Cuirim fáilte roimh gach éinne. Before we begin, I wish to give a note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means 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. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard 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, they verbally 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 sea fisheries protection issues, including the accountability framework and decision-making procedures for enforcement activities. As members will know, and indeed, those following this meeting, this is part of a broader piece of work that this committee has under way. We have Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn as rapporteur compiling a report on sea fisheries protection issues and their impact in Ireland.

We are joined by representatives of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA. We have Mr.Paschal Hayes, executive chairperson; Mr. Michael Finn, authority member and senior executive manager for operations; Ms Louise Murphy, authority member and senior executive manager for corporate services; Mr. Barry Murphy, executive manager legal services; and Ms Adrienne Patterson, executive manager for operations. The opening statement has been forwarded to members. I will allow the witnesses five minutes to read their opening statement and then we will move to the questions and answers session. I call Mr. Hayes to lead us on that. There are clocks around the room. I ask Mr. Hayes to keep an eye on those.

I have an abbreviated version of the opening statement, which I intend to read. It should be done within five minutes.

Members should have copies circulated.

If it is a verbal statement, it is understandable, but if there is one available, we should have it.

We can provide that to the Deputy.

We will wait until we get it.

I thank the committee for its invitation to appear today. We welcome the continued interest in the role of the SFPA, and issues impacting our work, including the accountability framework of the SFPA and SFPA decision-making procedures for its enforcement activities.

The SFPA is an independent public body that was established under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 and operates under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is responsible for sea-fisheries protection and seafood safety in Ireland. It oversees seafood production, fishing vessels and compliance with EU and national regulations. The SFPA is governed by a small executive authority of up to three members, including an executive chairperson. It follows the 2016 code of practice for the governance of State bodies. It is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. The 2025-26 oversight and performance delivery agreement formalises corporate governance arrangements between the SFPA and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for oversight and reporting on performance.

On an annual basis, the SFPA undertakes a self-assessment and produces annual reports and financial statements. We develop and implement our strategy on a three-year cycle, with the current strategy operating from 2024 to 2026. The SFPA is supported by structures, such as an audit and risk committee and a ministerial-appointed sea-fisheries protection consultative committee. Our core role is regulation and enforcement, monitoring fishing activity, production of safe seafood, and ensuring compliance with EU and national legislation. We take legal action where necessary, including by referring cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We also apply our regulatory mandated EU points system for serious infringements. Our work is guided by a risk-based approach, targeting higher risk operators for increased monitoring and inspections.

In seafood safety, we work under a service contract with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to inspect and approve production facilities and vessels, ensure product safety and withdraw unsafe foods when needed. We undertake official certification of seafood products for export where required, thus underpinning 5,300 jobs in the sector. Additionally, we have a service level agreement with the Department of Defence, which provides for aerial surveillance by the Air Corps, sea inspections by the Naval Service and monitoring of activity at sea by the fisheries monitoring centre which is operated by the Naval Service. A major operational issue is the decline in at-sea inspections which are conducted by the Naval Service. Inspections at sea by the Naval Service decreased fivefold, from 1,131 to 204, between 2021 and 2025. Fisheries patrol days also decreased significantly. To address this, the SFPA has increased its use of European Fisheries Control Agency, EFCA, vessels.

The sector faces challenges such as quota cuts, rising costs, reduced Naval Service inspections and adapting to new EU regulations. Despite this, the SFPA remains a key body for sustainability, compliance and food safety in Ireland through improvements, especially in at-sea enforcement. A wider range of enforcement tools are needed. I thank the Chairman for the invitation to speak to the committee today. My colleagues and I are happy to provide additional information or answer any questions members may have.

We will move to questions and answers now. Members will have seven minutes to put their questions and to get answers, so there will be seven minutes on the clock. I will call Deputy Whitmore, Deputy Maxwell and Senator Boyle in the first tranche, and then members may indicate as they wish to come in.

Obviously, we had a meeting before Easter at which we discussed the role and operation of the SFPA. It is repeatedly said to us that essentially everything - any infringement - becomes a criminal infringement. Could the witnesses explain that to me and provide some comments on it? Is that how they would see it? I understand there is a penalty system as well.

I imagine that if there is a penalty system, it is not necessarily a criminal case. Is that right? Will the witnesses go through that and provide a response to the accusation that everything becomes a criminal issue?

I will ask Mr. Murphy, our head of legal, to take the Deputy through both of those systems.

There are three streams for dealing with infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy rules under the relevant control framework. Member states have discretion as to whether to apply administrative or criminal sanctions for infringements of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. In Ireland, the 2006 Act provides that non-compliance with the regulation giving effect to the Common Fisheries Policy is an offence. That operates under the criminal justice system. There is no administrative sanction available under the 2006 Act. On the third limb, however, all member states are required to have a points system for serious infringements of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. There were 13 categories prior to 10 January 2026 for which points would be applied. All member states are required to apply points. The number of serious infringements has now increased. Approximately 32 serious infringements are now liable for points for boat-masters for their registration and also for licence-holders to apply to their licence. Under the Irish regulations, SI 318/2020 explicitly states that the points apply irrespective of the criminal justice system proceedings. That is set out in the regulation, so we have no discretion when it comes to applying the points system.

It is true, therefore, that every infringement comes under the 2006 Act, and Ireland has chosen to have every infringement as a criminal infringement.

That is the set-up of the legislation. Under our remit and statutory functions, we also have food safety law enforcement. I think the Deputy is asking specifically about the Common Fisheries Policy, however.

It is about fisheries, yes. Will Mr. Murphy provide an example of a minor infringement under the 2006 Act that is also considered a criminal infringement?

All infringements are potentially liable for action through the criminal justice system. There is no other option under the 2006 Act. In addition, if it is in the serious category, there is a points process. For infringements outside of the category of a serious infringement, the only option under the 2006 Act is-----

Criminal.

-----to submit a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. There are a small number of offences under the Act that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, can take in its own right, such as obstruction, but the vast majority can only be taken by the DPP. It is set out in the legislation that the DPP is the prosecutor for those offences.

In respect of other countries, Mr. Murphy said it is up to each member state to decide the level and whether it is administrative-----

The sanctions.

Yes. What do other countries do in that regard?

I do not have definite data on that. I know some member states apply administrative fines but I do not have the precise data or detail on other member states.

Essentially, that is legislation the Government in 2006 brought in and the SFPA is applying it.

That is correct.

In its opening statement, the SFPA stated that it tends to focus on high-risk vessels. I think that was the wording. How does the SFPA determine what is high risk and what is not?

I will ask Ms Patterson to take the Deputy through the risk analysis and how those risk ratings are arrived at.

