I welcome Mr. Peter Whelan, executive chairman, Mr. Andrew Kinneen, authority member, and Mr. Micheál O'Mahony, authority member, of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. Before I call on the witnesses to make their presentation, I draw their attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Whelan to make his opening statement.
Fisheries Issues: Discussion with Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.
Mr. Peter Whelan
I thank the Chairman and committee members for inviting us. We first met this committee on 28 May where members raised a number of important issues and I will now give an update on some of them. In respect of the judgments against Ireland, the European Court of Justice has found that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy, including a serious failure in the enforcement of requirements relating to log books——
There is a vote in the Dáil and I must suspend the meeting for about ten minutes.
Sitting suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed at 12.20 p.m.
I ask Mr. Whelan to recommence.
Mr. Peter Whelan
I thank the Chairman and other members of the joint committee for inviting the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, to attend. Our first meeting with this committee, on 28 May 2008, raised a number of important issues. I would like to begin by giving the committee an update on some of those matters.
In respect of the judgments issued against Ireland at the European Court of Justice, it was found that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy, including serious failures in the enforcement of requirements relating to logbooks, landing declarations, take-over declarations or transport documents, fishing in excess of quota, sales notes, vessel monitoring systems, validation and cross-checking of data, transport checks, designated ports, inadequate human and technical resources, inadequate equipment, monitoring, inspection and surveillance.
Since May 2008, there have been three further missions from DG Mare to Ireland to assess our fisheries control regime. These missions have examined our pelagic controls, sales notes system and, most recently, the implementation of the cod recovery plan. Outcomes from these missions have been positive and there seems to be an acceptance that Ireland is now building a credible sea fishery control system.
With regard to designated ports, and following consultation with the Federation of Irish Fishermen, the SFPA has recommended the designation of some ports and the extension of pre-existing designations to allow for landing of more species. The full list of designated ports is available on our website. We believe the spread of designated ports is now much closer to that requested by the fishing industry. A table of all designated ports is available. Members of the committee will see the ports they addressed at the last meeting have been addressed in the current list.
The discarding of fish is unpopular with fisherman, conservationists and the public at large. The SFPA shares this view and we are anxious to move to a control system that minimises such activity. We undertook to raise this issue in Brussels and have done so, in particular at the expert working group discussions on the proposed new control regulations and at the technical control meetings. The practice of discarding valuable fish has also provoked much discussion with our consultative committee. At the latter's request, we have made its views on this contentious issue known to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have specifically met with the FIF on this issue, which can only be resolved through a partnership approach. The SFPA will continue to examine and promote strategies that minimise this undesirable waste.
The issue of administrative sanctions was also raised in 2008. As a regulatory authority, the SFPA is tasked with implementation of the legislation on the Statute Book. We recognise the industry position on administrative sanctions and welcome the Commission's draft proposals to reform the main control regulation that includes a scheme of administrative sanctions in the form of penalty points. The SFPA is actively involved in deliberations on this matter in Europe and we have also provided a comprehensive dossier of information to the Department on administrative sanctions, including details of those systems implemented in other EU countries.
I will now proceed to describe a number of areas which have been the subject of considerable attention by the authority since our last meeting, starting with the development of a partnership approach with industry. The authority has established strong working relationships with producer organisations and trade representatives in this sector and holds regular meetings with them to discuss issues of mutual concern. Furthermore, the SFPA's consultative committee, which comprises representatives of the catching, aquaculture and processing sectors of the Irish seafood industry, has been consulted extensively on the development and content of both our strategy statement and complaints policy.
The complexity, volume and rate of change of fisheries conservation legislation was identified as a specific barrier to compliance by industry. To help address this difficulty, the SFPA has developed a comprehensive on-line library of legislation which is freely available on our website. Furthermore, we have developed a series of fisheries information notices, FINs, to assist in the interpretation of complex legal requirements. These FINs are published on our website and are sent to all producer organisations for circulation to their members. The SFPA is committed to a strong, positive engagement with the industry and believes that the continuance of effective communications and co-operation will benefit all involved in the Irish marine sector.
The SFPA is committed to the delivery of a high standard of service to all of our stakeholders, including fishermen, food business operators and consumers. Since the publication of our customer charter, we have devised and published an enforcement policy in which we set out the principles of good enforcement: proportionality, risk-assessment, transparency and consistency.
In consultation with our consultative committee we have also updated our code of conduct for fishing vessel inspections. To further enhance transparency and understanding of our enforcement functions, we are currently developing a compliance strategy.
The inshore sector provides livelihoods for the greatest number of fishermen throughout Irish costal communities. The SFPA is committed to supporting the continued viability of this sector. In response to submissions made at meetings of our consultative committee the SFPA undertook a series of at-sea patrols and vessel inspections within the inshore waters. These patrols were very much welcomed and supported by the fishing industry, which held the view that our presence provided a deterrent to unlicensed, illegal fishing activity in this sector, and supported the fishing activities of the majority of law-abiding inshore fishermen.
Following the success of this initiative, a similar series of patrols is currently under way with two naval vessels, the LE Ciara and LE Orla, providing the sea-going capacity on this occasion.
As regards the renewal of vessel monitoring systems, VMS, European control regulations require all vessels over 15 metres in length to have equipment to indicate their position to the authorities. In order to address the shortcomings in Ireland's vessel monitoring system identified by the European Commission, it was necessary to replace all existing VMS units. This was a major project funded from the SFPA's budget allocation, and was delivered on time and within budget.
As well as ensuring that we comply with our legal responsibilities under EU law, the new system provides significant benefits to industry. In addition to the purchase and installation of the units, we have secured a three-year maintenance contract and negotiated competitive operating costs at approximately half the pre-existing levels, thus providing real cost savings to fishermen. The enhanced VMS have directly facilitated the designation of additional landing ports. The final phase of this project, a dedicated secure website, will soon be launched. This will enable nominated persons, such as fishermen's families, to monitor the locations of their respective vessels at sea. The SFPA acknowledges the support of the Federation of Irish Fishermen in the development and implementation of this essential project.
The SFPA is happy to support and encourage the fishing industry as it moves towards the development of best practice in seafood production. We have supported the fishermen of the northwest in their application for accreditation to the Marine Stewardship Council, MSC, certification standards. The SFPA worked closely with the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation on that project, providing an account of the system of fishery conservation controls in place in Ireland, which demonstrates to the MSC that fishing activities are being conducted in a sustainable manner.
We trust the submissions we have made will assist the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation in achieving this valuable certification. We are currently providing the same support and assistance to the Irish South and West Fishermen's Producer Organisation as it undertakes this certification process. The SFPA is also supporting a number of fishermen who are considering the applicability of the West Cork Fuchsia brand to their product. The new VMS technology will facilitate the verification of catch areas and allow traceability of fish.
These and other initiatives, such as the use by certain fishermen of mesh size of 160mm instead of the 120mm permitted in legislation, are strong indications of an industry taking the initiative towards compliance and engaging in best practice, which goes well beyond that required in legislation. We are happy to continue to support all these initiatives in future.
