway, the UK and the Faroe Islands. It is all problems. You are there to process fish and it could revert to the factories and that should be done quickly.

The other aspect is the necessity to deal with the port listing. That is not rocket science either and the witnesses have made it very clear that if there was a will there, it could be resolved. This committee will have to concentrate on that now and try to get that done within a very short period. It would do away with all these different papers. The hailing has to be done but there is getting up on top of the truck, taking a sample out of it and dropping it down. There is no health and safety - that is not important at all. We have to deal with all that. I notice in your written submission, Mr. Byrne, that the landings into Killybegs dropped by 58%. What can be done to restore that? I think we all know the answer. No one wants to come in if they are coming in to the hostile environment that is there. This is a time above all times and there would not be a wheel turned in Killybegs this week - and we had a chat about this beforehand - but for the fact there are a number of foreign vessels coming into Killybegs for blue whiting. We want to be a friendly port and that is true just not for Killybegs but for any port in the country. We want to attract foreign vessels in to sell their fish so we can process it, which creates employment.

We are dealing with the SFPA. There is no governance, no oversight, it is responsible to nobody and when its officials come here we cannot get the answers. We are told there is a section of the Act that does not allow them and they do not have to answer. Maybe it is not a fair question but I will ask it anyway. Has the sector any confidence in the SFPA and in its willingness or ability to change? If that does not happen in the short term, we must drive this legislation through quickly.

I think the sector is 100% behind the need for control, enforcement and regulation. We have proven our bona fides in regard to that but how could anyone have confidence in something that is not subject to oversight and scrutiny? There are governance issues and multiple reports highlighted issues. We did not address it but I am not convinced the PwC report published in 2020 has changed anything. We need to have a full reset and I hope this re-evaluation and review of the SFPA is deep and meaningful. It many even have to look at the Department. I should be here praising the SFPA. I want to say on record there are some very fine people in the SFPA. There is no doubt about it. There are people in the SFPA I count as friends and I contact them and they help. What has damaged all that is 20 years of culture that has eroded all that as well as legislation that was never fit for purpose and an unwillingness to ever change or review work practices. That has led us to a position where we are at this committee and the industry is where it is today. That is the reality, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I do not think I have answered your question but I have given a view nevertheless.

I have just one point to make. We touched on factory ships and the lack of monitoring earlier. Who has the power to monitor these ships? Is it the SFPA, the Naval Service or a European body? It seems totally unfair there is so much monitoring going on in the factories in Killybegs yet the boats out on the high seas are not being looked at at all.

It is the SFPA that has the statutory power, per the Act, to monitor all vessels and all activity within the Irish EEZ and also designated European waters. It has the sole authority. It has different memorandums of understanding with the Naval Service and indeed with EFCA, so it is very clear the ultimate authority rests with the SFPA. That is what theses Houses passed in 2006. Regardless of who is the ultimate authority, the reality is that there is no oversight and no control or monitoring of them and they are running amok off the west coast of Ireland.

I take Mr. Byrne's answer but surely if they come into our EEZ or our waters there should be somebody put on board to monitor at the very least. That is what we have SFPA staff for.

Yes and I have no doubt if there was an Irish flag on them they would be monitored regardless of their size or how accessible they are with a ladder. We need to look at that.

Yes.

We need to look at the rate of monitoring. I remember a report being published in 1989. I think 88% of monitoring in Irish waters at that time was on Irish vessels. I doubt it is any different now. The only difference is there are probably 60% fewer Irish vessels out there because we have had three decommissionings. I made a commentary at the beginning about how, every time we decommission, there is extra Belgian and Dutch activity in Irish waters. Why is that? It is because we decommissioned 38 vessels. The Chairman, Deputy McGuinness, was very clear in his questioning of the SFPA on the last occasion it was here that there is disproportionate and unfair monitoring of Irish vessels versus other vessels. It is happening in plain sight despite the fact we are only catching 10% of the fish out there. As a country we have serious questions to ask of ourselves about what we are doing with this national resource.

The SFPA should be getting on board these vessels to monitor them, at the very least.

That brings us to the conclusion of the meeting. I think everybody got a fair chance. There were fewer members here but there were some very pertinent questions asked and they were answered very honestly. I thank both Mr. Byrne and Mr. Kenny for their presentations, particularly the written one. I recommend those who were not here read it because it is very detailed and very factual. I thank members for their co-operation. I repeat we will be writing to the Minister for Finance and copying to the Minister with responsibility for the marine regarding the assistance that has to be given to the fleet in view of the increasing price of fuel. I understand it is within our rights to invite representatives here from DG MARE who we could - maybe interrogate is the wrong word - have an exchange of views with about the implementation of the laws, rules and regulations which are so different from country to country. Thanks again to Mr. Byrne and Mr. Kenny. We appreciate your time. I think we have all learned a lot and have a greater understanding of the unnecessary difficulties processors and the industry as a whole are experiencing.