We have a multitiered approach to risk. We risk-assess approved establishments under the food safety perspective. This looks at the product that is being produced, the throughput, the number of staff and any compliance history. For fisheries, we undertake a number of different risk assessments. The first one relates to fisheries, which is at a very high level. We look at the state of the stock, quotas that are available and any compliance issues around the regulations that are in place.

We then look at the different fleet segments because this gives an overall picture as to perhaps the different risks that are associated with vessels that are fishing in the same area with the same gear type, and we can benchmark them against each other. Within Ireland, we have the two-tier vessel risk assessment. We have a risk assessment or risk rating undertaken on an annual basis which is based on data analysis that we have from the previous year. It looks at previous history as well. We then have a more dynamic risk assessment that looks at the immediate threats for that vessel within the last two months, such as if there have been any changes or anything like that. That is done across the board for all vessels fishing within the Irish exclusive economic zone, EEZ. It is wider than just the Irish vessels, so it allows us to target vessels, for want of a better word, but also to get our resources to where we need them and to maximise the use of our limited resources both for land-based and sea-based inspections.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority sent a letter to the Minister, Deputy Heydon, asking if he would consider the use of observers aboard non-Irish boats after I requested it at an earlier meeting. Has it received anything back?

Yes, I sent the letter and, as the Deputy said, she has a copy of it. I got an acknowledgement from the Minister's private secretary but nothing further since then.

There has been no commitment made to look at it because it is possible, under the regulations, for Ireland to put observers on non-Irish boats, but we have to request it from the Council. Is that correct?

My understanding is that it is not possible for Ireland to put observers on other member states' vessels. The other member states would have to put observers on their vessels. That is my understanding of it.

Ireland can request that it happen and reports could then be provided.

Any member state can request it. It is in the regulation, but it has to go through the Council of Ministers.

Has the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority received any formal response relating to that principle?

No.

In his opening statement, Mr. Hayes said that in the past 11 years the DPP has offered direction on 415 cases. Why is there no information for 2026?

I will again defer to my head of legal services, Mr. Murphy.

Our reporting for the first quarter of 2026 has just concluded so it was not included in the information provided. We can follow it up and provide it.

There have been two cases because I found them in two minutes this morning. I will go back to 2025. The number of cases dealt with under the Probation Act or through charitable donations was one. I went on to the Internet this morning and in two minutes found that a fine was issued in Dublin District Court on 19 November 2025. On 17 October 2025, a bond was paid at Bandon District Court. On 25 March 2025, a fine was paid at Drogheda District Court. There should be two fines there when there is only one. Where does the bond come into that?

To explain, a fine would not come under the Probation Act or a charitable donation.

Where are the fines in this information?

The reporting system that we have report from the year of the infringement. For example, if a case arose from an alleged offence in 2024 but concluded in 2025, it comes under the 2024 data.

It does not come under when the court case was dealt with.

Correct.

I will not name anyone but on 25 October last year at Letterkenny District Court, we had a case relating to the accuracy of the instruments. It was brought up at this committee by Deputy Mac Lochlainn but could not be answered. The verdict in that case was not guilty. I do not see anything in this data about a "not guilty" judgment. We have been told about the number of cases the DPP directed and that the number of cases dismissed in the courts was nil. Where is that case from Letterkenny District Court reported on in those figures?

It was reported in the year that the alleged offence took place.

Where? The case was dismissed. There is no row for dismissed cases. This man was taken to court over ten years and hounded and the case was thrown out. Where is it on that list?

There is a column of the number of cases dismissed in the courts.

The number of cases dismissed is nil.

The Deputy needs to refer to the year of the alleged.

What year? In 2024, it was nil; in 2023, nil; and in 2022, two. In 2020, where is it? Will Mr. Murphy tell me? I am looking at it. I found it on the Internet in two minutes. Where is it?

The 2015 row is where the Deputy will find it.

In the 2015 row, the number of cases dismissed in the court is three so that is one of them.

Correct.

It took a few minutes to get to that point.

In 2026, there were two cases. They are not reported. In 2025, there were four cases and two fines but Mr. Murphy is saying that fine was applied in 2025 because that person was caught in 2025 and the other one was whatever year he was caught in.

It flows from the year of the alleged infringement, yes.

Accountability is what we are here about today. From what I am hearing from fishermen all around the country, they land into Castletownbere, Dunmore East or Killybegs and if only one digit is entered wrong by the captain, they are for the high jump and up to court to get a criminal conviction, but the SFPA comes in and these figures are all mixed up. A two-minute search on the Internet me told me there are already two cases in 2026; they are not here. On 2025, it states that the number of cases dismissed in the courts is three and the number of cases with convictions recorded is five.

In my eyes, it is gobbledygook. That is what I think. You read it and you are trying to search and get information. It is all about accountability and it is as clear as mud. What do you-----

Has the Deputy a question?

Yes. It is as clear as mud. This is Mr. Hayes's second time in. The last day his attitude was that he did not have to answer questions to us and he does not report to us. Questions were asked by all members and it was just a complete blank.

No matter who you meet in the industry, every group's number one complaint is the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority. There are other issues, but there is not one group that I have met that has said that the SFPA is doing a great job for Irish fishing. Does Mr. Hayes not see a problem here?

First, I dispute that we took that attitude the last time. Second, I dispute that we did not answer questions. The count, I am told, was we answered over 100 questions at the last sitting.

That will do because this is a waste of time.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. I will start off with a few simple questions. Why is all the monitoring not done in the factories?

I will ask Ms Patterson to take that question.

Under Ireland's control plan, which is approved by the Commission and which allows for product to be transported prior to weighing, we are obliged to undertake monitoring of fish as it is landed. One-in-20 landings is monitored upon landing; the remaining 19 go to the factory for weighing after transport without monitoring.

Surely this monitoring makes no sense when everything can be done in the factory.

My next question is on the sampling system. When the boat lands, the catch goes through the machine and a sample is taken. The captain of the boat, we have to understand, is out on rough seas. He can only give a guesstimate of what his by-catch is. At the end of the day, when it goes up to the factory, everything is done through the proper systems of weighing. Everything is there, including cameras. The by-catch can be sampled there.

Surely that is the right way to do this. I refer to a common-sense approach.

We have to work with what is in the control plan, and the control plan states one in 20 landings has to be weighed on landing under the supervision of the SFPA. For those one in 20, sampling has also to be undertaken at landing.

According to the SFPA's annual report in 2021, 69% of Irish vessels were inspected. Given that we had only 15% of the quota, does Ms Patterson think that is disproportionate?