As regards co-operation with the Garda Síochána, there has been some commentary recently on searches carried out by gardaí on 13 May. Gardaí were conducting a series of searches as part of their ongoing investigations into alleged illegal landings of pelagic fish in the period preceding the establishment of the SFPA. In response to a request from the Garda Síochána, the SFPA provided one sea-fisheries protection officer to accompany the Garda team while they conducted their search of two fishing vessels in Castletownbere harbour. In this instance, the SFPA was not involved with searches carried out of private dwellings or other commercial premises. The SFPA and the Garda Síochána regularly liaise and work together on the management of fishing vessel detentions and investigations into alleged illegal fishing activity. In 2008, a total of 2,978 vessel inspections were carried out by officers of the SFPA. Of these, 2,232 were of Irish vessels, representing 11% of the 19,368 landings by Irish vessels. The remaining inspections, some 746, represent 47% of the 1,575 landings from foreign vessels. Members have been provided with a breakdown of the percentages in this regard. The Naval Service carried out 1,920 boardings of vessels at sea in 2008. Of these, 1,030, or 54%, were of Irish registered vessels. The remaining 894, or 46%, were of foreign vessels. A breakdown in this regard has also been provided.
A total of 183 enforcement actions were taken by the Naval Service and the SFPA in 2008. Some 126 were in respect of Irish registered vessels and these involved 33 detentions, 58 warnings and 35 case files submitted to the Attorney General. Again, we have provided a breakdown with regard to the enforcement actions taken against foreign vessels.
A total of 1,143 inspections were carried out by SFPA officers up to 1 June 2009. A total of 832 of these were inspections of Irish vessels, representing 13% of the 6,624 landings by Irish vessels. The remaining 311 inspections were of foreign registered vessels. Members will see from the information provided that some vessels have been inspected 100% of the time. To the end of May 2009, the Naval Service carried out 719 boardings at sea. Of these, 365, or 51%, were of Irish registered vessels. The remaining 354, or 49%, related to foreign vessels. Another breakdown is provided in respect of the latter.
Figures to the end of June 2009 show a total of 48 enforcement actions undertaken by the Naval Service and the SFPA, 36 of which were in respect of Irish registered vessels. These actions led to 14 written warnings being issued, four cases of detention and 18 case files being submitted to the AG. Again, a breakdown is provided in respect of actions against foreign vessels.
To maintain Ireland's reputation as a producer of high-quality seafood, it is vital that we have, and can demonstrate, an effective system of food safety controls from net to plate. The work of the SFPA in regulating the food safety aspects of the industry is central to maintaining this customer confidence in national and international markets. As many members pointed out at our previous meeting, the development of fish processing and value added products in the Irish seafood sector would be of significant benefit to both the industry and local economies. The SFPA supports this view and is pleased to report significant progress under its food safety brief.
In February 2008, the SFPA signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan. This agreement, allows for the export of Irish oysters into a niche high-value Japanese market, subject to certain assurances being provided in respect of the Irish food safety control system. Under the terms of the agreement, oysters may be exported to Japan subject to strict criteria including testing requirements and the provision by the SFPA of health certificates for all batches. Ireland is the first country in the EU to have gained access to this market.
In 2009, the SFPA signed a memorandum of understanding with the Russian authorities regarding the export of seafood to the Russian market. The SFPA worked closely with Irish fish processors to ensure an understanding of and compliance with the Russian Federation requirements which are extremely detailed and prescriptive. The implementation of official controls by the SFPA was the subject of an intensive week-long inspection by representatives of the Russian federal service for veterinary and phytosanitary surveillance in June. We are happy to report that the outcome of this inspection, which included visits to the SFPA, the Marine Institute, processors, fishing vessels and Border inspection posts, will allow Ireland to continue to export its seafood to this valuable Russian market.
The SFPA commenced a comprehensive programme of registration and approvals of seafood establishments in 2008. We registered all licensed fishing vessels, approximately 1,900, as food business operators and provided each fishing vessel owner with a concise description of the basic hygiene requirements expected of them to produce safe seafood. The guide is published on our website, where an electronic library of food safety legislation is also freely available. Our approval and reapproval of processing establishments involved significant allocation of our resources, with extensive detailed inspections of all establishments. We are strongly committed to promoting compliance with legal requirements through the provision of advice, information and guidance.
The programme of approvals is nearing completion and Irish seafood processing establishments can continue to enjoy access to national, European, and in specific cases third country markets. An observed industry trend is for activities previously reserved for land establishments, such as freezing, filleting and processing, are beginning to take place on vessels at sea. Vessels undertaking such activities require approval and several have achieved the necessary standards already. The SFPA has worked on developing a guide to the necessary hygiene requirements for these vessels.
The SFPA has begun a programme of activity to promote and verify compliance of fin fish farmers with food hygiene and animal remedy requirements. A seminar was held in late 2008 to inform that sector of the requirements and to provide a forum for information exchange. The pre-existing engagement of the shellfish sector with food safety authorities has been further developed by the SFPA. We endeavour to work with that sector to secure compliance with microbiological and biotoxin requirements for Irish shellfish.
The SFPA carried out 224 inspections of food establishments in 2008 to verify compliance with food law. We served ten compliance notices and one improvement notice on food business operators to ensure remedial action was taken to address breaches of legislation detected on inspection. Compliance notices have proved to be a useful administrative mechanism for addressing shortcomings in food business operations.
Food safety legislation requires each food business operator to have in place a traceability system that enables identification of the suppliers and purchasers of product — suppliers only at retail level. Industry representatives have called for the implementation of a comprehensive traceability system which would provide clear information on the origin of all seafood products in the marketplace. The proposed conservation control regulation also recognises the potential role of effective traceability systems in combating the sale of illegally caught fish. The SFPA supports this position and is willing to work with industry to promote the development of effective traceability systems across the seafood chain "from tide to table".
Looking to the future, the SFPA is currently focused on several key developments. The authority implements a comprehensive sampling programme in shellfish production areas to ensure compliance with microbiological and biotoxin requirements and hence the protection of public health. A number of other state institutions also undertake sampling in these areas. The SFPA seeks to rationalise the various sampling programmes in operation to ensure maximum efficiency and value for money to the taxpayer. We are actively involved in discussions with the Marine Institute, BIM and the Environmental Protection Agency on this matter and are pleased to report that our sampling programme is now being used to meet some of Ireland's sampling obligations under the terms of the shellfish waters directive.
Ireland has recently been in intensive discussions with the European Commission to seek support for a plan to deliver compliance with the EU birds and habitat directives by wild fisheries and aquaculture activities at Natura 2000 sites. DG Environment was positively disposed towards the interim approach proposed by Ireland for the protection of wild fisheries, whereby data would be used to access impacts of these activities on Natura 2000 sites. This assessment would inform and determine possible fishing opportunities, based on a precautionary approach. We have accepted responsibility for the control and monitoring of the wild fisheries associated with special areas of conservation and special protected areas.
Ireland has an extensive coastline and a dispersed fishing fleet, with more than 200 landing locations available to it. The SFPA has a duty to monitor these landings and will endeavour to do so in the most efficient manner possible. In line with the recommendations of the independent review of Irish fisheries control, we are currently putting in place CCTV systems in ports throughout the country. These systems should provide a vital adjunct to our ability to monitor landings within our available resources.
Contrary to standard practice, Italian authorities have chosen to monitor the cadmium level of the brown meat of imported Irish crabs. These tissues are known to accumulate metals, and are not subject to a legal limit in EU legislation. The SFPA has supported the technical arguments of Irish toxicologists regarding the unreasonable nature of this control. Those efforts have succeeded in obtaining clarification from the EU Commission that the Italian controls exceed the requirements of European law. Nevertheless, the monitoring, which amounts to a barrier to trade in crabs into Italy, remains ongoing.
In the interests of public health the SFPA works closely with the shellfish sector to secure compliance with microbiological and biotoxin requirements for Irish shellfish. A recent European Commission proposal to impose biotoxin limits in cooked shellfish, without apparent public health benefits would, if implemented, have a profound effect on the viability of the Irish shellfish industry. The SFPA has been to the fore in advising on this policy matter at European level, and we have recently brought about a deferral of this proposal.
A specific aspect of seafood traceability is the international effort to combat the problem of Illegal, unreported, unregulated, IUU, fish. Fish caught in international waters outside of control systems may, through food fraud practices, find their way onto the market, for example, within the EU, depressing the market price for legitimate fish. At a policy level Ireland has supported the EU effort to introduce a control regime for imported fishery products designed to minimise the likelihood of IUU fish entering the EU. Significant administrative burdens accrue to both authorities and indigenous seafood producers to verify and demonstrate the legitimacy of traded products. We have been proactively keeping the Irish seafood industry apprised of the issues envisaged as this system is rolled out next year.
The SFPA will engage fully in the debate on the review of the Common Fisheries Policy, we have already mentioned the issues of discards and traceability, both of which are areas of attention in the Green Paper. Our dual mandate in fisheries conservation and food safety gives us a unique perspective in terms of traceability. The SFPA will recommend reform of the CFP to simplify the current complex code of fisheries legislation. We will also continue to actively participate in the deliberations on the development of the new control regulation to seek to ensure the development of a level playing field in fisheries control and enforcement across the EU.
In keeping with our policy of promoting a clearer understanding of fisheries conservation legislation, a project was recently initiated in co-operation with the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, ISEPO, to produce a concise guide in plain English to the rules relevant to the inshore fleet of fishing vessels under 12 m in length. A draft guide of the fishing regulations relevant to the inshore fishing sector has been produced by the SFPA Dunmore East office with guidance and input from the ISEPO. The request for this guide came from the engagement at Kilmore Quay between the SFPA, the fishing industry and locally-based SFPA consultative committee members. The guide is a first in that it gathers in one place all legal requirements that apply to the Irish under-12 m fishing fleet, mainly engaged in fishing lobster, crab, whelk, shrimp and others.
Under EU regulations vessels greater that 24 m in length must have an operational electronic logbook from 1 January 2010. The requirement extends to vessels less than 24 m in length from 1 January 2011. In addition to streamlining the reporting and collection of catch and landings data, that development should mark a major step towards the development of a level playing field across the European fleet. All vessels fishing in the Irish EEZ will be obliged to transmit their catch records to the Irish authorities every 24 hours. For the first time we will have access to real-time comprehensive data relating to all fishing activity in Irish waters. We have been working on the development of this project since 2008 and have recently commenced a tender process for the provision of the onboard equipment. We look forward to the successful completion of this project and to making full use of the additional data available to us through this new system. Fishermen should experience a streamlining of the administrative burdens encountered when completing and submitting logbooks and landing declarations.
I thank the committee for its attention. I have endeavoured to provide a comprehensive sample of our operations to date. I wish to report to the committee that the SFPA has worked hard to develop positive working relationships with fishing industry representatives and that positive engagement has lead to progress on a number of matters. We have recommended the designation of additional ports. All existing VMS units have now been replaced on time and within budget together with a three-year maintenance contract and competitive operating costs for fishermen. We have supported the fishermen of the north west in their application for accreditation to the Marine Stewardship Council, MSC, certification standards and we are currently providing the same support and assistance to the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation. The SFPA has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan to allow for the export of Irish oysters into a niche high-value Japanese market and the SFPA has also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Russian authorities regarding the export of seafood to the Russian market. We have been to the forefront of advising on the limits set for certain marine biotoxins in cooked shellfish meats and have recently brought about a deferral of an EU Commission proposal on biotoxins in cooked mussels. We have supported the technical arguments of Irish toxicologists regarding the unreasonable nature of Italian controls of Irish crab and succeeded in obtaining clarification from the EU Commission that the Italian controls exceed the requirements of European law. The SFPA has undertaken a series of at-sea patrols within inshore waters and is currently working on a user-friendly guide to the legal requirements for under-12 m fishing vessels. The SFPA has accepted responsibility for the control and monitoring of the wild fisheries associated with special areas of conservation and special protected areas.
We are very encouraged by the overall improvement in our relationships with the fishing industry and the increased levels of compliance and co-operation we now experience when working with the industry. We are fully committed to meeting with and listening to the views of fishermen and their representatives so that we can further improve our mutual understanding of the many issues to be addressed.
I thank Mr. Whelan for his presentation. We will now take questions.
I welcome the representatives from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA. With the agreement of the Chairman I will ask questions rather than make comments. To whom is the SFPA accountable? I approve of the development of a partnership approach with industry. Mr. Whelan stated: "The SFPA is committed to strong, positive engagement with the industry and believes that the continuance of effective communications and co-operation will benefit all of us". Mr. Whelan might not be aware of it but the feeling among the fishing community is that it is a case of them and us. It might be the case that the direct working relationships between fishing organisations and the SFPA are good but that is not the case between fishermen I have met and the SFPA. They have told me that the SFPA alone will determine how they will vote in the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. They are making up their minds based on how they are being treated by the SFPA.
Under the heading of delivery of a high quality service it was stated: "To further enhance transparency and understanding of our enforcement functions we are currently developing a compliance strategy." The SFPA is now in operation for approximately two years. On the previous occasion when the SFPA was before the committee it indicated that a complaints department would be set up. Has that been done? That goes back to my initial question on to whom the SFPA is accountable. The SFPA had indicated that an in-house manager would be assigned to deal with complaints about the SFPA. The pronouncements on transparency, understanding and accountability do not wash with me. I find it difficult to understand that can be the case when everything is dealt with in-house.
Mr. Whelan referred to patrols within inshore waters. When the SFPA was previously before the committee I inquired whether it had a boat, but it did not have one at that time. Has the SFPA got a boat since then? One can examine percentages for inspections and boardings. In 2008, a total of 2,978 vessel inspections were carried out of which 2,232 were of Irish vessels. Some 12 months ago, a controversy arose when it was made known that the Malin and Valentia coast guard stations were to be closed. I have visited the station at Valentia and have seen the capacity of the equipment. The personnel could identify each boat and say where it was coming from, what it was doing and where it was going. Very few of the boats we saw that day were Irish. However, the figures we have been presented with today suggest that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is being very heavy-handed in its dealings with Irish vessels. Specifically, of the total figure of almost 3,000 boardings, more than 2,200 related to Irish vessels. Were some vessels boarded on numerous occasions or do these figures relate only to single inspections? Of the 183 enforcement actions that were taken, 126 were in respect of Irish-registered vehicles. Under what legislative jurisdiction does the authority inspect licensed Irish fishing boats? By whose authority and under what specific policy does it make the decision not to board and inspect an unlicensed foreign fishing boat?
The shortest paragraph in the presentation deals with the authority's engagement with the aquaculture sector. That is reflected in the feedback of those involved in the sector. Mr. Whelan stated, "Ireland has recently been in intensive discussions with the European Commission to seek support for a plan to deliver compliance with the EU birds and habitat directives by wild fisheries and aquaculture activities at Natura 2000 sites." In other words, it is only now, nine years after the Natura 2000 initiative was introduced, that we are engaging in discussions on its implementation. The delegates know what happened in Cromane, in my constituency, last year. It is likely the same problem will arise this year. I am aware that the operational programme is a significant part of what is happening in regard to Natura 2000, but to hear that intensive discussions are only now taking place is puzzling. I am aware that the surveys were not carried out and that the €5 million or €6 million was returned to Europe. I appreciate that is not a matter for the delegates. However, the authority has now accepted responsibility for the control and monitoring of special areas of conservation and special protection areas, but there is absolutely no legal standing in that regard because of the failure to implement Natura 2000. That surely constitutes a significant problem.