We have to look at the bigger picture. Once we look at the statistics for what is actually fishing within the Irish EEZ, we see that 92.6% of all activity there is by Irish fishing vessels. Therefore, most inspections are of those vessels. When we examine the number of landings, we see that the majority are from vessels with the Irish flag. Therefore, the majority of inspections, percentage-wise, are carried out on Irish vessels. However, when we consider the wider statistics, we see that 13.3% of vessels with an Irish flag are inspected at landing, whereas the proportion for other member states is almost 24%. The proportion for third countries is 23%. This is based on comparing the number of landings by particular flags with the number of inspections.

How many European, but non-Irish, factory-fishing vessels were inspected in the past five years?

From third countries?

Not those alone, but also Dutch vessels, for example. How many of the big factory fishing vessels we all see were inspected in the past five years?

These vessels do not land into Ireland, so they have to be inspected at sea. Inspecting these vessels at sea is actually very challenging because of the nature of the inspections. First, there are weather constraints. This year has been incredibly challenging weather-wise. We have not actually inspected any pelagic vessels fishing in the Irish EEZ this year. However, it is important to recognise that the safety of our inspectors is paramount when we are undertaking fishing vessel inspections at sea. The inspectors have to get from the patrol vessel to the fishing vessel, be it a large pelagic factory vessel or a smaller demersal vessel, and that in itself has a number of associated dangers. The conditions have to be optimal to do it.

The number of pelagic freezer vessels inspected last year was four.

It is astonishing that we cannot have somebody on the vessels. Even down in Africa, the Government of Mauritania has inspectors on the vessels. Up here, we cannot have anybody on them, seeing what is going on.

I have a couple of additional questions. Third countries, including Norway, are granted access to the Irish EEZ. Who carries out the risk assessment of third countries that operate in Irish waters? Is it the SFPA or the EU?

There is a joint approach by the European Fisheries Control Agency, EFCA, and the member states. We consider the same criteria we consider for any other member state or Irish vessels when considering the activities within EU waters. This includes risk-assessing UK vessels and, as the Deputy pointed out, Norwegian vessels.

Really, what Ms Patterson is saying is that they are not being checked.

This year alone, there were five inspections of Norwegian vessels within the Irish EEZ.

On one day alone, there were 35 such vessels in the EEZ.

As pointed out by the executive chair in the opening statement, we do have challenges in relation to at-sea inspections, particularly with the Naval Service. As the Senator will be aware, it has resource difficulties. It is the State seagoing wing. It is tasked with fisheries inspections. As also mentioned within the opening statement, there has been a fivefold decrease in the number of inspections undertaken in the past five years by the Naval Service. The SFPA does put inspectors on board the EFCA patrol vessel to undertake inspections, but again, if there is but a single patrol vessel operating within the entire EEZ, it means a large area is not being covered when it is in any given area.

I get where Ms Patterson is coming from, but there could be one person on a patrol vessel. We should have people inspecting the factory ships. If they can have it in Africa - in Mauritania - surely to God we should have it here.

As mentioned, we have written to the Minister in relation to this and we are awaiting a response. From 2028 onwards, there will be remote electronic monitoring, REM, of all vessels operating within EU waters, including those vessels of third country origin. As I said, we will have REM coming into play from January 2028.

I have just one further question, Chair.

If it is directly related, I will allow it.

It is on kilowatt days. What are the penalties for the countries that go over their kilowatt days? We know the Belgians have gone over. What is the procedure there?

An issue was brought to our attention by the industry in relation to the kilowatt days for the Belgian industry. At the time I wrote to the Commission to bring it to its attention. I also brought it to the attention of the Belgian authorities and they acknowledged that in previous years they would have had made arrangements Ireland to swap kilowatt days. That did not happen in 2025 so they had to make alternative arrangements, which they ultimately did. If they had not done that, it is then a matter for the Commission which monitors on behalf of all the member states. The Commission could put pressure on Belgium not to allow its vessels in the fishery or, ultimately, if it got to a certain extreme, it could actually close the fishery. The Commission can take measures, but ultimately it is up to each member state to monitor its vessels in the same way that we do. We monitor our vessels and we know when they are getting close to exceeding their kilowatt days. We have that arrangement and we tell the Department. At the quota management we have the industry in, so it is well aware and can take measures to make sure it can mitigate to ensure vessels do not go over their kilowatt days. The Commission does have a role, as does each member state in being responsible for its own fleet of vessels.

I am out of time. I thank the Chair for his discretion.

Did the SFPA avail of any media training before coming here today or to previous hearings?

Our training is managed by Ms Murphy, so I will ask her to answer.

We undertake a training needs analysis on an annual basis. In 2025, we identified a need for communications training.

I will be very clear. Did the SFPA pay for media training to prepare for participation in meetings of Oireachtas committees today or previously?

In advance of today, yes, we had communications training in January. We did not undertake any training prior to the committee hearing in November last. It had been identified, as I have said, as part of our training needs analysis which is conducted right across the organisation by each business unit. It was to cover communications in general at Oireachtas committee hearings but also in media training, crisis management, dealing with communications around crisis management and in addition-----

The answer is "Yes".

Yes.

That is fine. In terms of the control plan, in responses given to this committee the SFPA has stated that this is signed off by Brussels. Who drafts the control plan?

It is a matter for the Minister to submit a control plan.

Does the SFPA draft the control plan?

The previous control plan is the one in place at the moment. The Minister of the day asked the SFPA to submit the application on behalf of Ireland.

As such, the SFPA does draft the control plan.

We draft and negotiate with the Commission in relation to that.

The SFPA drafts the control plan. The oversight that Deputy Maxwell and other Deputies talked about and which we have seen at factories is designed and drafted by the SFPA, not by the European Commission. Is that correct?

It is negotiated with the European Commission and it is shared with the Minister before it is submitted to the Commission.

Is Mr. Hayes satisfied that the control plan drafted by our Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is identical to the control plans operational in other European member states?

No two control plans would be identical.

Why not? It is the same law, so why not?

The circumstances in Ireland are different.

Will Mr. Hayes outline what those circumstances are?

What particular sector is the Deputy talking about?

Fisheries.

In general?

Yes, fisheries in general, and fish production factories and sea fishing vessels.

In the control plan that the SFPA drafted, it had the freedom to do that. Is that control plan the same as is operational in other European member states? After all, it is the same European law.

I will hand over to Ms Patterson to provide the detail on that.

Ireland obtained a new control plan in 2022. This was signed off on by the Commission. Other member states would have got control plans at various times throughout the shelf life of the previous legislation. Therefore, they would have been taken at different periods of time. They are all different. There is no harmonised approach to control plans.

Why not?

It was recognised at the time that it was up to the member states to submit a-----

Why is ours stricter than those in other member states?

In relation to where we were at the time with the industry, additional control measures had to be put in place to satisfy the Commission that Ireland could control the 95% of landings that would be transported after weighing. As I mentioned before, one in 20 is weighed upon landing under the supervision of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. In future legislation, there will be a much more harmonised approach across all member states and in fact there will be a template.

Is Ms Patterson acknowledging that the current control plan, drafted by the SFPA here in Ireland, is not harmonised with other European member states and that, therefore, there is not a level playing pitch across Europe?

As I have said, the overarching legislation is the same. However, additional measures have to be put in place across all the member states depending on their circumstances and depending on the types of fisheries they are controlling. There are nuanced differences between all of the different control plans.

This committee has discussed the huge corporations that operate within the Common Fisheries Policy. Nothing I am about to say will get me into disrepute or take advantage of privilege. Parlevliet & van der Plas is a massive corporation based in the Netherlands. It has just launched a new vessel, the Annie Hillina, whose daily production capacity is 400 tonnes of fish per day. It is absolutely huge. According to my research, only two of the pelagic factories in Ireland have a higher capacity than that one vessel, which is extraordinary, and only one would match it. In other words, five out of the eight would not match the capacity of that vessel. When that vessel is in our waters, will the approach of the SFPA be identical to the pelagic fish production factories here in Ireland? Deputy Maxwell, Senator Boyle, Deputy Gallagher and I have all seen the oversight by the SFPA. Will it take exactly the same approach to this vessel when it is in Irish waters?

Ireland's control plan is for weighing after transport following landing of fish. These vessels operate under different legislation relating to Article 60 of the control regulation. They have to be approved to, first, weigh on landing and, second, sample-weigh the product as it is being landed frozen. There are differences between them. They are not operating under a control plan to weigh after transport. They are operating under a control plan to weigh on board.

One factory in Killybegs has tamperproof weighing devices. It has multiple CCTV cameras that are beamed directly to SFPA headquarters. I believe these factories have to retain that footage for six months afterwards. Of course, they can be subject to a no-warning inspection at any time. Is the SFPA satisfied with the oversight on these vessels? We need to remember that it is a level playing pitch. They are operating in our waters. Is the SFPA satisfied that wherever they land, it has the same oversight of those vessels and their production as is the case for Irish vessels and Irish production factories? Are there multiple CCTV cameras on board? Are SFPA inspectors able to board freely at any stage? Does it have all that apparatus in place?

As was mentioned, there are a number of difficulties with boarding vessels at sea. One of those is in relation to weather. These vessels are fishing off the north-west coast of Ireland. During the period in which they are fishing, which is usually from January to the end of March, it is quite difficult to do any boardings because of the weather conditions.

It is regrettable that we are unable to get people on board. We would like to have observers on board, but we are awaiting approval from the Minister. Communication has been sent to the Minister and we await a response to that. To answer the Deputy's question in part, yes, we would like to have more inspections of these vessels at sea. From 2028 onwards there will be REM on board, which we will have access to as the coastal state where they will be fishing.

Is the authority satisfied that REM is reliable?

I suppose it has been recognised as the tool that gives the most reliability in relation to production and in particular in relation to compliance with the landing obligation.

Okay. My time is up. I will come back in later.

I will take up from where Deputy Mac Lochlainn finished. When did the SFPA write to the Minister about inspectors on board?

It was after the last meeting. If the Deputy will give us a few minutes, we will root out the exact date but it was in November 2025.

Okay, that is fine. I will move on quickly.

The last time the authority was here, there seemed to be confusion about who the SFPA was accountable to. I apologise but I was late into this meeting and this may have been answered already. Which body is the SFPA now accountable to?

Accountable in what sense?

In the sense we talked about earlier. Who does the authority answer to when there is an issue? Is it to us, the fisheries committee, or is it to the Minister of State, Deputy Timmy Dooley? That is what I am trying to establish here.

The reason I am asking for clarification is that there are different reporting mechanisms for different aspects. Financial is one aspect, as are HR and corporate governance. I will ask my colleague Ms Murphy to go through the generalities of it and the Deputy might have a specific one he wants to zero in on.

We want clarity on what powers the SFPA has. Who is it accountable to and who is its top boss? Who is it totally accountable to? That is what I want to know.

I will ask Ms Murphy to take the Deputy through the different elements of that.

The executive structure of the SFPA is different from the typical structure of other public bodies where there is a board. There is a separation of powers between the board and the CEO. Under the 2006 Act, the authority structure is provided for in section 47 and the authority memberso are responsible for the full-time, day-to-day operation of the organisation. The Act provides that there must be at least one and up to three authority members. The Minister will appoint one of those authority members to be the executive chairperson. Today Mr. Finn, Mr. Hayes and I are the authority members for the SFPA. There is a multilayered approach to governance and accountability, which is similar to many other public bodies. Much of the framework for that is included in the 2006 Act, but in addition we comply with all public sector corporate governance public rules and regulations, including the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. Under section 68 of the Act, the executive chairperson is accountable to the public accounts committee and, indeed, to this committee. From a corporate governance perspective, we have an oversight and performance delivery agreement with the Department. Under section 65 of the Act, we are required to maintain proper books of account and those books of account are audited on an annual basis by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In addition, under section 66 of the Act, we are required to have in place a three-year statement of strategy. The period of that strategy is currently 2024 to 2026. We have a number of high-level corporate governance meetings with the Department throughout the calendar year and as part of that we report to the Department on our KPIs within the statement of strategy.

From the point of view of the code of practice, the SFPA has also appointed an audit and risk committee. There are currently five members of that audit and risk committee. All of them are independent and non-executive members. They support the SFPA with regard to risk management, internal controls and corporate governance.

In terms of operational oversight and the role of internal audit, every public sector body wants to continuously improve its systems, processes and operations. Because we are a regulator, we have a distinct internal audit function in that we have typical corporate internal audits in areas such as finance, HR and risk management, but we also have technical internal audits and are required to have those under European regulations.

Thank you. I will move on. Will the witnesses comment on the relationship between the SFPA and enforcement bodies that are active in Ireland's exclusive economic zone, EEZ? Do they believe there are sufficient arrangements in place to protect against overfishing by non-Irish vessels?

Does the Deputy mean fishery control authorities in other member states?

Yes. What is the relationship between them and the SFPA and what is the process for reviewing overfishing by non-Irish vessels in our waters?

Ireland works quite closely with the EFCA and we regularly undertake meetings with others member states that are active in the Irish EEZ. On a fortnightly basis, we discuss ongoing threats and any information they have on their vessels that we may not have access to. We also operate in a wider capacity in that joint deployment plans are undertaken on an annual basis where we look at specific risks across all the vessels and fleet segments fishing in not only Irish waters but in Union waters. One of those would be within the Irish EEZ. We have specific plans in place to monitor these, identify the threats, address any threats and undertake inspection regimes on higher risk vessels. It goes across the board, irrespective of flag, that we look at the threats. It is not just looking at Irish vessels, other member states' vessels or third country vessels.