Will the delegates comment on the recent article by Lorna Siggins, marine correspondent with The Irish Times, which appeared under the headline “Fisheries body found to be poorly run”. I am particularly interested in this in the context of the last two pages of the delegates’ presentation where they have outlined what the authority is doing and what it hopes to do in future.
I welcome the representatives from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and thank them for their detailed presentation. Deputy Sheahan has touched on most of the issues. In regard to the monitoring of landings, the document states:
Ireland has an extensive coastline and a dispersed fishing fleet, with more than 200 landing locations available to it. The SFPA has a duty to monitor these landings and will endeavour to do so in the most efficient manner possible. In line with the recommendations of the independent review of Irish fisheries control, we are currently putting in place CCTV systems in ports throughout the country. These systems should provide a vital adjunct to our ability to monitor landings within our available resources.
In regard to the roll-out of CCTV, what role, if any, will the Port of Cork play in the jurisdiction of west Cork? What role will local authorities play? What is the cost of the roll-out of CCTV and will a particular funding allocation be made available centrally from the Department of Finance? I assume the roll-out will not be cheap, and this is matter of concern in the current economic climate. Will there be implications for data protection? Have there been consultations with other stakeholders?
Deputy Sheahan referred to The Irish Times report by Lorna Siggins regarding staff morale in the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. There are several striking features in this regard. From an industrial relations perspective, are there currently cases before the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court? How often is there interaction with trade union representatives? What are the delegates’ views of the survey? One of the issues it identified was a lack of confidence in management. I am aware that if one puts particular questions to people, one will get particular answers. However, I am interested to know the reaction of the delegates to this media report.
The delegates' document also stated:
As regards co-operation with the Garda Síochána, there has been some commentary recently on searches carried out by gardaí on 13 May. Gardaí were conducting a series of searches as part of their ongoing investigations into alleged illegal landings of pelagic fish in the period preceding the establishment of the SFPA.
I would assume that the Garda will only investigate a case on the basis of a report. If there is an ongoing Garda investigation in regard to illegal landings of fish in the period preceding the establishment of the SFPA one must conclude that the Garda is stuck on one particular case. I am interested to know the genesis of that particular raid. I have spoken to people in Castletownbere and it has caused significant disquiet that members of the Garda would ransack a house in search of something or other in an apparent attempt to verify or disprove allegations regarding illegal catches of fish.
I have made the point consistently that it is fishermen who are unofficially policing our coastline. Deputy Sheahan will be aware of the recent massive cocaine seizure and the apparent incredible clumsiness of those involved in drug smuggling off the coast. Fishermen will generally contact the nearest port if they make any such discoveries. For example, there was a case in area 7 where a particular trawler came across a store of drugs and the crew contacted the authorities in Killybegs to say they would bring it back to port on condition that the boat would not be boarded by the SFPA or the Naval Service. On arriving into port, it was duly boarded by members of the authority and the Naval Service, and equipment and log books were inspected. As I said, we have depended largely on the goodwill of fishermen to unofficially police our shoreline. A situation where members of the Garda Síochána are ransacking properties in a manner akin to drugs searches is extremely distressing for law-abiding people. It is extraordinary that the Garda is still investigating illegal landings of fish from a period preceding the establishment of the SFPA. I assume somebody contacted the Garda alleging the case for an investigation. The Garda in that area generally reacts to situations and does its work conscientiously. However, if this case is ongoing since before the establishment of the SFPA, something is amiss.
Are individual fishermen being targeted by the SFPA and are officers being sent out to monitor their catches and landings? There is a strong conviction among fishermen that this is the case. Will the delegates clarify whether it is so? I compliment our guests on the detail of their website, but does the SFPA have a health and safety statement?
I thank our guests for their presence and their presentation. I am one of those who, on 13 May, raised the issue under discussion. I met people in the west County Cork area in Union Hall, Skibbereen, Castletownbere and so forth. I met one woman who had been traumatised and needed to attend her doctor as a result of what she had been told.
SFPA officers were present. Judging from our guests' presentation, it seems the SFPA appears at the request of the Garda on a fisheries matter. Are SFPA officers or fishery inspectors not seconded to the Garda during raids? It is my understanding that, where premises are being raided for fishery purposes, 1,200 naval personnel and the Garda are seconded fishery officers regardless. Claiming that this was not the case is putting it on, for instance, the Garda when, in actual fact, it was carried out by the fishery officers.
Like Deputy Sheahan, I cannot stress enough how angry the fishing community is, not just with our guests, but with the legislation that brought the SFPA into being. It is an attempt to criminalise an entire industry because of a few rogues. I have a number of questions, but I would prefer to start with some of the questions on the SFPA that I submitted to the Minister. Each time, I have received a standard answer, namely, that he has no remit over the SFPA, an independent body that is responsible for collecting data on fisheries. The Oireachtas brought the SFPA into being, yet we have no remit.
In another reply, I was told that accountability is to the committees of the House. If this is true, then the SFPA is accountable to this committee. This being the case, elected representatives such as us table questions to various Ministers on a daily basis. For example, the Minister for Health and Children will refer health service questions to the HSE, yet the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not refer the question to the SFPA. Why is this not the case? Why can the Minister or Department not refer a question to the SFPA for reply? I have been fighting on this matter for three years, but I have been unable to get answers. As elected representatives, those of us on this side of the table are entitled to answers. We needed to bring our guests before the committee to see where we stand.
In a reply from 2008, I was told by the Minister that a copy of the report of the SFPA was available to Deputies. He also told me that the report and the SFPA's audited accounts were presented to him as the responsible Minister prior to being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, but that all other reports were a matter for the authority. Another question was on the HMS Severn, which conducted patrols in Irish waters with a SFPA officer. In the Minister’s reply to me, he stated: “The Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 clearly provides that the SFPA is independent in the exercise of its functions and as such I have no remit as to its work programme or its deployment of resources”.
This precarious position angers me and I must ask difficult questions. To whom in the Department is the SFPA responsible daily? Who in the Department gives it instructions? From whom does it request a budget outline? Is the person the Minister? With whom in the Department does it deal regarding its strategies? What has been its total budget since it came into being? Who appointed our three guests as board members? Are board members' performances assessed annually and, if so, by whom? One year ago, I tabled a question regarding board members' travel and subsistence payments. Since the members' appointments, to what have those payments amounted?
The witnesses are as aware as I am of the Wolfe report. As those to whom the SFPA is supposed to be accountable, we have not been given the Wolfe report. Has the SFPA given this report to the Department or the Minister or are we to continue to read bits and pieces of it in The Irish Times, the Marine Times or so on? I want to confirm whether the few pages of the report sent to me are accurate. They claim that there is a significant difficulty with trust within the authority, which appears to align strongly with a high level of rumour and a perceived lack of transparency. For the majority of employees, morale is low and communication poses major difficulties, which seems to be closely aligned with the trust difficulties. The report also claims that there is a widely held view that the authority’s culture is not open or transparent. Many employees feel disempowered by how internal changes have been managed. There is a strong perception of inequity and a “predominant view that equality and fairness are not promoted”. The majority of employees assert that the SFPA is “divided, poorly run, secretive, rumour-driven and fragmented”.
I was sent these pages anonymously, but will our guests confirm whether these form part of the report by Joe Wolfe and Associates? Were the questionnaires sent to employees by Joe Wolfe and Associates through the board and returned along the same route and were all questionnaires returned to the consultants? Does the report, which we have not seen, contain information from the returned employee surveys? If my citation is accurate, it is a damning indictment of the SFPA's management. The majority of employees stated that the authority is "divided, poorly run, secretive, rumour-driven and fragmented". The report is supposedly impartial.
My main questions are on what our guests intend to do to address this part of the report, if we will see a copy of the report, whether it has been sent to the Department or the Minister and who in the Department received it.
Does Mr. Whelan wish to respond? Other members have indicated. I will allow the three spokespersons first.
I believed that we would all contribute, after which the witnesses would answer questions. I suppose it is all the same.
Are members agreeable with my idea?
They will give us the same answers.
I welcome Mr. Whelan, Mr. Kinneen and Mr. O'Mahony and congratulate them on their lengthy address to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The witnesses have spelled out their opinion in no uncertain fashion and emphasised their co-operation with the Irish Fishermen's Association, IFA, but everything is not rosy in the garden. The IFA is highly critical of the authority's operations. Mr. Whelan stated that Ireland has not fulfilled its responsibilities. What about the other EU states that have torn the stocks from their breeding grounds? What have they done to rectify the situation? I am sick and tired of speaking at these committee meetings about the discard of fish. Discarding prime fish when they are dead out at sea, instead of bringing them in when half the world is starving will not preserve stocks. It should not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the authority and the IFA to devise a method or policy to stop that bad practice.
Mr. Whelan also stated that the European Court of Justice found that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations. What were the obligations imposed on the Spanish, French, German, Portuguese and other trawlers operating in our Atlantic waters? When we joined the European Union we did so with the view that the rights of Irish fishermen would be maintained in Europe, that they would be guaranteed their own waters and that foreign trawlers would not be allowed within a certain limit of the Irish shore. Alas, the Spaniards overshot every order in the EU book. Eventually they came in and even took the limpets off the rocks and got away with it.
Castletownbere, Schull, Union Hall, Baltimore and Bantry, are in my constituency but lo and behold at any hour of the night Spanish trawlers can land their catch in Dinish Island off Castletownbere. They need not give notice of their landing to the authority but Irish fishermen must give four hours' notice before landing the fish on their own soil. What kind of power has the authority over Irish fishermen when it cannot monitor the landings of the Spanish, French and German trawlers in Castletownbere at any hour of the day or night? Therein lies the agitation between the Irish fishermen and the European Union.
If something is not done to allay the fears of the Irish fishermen the same answer will be given to the Lisbon treaty as was given last year. I can see it already. The fishermen were promised 12 months ago that the criminal cases against them would be amended and they would receive a fixed fine and no criminal prosecutions. If that promise was kept it would be a step in the right direction before October. Alas it will not be adhered to now and I am putting the authority on warning that last year's answer to the treaty will prevail again among the fishing folk from Malin Head to Mizen Head, to Carnsore Point and up to Antrim.
Mr. Whelan has outlined all the points of the authority's policy but putting them into practice is a different matter. Who checks the log books of the Spanish trawlers and those from other member states that land their fish in Castletownbere? Who checks the size of the fish they land? I need not remind Mr. Whelan that paella is a big dish in Spain and the fish cooked in paella are not as long as my finger. The Spaniards can scoop up all the young fish from the Irish coastline, take them to Spain and charge high prices for them in paella. There is much to be done in this respect.
Furthermore, the authority monitors the punts that fish a mile or two off the coast in Dunmanus Bay, Bantry Bay and Castletownbere, and treats them with a rough hand. Why must they have regulations imposed on them for maintaining log books? What length of boat must submit a logbook to the authority when it comes to inspect them? It is impossible for the inland fishermen who fish oysters, mussels and crabs to meet all the restrictions. The fish-processing factories in west Cork, particularly in Castletownbere, must import crab from China and the Far East to keep up with market demand here. There is plenty of crab here if the fishermen were allowed to catch them but they are not. They are harassed not only by officials from the authority but by the fishery patrol boats whose officers board their boats and hold them to ransom.
There are many anomalies between the fishermen and the authority. The authority must have an obligation to some Minister. Who is Mr. Whelan's boss? Why was the authority created in the first instance? Why did it not interfere with the trawlers of other EU member states and their landings of fish? That is deplorable and should not be the case and has created acrimony between Irish and foreign fishermen. Can the delegates answer that question? If not, we must get an answer fast.
I will not delay the committee as much has already been said. Coming from an inland county I do not have much involvement with sea fishing but I do receive correspondence from the sea fishing community and I know there is much anger in the industry.
I welcome the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority to the committee and the opportunity to speak directly to it. There appears to be much anger in the fishing community about the heavy hand of the authority and whether it is imaginary or real I do not know. It has been said that the authority is over-regimental and treats Irish fishermen much more harshly than foreign trawlers. Is the authority biased against the fishermen? I am aware that since we joined the EU, fishermen are very angry about the quota system and say they got a raw deal. As far as fishing is concerned, we are surrounded by water and have one of the greatest sea fishing waters in the world, yet our fishermen are confined to a very small portion of it. As stated by previous speakers, fishermen from Spain and other countries rape our fisheries and get away with it and may not be inspected as much as Irish fishermen.
I am informed that illegal fishing is part of the problem. I do not know how a quota system would work but when a fishermen casts out his net, how is he supposed to know how many tonnes of fish he will catch? That is impossible. Fishermen cannot land these fish because there is a restriction on them so dead fish must be thrown overboard. That is ridiculous. There must be some scope to allow fishermen catch the fish on a given day and land it without throwing it overboard. There must be some leeway to arrive at a happy medium.
It appears Irish sea fishermen are given a raw deal and that the authority is over-regimental in its application of the rules and regulations. Some 90% of these fishermen are decent people but if they make a mistake, they are taken to court and criminalised. I regard that as wrong. We are all in business. I was a farmer by profession before becoming a Member and I would not like to think I would be taken to court and criminalised if I broke a rule unintentionally. As Deputy Ferris has said, it is unbelievable that the Minister has said he has no responsibility for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. Every semi-State body should be answerable to somebody. To whom is the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority responsible? If, as I am informed, the authority is answerable to nobody that is unbelievable or is it answerable to this committee? If it is answerable to this committee, that is fine, as we have some powers and can get the answers. I do not mean to be disrespectful to the delegates, but as a semi-State body, to whom is it responsible and who can ask the questions? If there is a problem, how can we get the answers to that problem?
Mr. Peter Whelan
I will begin by answering the question on to who the authority is answerable. The legislation provides that from time to time and whenever so requested the authority shall account for the performance of its functions to a committee of one or both Houses of the Oireachtas and shall have regard to any recommendations of such a committee relevant to its functions.
This committee?
Mr. Peter Whelan
On the issue of the criminalisation of fishermen, something we hear all the time, the authority was set up as a regulatory agency. All we can use as a tool is what is set out on the Statute Book. In the current climate, if there was a system of administrative sanctions — we believe there is some legal impairment to that and there may be some advice from the Attorney General — we would be happy to implement them. Looking at the figures there has been a huge shift towards compliance by the industry. We do not see what we saw in 2007. In 2007 we could arrive at most ports and find illegal fish being landed. There were many cases of that. The industry is now going to the Marine Stewardship Council certification but could not do so if it was a non-compliant industry.
The fishermen in the north west and south west have moved in that direction. Some fishermen are using bigger mesh size nets to allow the smaller juvenile fish out. That is an industry that is moving towards compliance. A non-compliant fleet cannot sign up to the west Cork Fuchsia brand. It is clear from 2008 figures that there are many indications of an improvement in compliance in the fishing industry. Along with that, one can begin to consider if it is legally possible to have administrative sanctions and if given the statute, we will definitely implement them. That is one of the answers to Deputy Sheehan's questions about compliance strategy.