And you meet every fortnight.

We meet every fortnight virtually. We also have larger meetings face to face twice a year by the steering group and twice a year by the technical joint deployment group. Those are co-ordinated by the EFCA and all the member states fishing in what we call western waters, which are primarily off Ireland, are involved.

Have any or all of the witnesses visited the ports - Killybegs, Ros an Mhíl, Dunmore East or Castletownbere - to witness at first hand how the operation works from the time the fish are landed and the skipper hails the quantities involved right through to the weighing in the factories? Have they witnessed the absurdity of this and the waste of time? If they consider all this to be an absurdity, have they made proposals to the executive chairman or the Minister to change it?

Yes, we have witnessed it. Ms Patterson was an on-the-ground sea-fisheries protection officer for many years, so she has been involved in those inspections at the coalface, so to speak. I personally have done what the Deputy asked about. I have looked at a landing from end to end. I presume he is talking about pelagic landings and the control plan, rather than demersal landings or landings by smaller vessels.

I am talking about all of those things.

The bigger pelagic landings into Killybegs take a long time but a landing by a small vessel into one of the other points the Deputy mentioned - Dunmore East, Ros an Mhíl or wherever - can take a matter of minutes.

The ones into the pelagic factories in Killybegs can certainly take a day or more in some cases. Yes, there is a lot to go through in those landings. There are a lot of regulations to be met. They are not regulations that the SFPA put in place. They are regulations that the European Commission has generally put in place. Some of them arise from the control plan, which was approved by the Commission.

Did the European Commission propose any changes to the control plan submitted by the SFPA – the one Deputy Mac Lochlainn referred to - before it was approved?

It is Ireland's control plan. There were a number of iterations to it. There were a number of meetings around it. There was a lot of negotiation around it. The Commission wanted it to be far more stringent than it actually ended up being at the end.

I am watching the clock. Could Mr. Hayes tell us how much more stringent it could be? Did the Commission want every single fish to be weighed? I am being facetious when I say that. How much more stringent could it be? I have asked the question of one of the witnesses. Ms Patterson has been on the ground so she will be very familiar with it. Has Mr. Hayes, the executive chairman, taken the opportunity to do what anyone would expect him to do, and go and inspect whether it takes an hour, a day or two days to see what happens on the ground?

I have already answered the Deputy. I have done that.

Where did he do it?

In Killybegs.

When was the last time?

I would have to look at my calendar but I guess that the last time I looked at the operation end to end was 2024.

Has anything changed since then?

No. That would have been done under the current control plan.

Could Mr. Murphy answer this question? Do any of the other countries operate as we do? Do any other countries treat all infringements as criminal?

The honest answer is that I do not know. I do not know the system in all of the other member states. We are operating under what was given to us under the 2006 Act. The sanctions that are available are a policy decision.

With all due respect, I would have thought that one or all of the witnesses would have known or would have compared how this is dealt with in Ireland as against other countries. My understanding is that in other countries there are infringements that result in penalty points. What changed in the intervening period that I laid out - from the rescinding of the penalty points system in 2016 to the time that was overturned by the Government that came in in 2020?

Is the Deputy referring to the points system?

Yes.

The new statutory instrument was introduced in 2020.

What changed in the period of time from the rescinding of the previous one? Is Mr. Finn indicating that he wants to answer that?

Deputy Gallagher asked what had changed. There was a change in the circumstances in that the Commission and DG MARE, to which we are also accountable and to which we report, and which has considerable power over us. Back in 2022, DG MARE came along and rescinded our control plan initially. It also has the power to withhold funding to Ireland and in the case of Ireland not having a points system in place, funding was withheld until such time as we brought in the points system. There was a change in that intervening period because Ireland had to bring in the points system. Otherwise, DG MARE and the Commission were holding us accountable for not having the system in place. We must bear in mind that the points system was supposed to be in place since 2010, yet it was 2020 to 2022 before Ireland actually brought the points systems into play. We were at odds with other European countries in that context.

I am watching the clock. That is a factual answer, so I cannot dispute it. Is Mr. Finn suggesting that during all of that period, the EU held back transfers to Ireland?

I am saying there was an issue with funding under the EMFF. The Commission was saying to Ireland that if we did not put our points system in place, we would not get the funding that we were entitled to until such time as this matter was resolved.

It eventually was resolved.

If no funding was provided from the time the Commission insisted there had to be penalty points, how much funding did we lose out on? How many millions, or perhaps billions, of euro were lost out on in that period?

That is really a question for the Minister rather than one for the SFPA, as are questions on the statutory instrument and its introduction. We have no role in relation to legislation, policy or EU funding. They are really questions for the Minister.

The executive chairman is a fair man to bat. At that time, when the Minister was making the case to Government that millions were in jeopardy, being held back or frozen, did he not take an interest in that?

It is really a matter for the Minister, the Department and the managing authority for the-----

If we were to submit a question to the Minister, might we get an answer? Would Mr. Hayes have any input at all?

I would not have any input. We left a question hanging a while ago if the Deputy would like to go back to it.

I do not have time to go back to it but I will have a second chance later. I will ask one final question in this tranche. Do any of the witnesses accept that the relationships between the SFPA and the industry, both producers and processors, are at an all-time low?

This comes up from time to time. I sometimes wonder what people mean when they refer to the relationship between the SFPA and the industry. We have people out on piers meeting fishermen, vessel owners and licence holders every day of the week. They interact with them every day of the week. We also have executive functions in Clonakilty. Is the Deputy talking about the relationship between me, as executive chairperson, and the sector or the relationship between a sea fishery protection officer and a fisherman as they stand on a pier talking?

Mr. Hayes is being facetious. I am sure he can accept the question I am asking. I am talking about the relationship between the SFPA as a body and the industry. Does Mr. Hayes accept that relationship is at an all-time low and that his people act in such a way as to create difficulties for the industry, whether the processors or otherwise, that would not arise in any other country? On a scale from nought to ten, I would venture to say that other countries are at seven or eight and the SFPA is at zero.

No, I do not accept that at all. I will say again what I said at the previous meeting; the organisation is implementing the regulations that are in place. We do not make up any of these regulations; we simply implement them.

I will ask Mr. Hayes about the basket, the bucket and the colours the next time.

I am going to put a number of questions myself at this point in the meeting. I hope we will get more in the way of answers than we did the last time. I will go back to a set of questions I was asking the last time. I have no qualms in saying that I did not get satisfactory answers to them. They relate to inspections at sea, particularly inspections of factory vessels, both European Union-flagged vessels and third country vessels. Deputy Maxwell asked how many inspections of such vessels took place over the past five years. He got a partial answer. There were zero so far this year and four last year. However, no figures were provided for previous years. I will put that question again. How many inspections at sea of both European and non-EU-flagged factory vessels operating in Irish waters took place over the past five years?

As has been mentioned, we have a lot of problems in relation to undertaking these inspections. I do not have the exact figures for the past five years. As I mentioned earlier, there have been zero inspections of pelagic factory vessels this year while there were four last year.

Do we know the number for 2024?

I do not have those figures for the pelagic factory vessels.

What about 2023?

As mentioned, I do not have those figures for the pelagic factory vessels but I do have the total figures for non-EU vessels, other member state vessels and Irish vessels.

I asked a very particular question. I am the second member to ask it here. I asked it back in November as well. As I said in November, I would expect that, in preparing for this meeting, one of the five witnesses representing the SFPA would have access to that information. As Chair of the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, I will state that it is not satisfactory for any agency or body of the State to come before any committee of the Oireachtas without having figures to hand.

These are basic figures. The witnesses surely anticipated that this would be a point of questioning that several members have already put, and I am now putting as Chairperson. It is utterly unsatisfactory. That has to be understood and accepted. The next time you appear before this committee, if you need to bring further officials and have them behind you or you need to bring reports and documentation, please have them with you because it is utterly unsatisfactory at this point.

Do you have the figures, Mr. Hayes ? I want an answer to my question, not an excuse.

We have figures for inspections at sea, but we do not have figures specifically for factory freezer vessels, to date. We can supply those. We can give the figures in relation to-----

I asked a very specific question and I would like an answer to that specific question, with respect. You offering me the answer to another question that I did not ask is not satisfactory. I hope you take that point.

I do, and we can certainly provide the information for you after this meeting. We wrote to the clerk and asked him in advance of the meeting if there was any data, in particular, that the committee wanted, either prior to the meeting or on the day.

Sorry, I am going to cut you off at this point, Mr. Hayes. It is utterly frustrating that, after the previous meeting, we had a drip feed of responses back to questions that members had put in good faith. We have done our preparations ahead of these meetings. We take them seriously. We have had a drip feed of responses coming back from the SFPA. We are grateful for the information when it comes, but with respect, and this comes down to accountability and transparency, we do not need to provide you with lists of questions before you appear here to give your evidence. At the previous meeting, you told us that this is the only body, effectively, outside of financial issues, to which you are accountable, and we have this constant issue with trying to get answers. If you put as much effort into preparing the facts and the data to respond to our questions rather than the communications piece that you identified after the previous meeting, perhaps we would not be having this back and forth and we would be just getting on with the business of the meeting. Do you accept that criticism?

I absolutely accept that. We certainly will provide the data to say the figures are small for the reasons that have been previously outlined. There is an issue with surface inspections at sea and the level of service provided by the Naval Service. The figures are going to be in the region of what Ms Patterson has quoted.

So between zero and four per annum, approximately.

At a guess, that is what it is going to be.

Okay. Thank you for hazarding the guess. I will not hold you to those exact figures but I ask that you provide them by the end of the week. It is reasonable that you would have those provided by the end of the week to us. Of course, we should have them now.

We will do that, Chair.

If we have such modest, to put it gently, inspection of these very large factory vessels operating in Irish waters, is there a risk, and is this a risk that you have identified, that there will be overfishing where there is no inspection and no knowledge, certainly within the Irish authority, of that happening? Is there a sharing of intelligence or data from other European Union fisheries protection agencies regarding those vessels that operate in Irish waters?

Certainly, as Ms Patterson has already outlined, we would like to be doing more surface inspections at sea. We use every asset and surface asset that is available to us to get officers out there to do them. The difficulties with the Naval Service are well known. The figures are stark when you look at the decrease in the inspections at sea that I outlined in the opening statement. Regarding the second part of your question, without going into the specifics, there is information shared between the different control authorities of member states.

Is that soft information or is it actionable data that can be shared and released?

By way of example, a logbook on a vessel over a certain size has to be completed by midnight every night. That information is shared across all member states electronically.

For example, when these factory vessels eventually land their catch at a European Union port, for example, and I know some of them will land them at third country ports as well, to what extent has the SFPA eyes on what comes off those ships?

If it does not land in Ireland-----

To what extent are your colleague organisations in other European countries providing that information to you?

The SFPA would not have any eyes on it if it is landing in another member state.

To summarise that, effectively the State here, the Government and its various arms and agencies are utterly blind to the amount of fish that has been taken and caught in Irish waters by these factory ships.

We have no oversight of that, bar the self-reporting in the logs.

It is replicated on the logbooks, but do not forget that the concept of the Common Fisheries Policy is that there is an obligation on every member state's control authority to control its own vessels wherever they fish, the same way Ireland has responsibility for the Irish EEZ, but also for Irish vessels wherever they fish.

Okay. I would venture to say that we have no assurance, from your response, that this is taking place, because we have no eyes on data. That is a huge gap and a huge risk, and it is more of a risk than any other fishing activity in Irish waters.

At the risk of getting into a political discussion here, the Commission's view is that outside 12 miles is European Union waters and the control activity is shared across the member states while the vessels are fishing in Union waters, as they call them.

Yet, the SFPA, when it possibly can, which is not often, seemingly, undertakes at-sea inspections of vessels.

Absolutely. Each member state has an obligation within its own EEZ to carry out control functions. Insofar as the SFPA is able to, it absolutely carries out control functions based on the risk criteria, as outlined by Ms Patterson, on vessels as much as we can.

If I may come in there, while we have struggled to get surface assets out to undertake inspections at-sea, we do undertake aerial surveillance of these particular vessels. We have had such monitoring programmes under way this year, supported by the EF chartered aircraft. We had inspectors, not on board the craft but examining the live feed coming back to follow up on any and all non-compliance that was detected, particularly around these high-risk vessels.

Sorry to cut across, but "that was detected" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, if you do not mind me saying so. "Any and all" sounds very good, but any and all that were detected in those very limited circumstances is what people watching and members here are very concerned about.

Honestly, I cannot go into the specifics of individual cases, so I am trying to be as general as possible and I am sure you appreciate that. There are follow-up investigations under way in a number of circumstances relating to these vessels in this fleet following aerial surveillance. We also use satellite imagery and we make the best of the resources available to us in the absence of sea surface assets.

We all appreciate that the Naval Service is utterly under-resourced, and it is laughable sometimes to hear Government representatives talking about maritime security when we cannot even have factory vessels operating within our waters inspected.

We have some data regarding the number of files that have been prepared and sent to the DPP each year. How many files have been prepared and sent to the DPP by the SFPA relating to factory vessel infringements by both EU and non-EU factory vessels operating in Irish waters? We have ten years of figures here, so in the past ten years.

We do not have a breakdown per type of vessel. We have a breakdown in terms of the flag vessel, but we would not have that particular breakdown regarding factory or non-factory vessels. However, we can provide that data to the committee.