We have an enforcement strategy because we are empowered to enforce the legislation. If we had more powers, such as giving warning letters and administrative sanctions, we would start as we do in the area of food safety, by issuing advice, guidance, warning letters, administrative sanctions and prosecutions through the court. The compliance strategy would look at graded steps towards prosecution and the barriers to compliance on the other side of the equation and try to deal with them. That is where we are in terms of enforcement with our compliance strategy. At present we do not have the gift to issue administrative sanctions.
In regard to Irish and non-Irish vessels, the authority inspects far more foreign vessels than it does Irish vessels per number of landings. In Ireland last year there were almost 20,000 landings of Irish vessels, 11% of which we inspected. It is clear from the chart that we inspected 100% of the Norwegian landings, 37% of UK landings, 55% of Spanish landings and 44% of French landings. The foreign fleets say that if one goes to an Irish port one is much more likely to be inspected than any Irish boat. There were 19,368 landings by Irish vessels in 2008.
Mr. Tom Sheahan
Were they the same sized boats?
Mr. Peter Whelan
No.
Mr. Tom Sheahan
Is Mr. Whelan saying that a small boat that goes out four or five miles from Dingle, seven days per week, will not be inspected whereas a 50 m or 60 m Spanish boat will be inspected? Let us make a comparison and be real about the issue. If a fishing trawler went out from Dingle 100 days it would not land what a Spanish boat would land.
I ask members to allow the delegates respond to their queries after which I will take supplementaries. In all fairness, we cannot go backwards and forwards.
Mr. Peter Whelan
That is a very valid point. The point was made that Irish vessels must hail in their requirement to land. Depending on the species and the amount of fish the boat is carrying, the vessel must send in a four-hour hail notice to the Irish authorities. The foreign boats must do exactly the same. We get notification all of the time from the foreign vessels when they are landing. We get a four-hour hail notice if they have that species on board and the quantities they are required to hail. The legislative requirement is no different for Irish and foreign vessels in regard to the hail, except for monk fish which is an Irish measure.
By and large, the size of the boats are much bigger. In 2007, in the cases that have been completed against Irish vessels we saw €9,000 in fines and €10,000 in forfeitures, that is, of catch and gear. In the same year, the cases we took against foreign vessels had €167,000 in fines and €273,000 in confiscations of catch and gear. Therefore, the penalties are in excess of what the Irish penalties would be. It was the same in 2008, the fines against the Irish vessels totalled €12,300 and forfeitures were €67,000. Of the foreign vessels, these are the cases heard, there were fines of €37,000 and €94,500 forfeiture and fines. That reflects two things, namely, a bigger catch and a bigger boat and larger scale business, therefore the confiscation is of a larger catch and there are larger confiscation figures. However, they are subject to the same legal requirements and the same law when brought to court here.
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
Our figures were given to the members. We have acknowledged there is a size factor but in English our figures state that an Irish vessel landing has a one in ten likelihood of inspection by us and a foreign vessel landing has a one in two chance of being inspected by us. The figures are real. We acknowledge there is a size factor but the figures stand alone.
Mr. Peter Whelan
On the discards issue, we agree with every member who spoke about the dreadful waste of good fish when they are thrown overboard but, unfortunately, those are the rules under the legislation that applies currently. There is talk of a possible move towards effort days where a fisherman will be told he has a particular number of effort days during which he can land whatever he catches but they will know in advance the kilowatt size of their boat and the number of hours that would equate to for fishing time, and during that time they might be able to bring in the catch. That has not been agreed but suggested in Europe. Many suggestions have been made on how we might deal with the discard issue but it is part of the current legislation and there are ongoing discussions in Brussels. The Common Fisheries Policy will recognise that something must be done about discards.
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
Deputy Aylward drew an interesting comparison with land based food production. I am sure he will recall the way the milk quotas were introduced in the 1980s. In the same way one cannot decide what fish comes into one's net, one cannot stop a cow from giving milk. There was a graded system of penalties for over production but it cannot be thrown away and one cannot stop the cow from giving milk. The same applies to fishing. We cannot decide what swims into the net. We agree with all the comment that there must be a system that moves away from discards. We were happy to try to develop those initiatives.
Mr. Peter Whelan
On the inshore fleet and the log book requirement, vessels under 10 metres are not required to complete a log book. The inspections we did of the inshore fleet were at the request of industry because if I have paid for tonnage and a licence and registered my boat, I do not want my neighbour going out without any registration or licence and targeting the same scarce resource. We get complaints from legal inshore legitimate fishermen and they have asked us to do these inshore patrols.
Last year we did the inshore patrols around the coast of Ireland. We did 99 inspections and found one case where there was an unlicensed unregistered vessel. We were in a very slow boat and therefore it had a long warning before we got to a particular bay. This year we have the assistance of the Naval Service whose vessels can move quicker. The inshore fleet is a compliant sector and those in it do not want people fishing in unregistered, unlicensed boats. That move has been well received.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
I might add to my chairman's comments. With regard to the inshore sector, we are trying to take a proportionate approach to that sector. As late as yesterday I got telephone calls from a lobster fisherman who was concerned about the activities of unlicensed fishing vessels in his area. It turned out they were tourists who were using strings of six pots and so on. The difficulty he expressed was that as a law-abiding fisherman he puts back the undersize, juvenile and V-notch lobsters but those casual fishermen were coming along, taking them and selling them to restaurants, eating them at beach parties or whatever. It is a source of great annoyance to them.
Deputy Sheehan asked a question about the boat. We are conscious of the need for a seagoing platform. We used resources from the Central Fisheries Board last year. They proved to be somewhat cumbersome to use, weather dependent, difficult to operate and not as effective as we wanted. We are taking a different approach this year. We are using resources available to us from our colleagues in the Naval Service but we have also taken a small vessel down to Clonakilty, the Lough Mask, which is being refurbished and fitted out for inshore patrol work. It is an appropriate sized vessel for that type of work. It sets up the right dialogue between fishermen and us when we want to check the size of lobsters or whatever.
We are also conscious of making best use of existing State resources and in that regard we are in discussions with harbour masters in certain ports to ensure we can use the rigid inflatable vessels they recently acquired. Those discussions are ongoing. We are conscious of the need for a seagoing resource and are working on a cost effective way of achieving that.
Mr. Peter Whelan
Deputy Aylward spoke about quotas. He is right. Our fishermen would say they have far too little quota. At the time they got the quota allocations the fleet did not have the capacity it has now. A meeting is held every month with the Department, the fishermen's representative association and us at which monthly quotas are set for vessels. There appears to be enough fish currently for fishermen to make it viable for them to go out, particularly in terms of monkfish and a by-catch of cod, but near the end of the year when those figures become tight that causes difficulty for fishermen.
Last year the EU Court of Auditors — and this probably answers a number of questions — produced a report on an inspection of six member states. It examined the controls and compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy in those member states and said it was very displeased. A very poor report was issued which showed there was a great deal of non-compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy in states other than Ireland. That report is on the record and the Commission has started to take steps on that. The new technical control regulations and the review of the Common Fisheries Policy will take account of the findings of the EU Court of Auditors.
Regarding the gardaí, the gardaí are independent, authorised sea fishery protection officers under the Act. They do not work for us under secondment. They are not seconded by us in fisheries matters. They work independently authorised. We have no information on the operation in which they are involved. I understand that long before the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority was formed a letter was sent by the then Secretary General to the Garda Commissioner which triggered an investigation. That has been an ongoing investigation. Every now and then they would call to us and look for files or assistance. We had no involvement in the searches of houses and commercial premises in Castletownbere other than to provide them with the services of a sea fishery officer to tell them about the layout of a boat, what a log book looks like and where to find a log book. A remark was made to the effect that the advantages of having a sea fisheries protection authority is that we know what to look for if we are doing a search. We know where to go. We do not need to traumatise people. Some of the gardaí that were drafted in needed to know where to look for the information they wanted but they were not our searches. We were not involved other than to have one sea fishery officer accompany them to the two vessels in Castletownbere. It is an operation they are investigating.