Do you have it by Irish-flagged vessel versus EU-flagged non-Irish vessel versus third country flagged vessel files sent to the DPP?

Certainly. For at-sea inspections-----

Maybe give me last year as an example. I will not ask you to read out a table for the past ten years.

Sure. In 2025, there were 14 case files submitted in relation to at-sea inspections. One was for a Spanish vessel, two were for French vessels, two were for German vessels and nine were for Irish vessels.

Will you explain why there are significantly more Irish vessels? Is that because they tend to be fishing in areas that are easier to carry out a surface inspection? Any of us watching the transponder data will see there are a lot of European Union flagged vessels operating in Irish waters.

As mentioned earlier, over 92% of the activity within the Irish EEZ is by Irish vessels.

It is 92% of fishing activity.

Yes, 92% of it is by Irish vessels.

Are we talking about the tonne of fish caught or the number of individual vessels? The latter would skew that figure.

A total of 55.5% of tonnage caught in the Irish EEZ is by Irish vessels; 27.7% is by other member state vessels; and 16.8% is by non-EU vessels.

A total of 55% is caught by Irish vessels. That is a long way off 92%. That is why I wanted to ask that question about tonnage versus individual vessels. We understand there are smaller inshore and offshore vessels that operate closer to the coast, but our EEZ is huge. I had better pass over to other members.

Mr. Hayes summed up what fishermen think of the SFPA. He was asked a question by Deputy Gallagher and, incredulously and so arrogantly, he said he answered it in Killybegs two years ago. I was not in Killybegs two years ago. I was not a Member of this House. For the chairman of a State organisation, when asked a question at a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas, to say “I answered it two years ago in Killybegs; go and feck yourselves”, I cannot get over that. It is just beyond. I come from an inland county where we grow mushrooms. One of the best mushroom companies in Ireland operates there. If Mr. Hayes is ever finished in this job, he should take up mushroom farming because he is the best man I have ever seen to keep people in the dark and feed them plenty of bull.

Turning to page 4 again and the court cases, 85 cases were brought forward in 2022, 87 cases were brought forward in 2023 and 84 cases were brought forward in 2024. A total of 57 cases were directed on by the DPP in 2022. In 2023, the figure was 52 and in 2024, it was 60. In the figures the SFPA has provided, 24 cases are not accounted for in 2022, 17 are unaccounted for 2023 in the graph and there are 38 unaccounted cases in 2024. There are 79 cases unaccounted for in the graph. Mr. Murphy will probably say they have not been dealt with or are sitting there, but there are 79 cases unaccounted for.

In 11 years, the DPP offered direction in 415 cases, of which over 70% were sent forward to the courts for a hearing. Does that represent an increase between 2022 and 2025 compared with the period from 2015 to 2020? Has there been an increase in cases that are taken because those numbers – 85, 84 and 87 – are all similar? There is a difference of three cases in those three years. It is funny that there are the same number of cases in those years. I did not go back through the other years. Has there been an increase in the number of cases the SFPA has taken since 2022?

To answer the first part of the question with regard to the cases that do not feature in the included figures, the Deputy is correct; they are in the system. They are matters before the courts that have not been finalised yet.

In respect of the number of cases, I suggest there has been an increase in the number of inspections over the past five years, for example. Increased inspection activity will give rise to an increase in detected alleged non-compliance.

That is the context for that.

How long does a case take from start to finish? What is the average time? Is it two years, three years, five years?

I do not have an average time calculated. It depends. If there is a detention, some cases are concluded within 48 hours. Some take longer for various reasons within the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, I do not have an average time.

Just to revisit the issue of the super factory vessels that are in our waters, how many days per annum is the Dutch fleet of freezer trawlers in the Irish EEZ?

This is quite difficult to calculate because some of the vessels the Deputy referred to are not Dutch. They may be Dutch owned but they are flagged in a number of different member states, as the Deputy is well aware. We do not have the exact figures on the level of activity of this particular fleet of vessels.

I appreciate that. It is helpful that Ms Patterson mentioned the flag issue. My understanding is that these vessels can change flags while at sea. They could be flying the Polish flag, the Lithuanian flag or even the German flag while they are at sea, and then they may have a bit of the German quota, the Polish quota or the Dutch quota. A vessel at sea could be changing flags and operating with quotas from different countries which is perfectly legal under the Common Fisheries Policy. The witnesses can see where I am going with this. A fixed Irish factory's weighing system has an array of observation tools. There is the CCTV and all of that, yet under the jurisdiction of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the same framework and same umbrella, there are vessels operating in our waters with no oversight. My understanding is that they are allowed to weigh their catches on board. Are Irish vessels allowed to weigh their catches on board under our control plan? Are Irish vessels landing pelagic fish allowed to weigh their catches on board?

There is a separate control plan to allow vessels to weigh on board. There is nothing stopping the Irish pelagic fleet from weighing their catches on board, if they wish to do so. Unfortunately, with the set-up they have with landing in refrigerated sea water tanks, that is not possible because the fish are not individually boxed and separated on board.

Over the past two meetings, one of the primary concerns of members is that there is not a level playing pitch. That is our difficulty. I do not have any issue whatsoever with having a law that ensures that there is a sustainable catch for fisheries. I do not have any issue at all with an enforcement authority and there being laws. My issue is that it is not commonly applied across Europe and there is not a level playing pitch. I making a statement based on what I have seen rather than asking a question, but we have got to the point in Ireland that we have an enforcement policy that goes beyond common sense. I compared it to a jar of sweets that is at a fair and people can win a prize if they are lucky enough to guess the right number or get close to it. That appears to be very similar to what fishermen are being asked to do with their catches on board. If they are outside the 10% scope, they will get a fine.

My final questions relate to the area of administrative fines versus the criminal approach that we have in Ireland. We are unique in how we deal with this. My understanding is that in the past, State solicitors in the counties involved were consulted and had oversight before a file was sent to the DPP. Is that still the case? Is the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority still consulting with the local State solicitor before it sends a file to the DPP? The witnesses said that they are unaware of the level of administrative fines versus criminal fines that are issued.

When there is a minor infringement, does the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority have the flexibility to impose an administrative fine, as it would, for example, in other areas under its jurisdiction? My understanding is that when the SFPA is dealing with a fisherman in other areas under its jurisdiction, it has flexibility as regards whether it imposes a fine or takes somebody to court. Will Mr. Murphy take me through the flexibility the SFPA has, the way in which it works with local State solicitors and how cases end up with the DPP? Why does the SFPA go down that road? Is it in order that it can say it has prosecuted X number of fishermen? I want to get a sense of the level of seriousness involved. From the information the SFPA has given us, the level of seriousness is not clear.

The Deputy will have to conclude and give the witnesses a chance to answer.

Everybody else got about two minutes extra. If the Cathaoirleach does not mind, I would appreciate a little forbearance.

In terms of the cases, I am not clear about the level of seriousness involved. Could an administrative fine been imposed? Should the case have gone to court in the first place? This takes me to Deputy Maxwell's point that the SFPA does not have an oversight body. It does not have anybody policing it. Mr. Finn had a fine career in An Garda Síochána. As he will be aware, there is a Garda oversight body in place, which he probably appreciated at times. I would like to get a sense of all of that from Mr. Murphy. That will wrap up my contribution.

Prior to 2023, there was a State solicitor who was given delegated authority by the DPP to direct on fisheries cases. That changed and now all directions are issued from the DPP headquarters. There are staff in the DPP's office who deal with sea fisheries cases. We do not go to State solicitors prior to the submission of a case file to the DPP. I hope that answers the Deputy's first question. In terms of the logistics of that, we submit a file to the DPP and then we receive a direction. We are copied on the direction that is given to the State solicitor to undertake the prosecution proceedings.

The Deputy referred to other enforcement mechanisms under the SFPA. Under food safety law, we can issue compliance notices and fixed payment notices. We have a clear structure in place so that officers know, in the case of specific types of infringement, that the guidance is there on what is the appropriate enforcement action to take. That goes from an advisory to a compliance notice - a fixed payment notice - to the ultimate option of a prosecution if the seriousness of the offence warranted a prosecution.

As I outlined earlier, the only sanction available under the fisheries control remit was the administrative process of the points process and under the 2006 Act, a file is submitted to the DPP for the criminal justice process. All infringements where enforcement action is warranted have to go through that process. There may be exceptional situations where if there is a de minimis breach, an advisory or warning would be given to someone - an operator or a master - in relation to that. However, where there is a significant deviation from the regulatory standard, we are required under the control regulation to "apply sanctions". It is very specific in relation to the obligations on the member state. I hope that gives some detail in relation to that process.

I do not have enough time to come back, but that is fine.

I will come back to the 25 kg sample out of every 25 tonnes that factories are forced to record under the current control plan. Is the SFPA fully okay with that? Is every other country doing the same sampling? I would like to know what other countries are doing about the sampling.

Every other country also has to undertake catch recording, particularly in relation to bulk pelagics. Where the fish are mixed when they are landed, it is problematic. Sampling plans are in place in other member states and sampling regimes are undertaken as well. Depending on the type of fisheries that they have, there will be different sampling rates and a different sample size taken.

However, every member state involved in bulk pelagics has to have a facility in order to be able to record accurately a catch that has been landed.

So the SFPA is happy with the way sampling is done now?

What we have in place under the current control plan and current sampling plan is a minimum of 25 kg per 25 tonnes of fish landed, or 25 kg per transport unit. This is a derogation from 100% separation of the fish to be weighed by species. Processors have the option of 100% separation if they feel that is a better alternative. Under the primary legislation, a derogation is provided in recognition of the onerous task of separating what may in some cases be 1,000 tonnes of fish that are mixed.

I will move on because time is very limited. We are talking here about oversight and so on. Third countries are entering the EEZ. Take Norway, for instance. It is down fishing blue whiting. For the people at home listening, can the SFPA tell me what happens? When the Norwegians come down and catch their fish, do they give the SFPA a record, after which they go home and land their fish? Who in Norway has control or oversight of what the vessels land?

Indeed, there has been increased activity by the Norwegian fleet in the Irish EEZ this year. We have seen an increased number of landings at Killybegs this year compared with other years. Therefore, a lot of the fish are being landed at Killybegs and put through the same regime as applies to Irish vessels and other member states' vessels.

The at-sea inspection figures for these particular vessels show that for one in every 33 trips, there is likely to be an inspection. The proportion for the Irish fleet is one in 250 vessels. There is a better chance of being inspected at sea, however remote that prospect may be due to weather conditions off the north west. There is a higher chance of a non-EU vessel being inspected than an Irish vessel.

I take Ms Patterson's point. I have no problem with the vessels being at Killybegs. When they go back to land in a third country, however, what body from the EU has oversight of what is landed or the tonnage?

Once a vessel leaves EU waters, we no longer see its logbook. We have access to it only when it has been fishing within the EU.

So nobody sees anything.

We can see what a vessel has caught in EU waters but we cannot see what it has caught outside EU waters.

Time is running out on me. Deputy Mac Lochlainn referred to factory ships. He is right about the change of flags. Is there anything that can be done about that, even by these Houses, especially when vessels are in EEZ waters? What is going on is totally wrong and something needs to be put in place. Can we, as a committee, start to move forward in this regard?

I thank the Senator. We have underpinned, in answer to a number of questions at this committee meeting, that all the SFPA can do is implement the regulations that exist. Therefore, the Senator's question would be better put to the Minister or the EU Commission in relation to the regulations that exist, and maybe in relation to preventing what he is describing from happening. It is not within the control of the SFPA.

I thank our guests.

It was said that one in 20 boats must be inspected.

Yes. For every 20 boats that land, one must be inspected at landing.

At landing. Are inspections evenly distributed among all the ports in Ireland, such that there is a certain number in each port of the north west, south west and north east?

The proportion of one in 20 relates only to pelagic landings, so it depends on where the landings are. The majority of landings are at Killybegs, so the majority of inspections will take place in that port. Where there are pelagic landings at other ports, they must also meet the requirement of one in 20. On a per volume per landing basis, the majority of the landings are at Killybegs, so the majority of inspections are there.

Have the Norwegian boats landing in Killybegs all been inspected to a level? Do we know what that looks like statistics-wise?

They have to follow the same regime as the Irish vessels, so they have to go through the same level of inspections. This year alone there have been a number of inspections on those non-EU vessels and, again, it is actually at a similar rate to the Irish vessels.

How far back do the numbers go?

Five years back.

Five years back, and is it consistent? What have we got this year compared with five years ago?

Five years ago, we had eight landings of non-EU vessels and we had 50% of those inspected. This year alone we have had 64 landings of non-EU vessels - we are talking only pelagics here - and we had just over 9% of those inspected.

Okay, that is fine. Thank you.

With the Cathaoirleach's indulgence, can I come back to Deputy Ward on his earlier question about the date?

Yes, you can.

The date on which I wrote the letter to the Minister in relation to observers on board was 28 November 2025.

The landings into Ireland have been reduced drastically now, particularly in relation to pelagic as a result of Brexit, and the 71% went back to 48% as a result of the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, at the last Council meeting. What are the implications for the sea fishery officers of such a drastic reduction? Are they deployed to do some other work?

The quotas have been reduced but the landings into Killybegs have increased.

Explain that to me.

The landings have increased.