Who authorised the Garda raids on those private houses? It was disgraceful for them to come in on young families at any hour of the night and tear the houses upside down. That is like something that would happen in a Gestapo state.
Mr. Peter Whelan
I cannot speak for the gardaí but I suspect they had got court orders from a judge in the District Court.
On that raid in west Cork, I will give the representatives an example of an occasion on which I had to call the gardaí recently. I arrived at the polling station on polling day. There was a poster of a candidate on a poll right outside the polling station. I take it that it was erected in good faith perhaps two weeks before the contest. It was only illegal from midnight on the day before polling day. I rang the local garda station, was put through to Clonakilty and spoke to a garda. I told him a poster had been erected that was in violation of electoral law and asked if it could be removed. I knew from his tone that it would be there for the day. I did a tour of polling stations and, lo and behold, when I returned to the polling station the poster was still in place. I compliment whoever was able to despatch the gardaí to conduct those raids because it was a reflection of good organisation. Who in the Garda Síochána contacted the SFPA to provide the officer? Who was the contact point? Who did they speak to in the SFPA and who despatched the officer to assist with the Garda raid?
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
This was a Garda operation. I do not have the name. I can get the name of the individuals involved for the Senator but it was a Garda run operation. The Garda designed and implemented it from the start.
When did the SFPA become aware of it?
Would it have been a superintendent, an inspector or a chief——
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
I think it was a chief——
I ask that care be taken to ensure people are not named.
I accept that but I am happy to know the rank of the member.
Mr. Peter Whelan
It was a chief superintendent.
I presume that the houses were raided on suspicion of a criminal offence such as the possession of drugs. Was that the case?
No, it was for illegal fishing.
I did not know that.
I accept that Mr. Whelan cannot give the name, but I was interested to know the rank of the member involved. In these straitened times resources are limited and thinly spread and people have to make do with the limited funds available. I am happy to note it was chief superintendent in this case.
Does Mr. Sheahan wish to raise a supplementary question?
Mr. O'Mahony has not concluded.
Mr. Michaél O’Mahony
On the Garda searches issue, some direct questions were raised as to when we became aware of the proposed search. From memory, we became aware that a search was to take place two days beforehand. We had no operational information. We were asked if one officer would participate in the operations centre to be aware of the searches being undertaken. Apart from knowing where to report on the given morning, that officer had no other awareness of the searches. On that morning that officer was asked to provide specific expertise on the vessels only to help the gardaí who would have much less experience of where in the wheel house the logbook might be stored. That answers the direct questions on the timelags involved.
The gardaí were operating as sea fishery protection officers.
Mr. Michaél O’Mahony
They are authorised sea-fishery protection officers.
Was that under the direction of the Department Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
Mr. Peter Whelan
I would say the Department Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am not sure whether it was a fraud investigation or a sea fisheries offence investigation. We are not privy to that information.
On the matter of to whom questions can be referred, we wrote to Deputy Ferris about questions to which he believed he was not getting answers. We are happy to answer any question a member has or to meet a member at any time. Members can feel free to contact me directly or any of the board members and we would be pleased to meet them at any time or to answer any written questions they might have.
A Member
Should the Minister not refer a question for answer?
Mr. Peter Whelan
The view has been taken that because the legislation provides that we are an independent authority in the performance of our functions, the Minister does not want to cross a line in that respect. Where an operational matter is the subject of a question, the preference is to have direct correspondence.
We submit our questions to the Minister. If a question was tabled to the Minister for Health and Children or any other Minister, the question would be referred immediately to the relevant body. The authority is the relevant body in this instance and it would not involve a cost to refer the question to the authority and for us to get an answer to it.
This committee can check matters with the Minister.
We should not discuss this matter.
It a matter for the Minister, it is not the responsibility of the authority.
The clerk to the committee will contact the Department and the Minister.
We should do so and recommend that suggestion.
Mr. Peter Whelan
Someone raised the area of Cromane and Natura 2000. It is an area in which we have been recently asked by the Minister to become involved. It is nine years since the introduction of Natura 2000. We were not asked to be involved in it until recently and we have done so in a comprehensive way. Mr. Kinneen might elaborate on our role in this respect.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
We wanted to report on this area to the committee because we recognised the importance of doing so. There are four key wild fisheries that are part of the interim strategy presented by Ireland and a multi-agency approach in this respect was adopted by DG Environment recently. The SFPA was part of that team. Four wild fisheries cannot be opened until an assessment is carried out to establish what impact fishing activities might have on the special areas of conversation concerned.
Which four fisheries are concerned?
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
A cockle fishery in Dundalk Bay, a cockle fishery in Waterford——
Is that fishery in the estuary?
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
Yes, it is around that area. Also the Irish Sea mussel seed fishery impinges on special areas of conservation. It is not all of that fishery that is affected only the part of it that might encroach on special areas of conservation. The fourth fishery is in Cromane, Castlemaine. The issues involved are compliance with the habitats directive and the birds directive. Baseline studies have to be carried out to ascertain the conservation priorities in place and lists of species that must be protected are contained in European legislation.
Will the authority do that work?
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
No, it will be done by our parent Department and the Marine Institute. That work is in train.
It is going on currently.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
Yes. When those assessments have been carried out and a preliminary date has been set for their completion, we expect a report on that work will indicate the conservation priorities in each of these fisheries. The SFPA will then make recommendations on how we will monitor that. For example, if a marine grass was to be protected in an area, it might be a question of organising the fishery to ensure that fishing activity does not encroach on that area while ensuring there is a viable fishery there for the fishermen in question.
We will intervene at a later stage and we will support the opening of those fisheries by putting in place a management regime. We believe we are supporting the fishermen and those fisheries by giving credible evidence to the DG Environment by presenting our views on how the work can be done in a practical way. It was convinced by the arguments we put forward as part of that multi-agency team in Brussels in May. That work is in train and we have a small involvement in it. The expectations are reasonably good. The fear that the Cromane fishery might not be reopened again this year was mentioned. I do not want to speculate, but we have an interim plan in place that should open the door in that respect. However, that is a matter for the Commission to work out with Ireland.
In August.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
Hopefully, yes. The Department has timetabled the opening of the fisheries.
Fishermen would consider Natura 2000 to be threatening legislation in that they believe it will impinge on their livelihood. Where we have been asked to make submissions on proposed SACs, we are careful to point out areas where fishing takes place. If we know that fishing is taking place in one season and the migratory birds come in another season, we pass that information on so that decisions can be made that will not impinge on fisheries. There are potential conservation benefits to be derived from SACs in that they do not prohibit but allow for fishing activities that are compatible with conservation objectives. The theory behind Natura 2000 is for it to create a series of oases for the regeneration of stocks for juveniles that are not to be impacted on. We hope that as the work progresses, it will be less threatening and more positive for fishermen.
I asked a question about the boarding of unlicensed foreign fishing vessels. I want to be specific as I have had contact from certain people about this matter. Northern Ireland registered boats are fishing in our waters for mussels and they have a derogation under a 1964 agreement to do so. The men who contacted me gave me their names and said I could mention their names. The SFPA are not boarding those vessels. I was given one example, the Northern registered Tany Christine, which is lying in Lough Foyle. It is 104 years old and has not been in dry dock for seven years. If that vessel was boarded at any stage, it would be found that it should not be on the water. There are dredgers in Cromane for which fishermen could not get a licence, yet they can rent or hire vessels that are not compliant with the required standards. Those vessels are not up to the standards of the boats moored in Cromane, but they can be hired and brought down to our waters because they are licensed and have a derogation under that agreement. Those vessels are not seaworthy, but they can be used. The condition of them is much worse than the vessels the fishermen have moored. These fishermen have a licence to fish in Ireland’s waters. A gentleman named Paul Barnow contacted me.
Please do not mention names.
He asked me to mention his name. Mr. Barnow of Woodstown Bay Shellfish, Dunmore East, is being denied a licence after investing a massive amount of money four years ago. He was encouraged to do so by this Government, yet he cannot get a licence now. Nonetheless, we have the likes of that boat coming down to fish here. We have clearly established that the SFPA is answerable to this committee. While it is not personal, the frustration we are venting reflects what we hear from fishermen. I get frustrated when I see what is happening with the fishing industry, given the bureaucratic red tape. In addition, we can see a 104-year-old vessel coming down from the North of Ireland to fish here. Whatever about licences, that is wrong and it must stop.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
May I respond to a particular point that has been made?
Yes.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
A long-standing agreement is in place that allows equivalent access by fishing or aquaculture vessels from Northern Ireland in the Republic and vice versa. I do not want to get into the individual’s case that was mentioned. I am aware of the individual, who is an important person involved in the aquaculture and seed mussel industry. Many of the issues concern issuing safety certificates to fishing vessels. It is a matter for the Marine Survey Office, which has competence in that area. There have been many complex issues concerning the fleet at Cromane also. I am well aware of that fleet and how it operates. My understanding, however, is that there are ongoing discussions on the certification of vessels at Cromane, so they can be used in open water. Many issues are being sorted out.
To come to the central point about the boarding or control of these vessels — or unregistered vessels, as the Deputy described them — from Northern Ireland, the Naval Service and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority have full competence with regard to inspecting those vessels. There is no impediment for us to go aboard and check them. While we do not need to exchange particular issues across the floor here and now, we would be happy to hear about them and will follow them up directly ourselves. In some cases, these vessels do not come ashore; they extract the mussel seed, take it aboard and then go directly to the relaying area near Belfast or elsewhere. If they do not come ashore, it is difficult for us to get aboard. If there are particular points, it may be more appropriate for us to hear them directly. We are pleased to answer direct questions from the committee or its individual members. There is no difficulty in following up whatever matters are raised.
May I ask one last question because it was an important document on the administrative sanctions? Has Mr. O'Mahony seen Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Bill?
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
Yes.
The legislation would have to go through the Oireachtas before the SFPA could act on it.
Mr. Peter Whelan
Not only that, but it was circulated around our organisation. We have asked people for their views as to whether they would find it helpful in the gradation of enforcement activities. We got positive responses and submitted them to the Department which is where it will go.
The supplementary questions have prevented the representatives from making their contributions. There are several issues, including the survey on morale within the organisation and the cost of CCTV at ports.
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
I will start with the second point first. Senator McCarthy asked about the CCTV project which we mentioned in our opening presentation. Can the Senator clarify whether he referred to the Port of Cork or other ports?
My question concerned the ownership of the ports, whether it involves the local authority or the port authority.
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
We have already installed CCTV in some SFPA-monitored locations. We have embarked on a further installation project this year. To install CCTV in areas, we need planning permission and permission from the land owner. We have embarked on getting that permission for a range of ports throughout the country. We cannot predict whether we will get planning permission or the landowner's permission for ports X or Y. We have therefore front-loaded it by seeking permission for a larger number of ports than we can afford to install because we anticipate some natural wastage. We will not get planning permission in every port. Various ports have different line-of-sight and infrastructural issues, so the costs would be different. From our experience, it would be somewhere between €15,000 and €25,000 per port. We will fund that from our capital budget, which is a matter of public record. It will be funded from our pre-existing capital vote. It depends, however, because some ports have significant infrastructural issues while others do not, so the costs vary from port to port.
Did the Senator refer to the Port of Cork or the ports of County Cork?
Can Mr. O'Mahony say if local authorities or whoever are the relevant port authorities?
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
For example, our approach to local authorities would be to meet either the county manager or the director of services to discuss their project with them. If there is a harbour commission or harbour master we would meet to discuss it with them. We also meet local Garda Síochána representatives to discuss the interchange of information.
The Senator also asked about data protection, which is a real issue. We have approached that head on. We have sent staff on training to the Data Protection Commissioner and have developed a comprehensive data protection policy. We are cognisant of the many obligations under the Data Protection Act. We have informed ourselves of them and have a comprehensive data protection policy which is currently at a consultative stage with our trade union representatives. It is going though an in-house consultation process. We cannot anticipate the outcome of those consultations but we hope to have the policy in place shortly. It will be in place and we are confident we will be compliant for the Data Protection Act.
Mr. O'Mahony said it would cost from €15,000 to €20,000 per port, but what is the approximate overall cost?
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
It depends. Our capital budget is a matter of public record. Our capital budget for 2009 was approximately €1.6 million. Half of that has been set aside for the electronic logbook, which leaves €0.8 million. Every port varies and it depends on what we get planning permission for. We will probably spend approximately €200,000. We have sought reimbursement for this through DG MARE's funding of fishery conservation initiatives. We have agreement in principle that the European Commission will refund 50% of the cost to the Exchequer. In the context of discussing the cost of CCTV, it is also worth pointing out that by comparison this is entirely more efficient than other control efforts. For example, compared to a speculative drive by a sea-fisheries officer to port X, 15 miles away, on the off chance that there might be a landing, it is much more efficient for the State to put CCTV in such ports as a control regime. I trust that I have addressed the Senator's CCTV questions.
I thank Mr. O'Mahony for his reply.
Are there any other queries that were not answered?
The Wolfe report.
Mr. Peter Whelan
The Wolfe report is part of a process. In line with morale in the public service generally, we noticed a morale problem in the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. This was particularly after the substantial reduction in salaries that sea-fishery protection officers took as a result of the economic downturn. They felt in some ways that it was a penalty for something they had not caused. After that we had to reduce further salaries or income to fishery officers in reducing rosters, overtime, travel and subsistence, and overnights. We received communication from the Department of Finance to the effect that there should be no promotions, recruitment or arrangements to allow people to "act up" and operate at higher grades. This communication also indicated that there should be early retirement schemes and career breaks. Coupled with the negative publicity we receive — we are not made to feel very welcome when we inspect ports — there was also an issue with morale. We could choose to either do nothing or to take action to try to restore morale.
Ours is a high-performing, high-impact organisation and we want to keep it that way. The transforming the public service documentation refers to keeping organisations in high-performance mode. With the agreement, co-operation and support of all staff, management, the unions and the LRC — in the context of best practice in the IMI — we put together an employee questionnaire which we knew would bring forward some negative results. This was deliberate because we wanted staff to indicate what they feel are the problems. We then brought the staff together and asked them to identify solutions and resolutions, which they duly did. We then compiled a second document which examined how we could introduce solutions to deal with the matters of concern that were identified.
The next step was to consult an independent mediator from the LRC, who we asked to carry out phase 3 of the process, namely, the implementation of the solutions that were identified. He was delighted to do so and we were complimented on the process. The independent mediator has begun his work — we met him recently — and we hope this will help build morale within the organisation and keep it in the high-performance category.
We have a highly-trained, expert and knowledgeable staff. There were a number of positives which emerged from the survey to which I refer. For example, reference was made to a high level of professionalism, to people's enthusiasm, to the focus on career development and to the knowledge and expertise possessed by our staff. Rather than lose that, we decided to do something which was positive and engaging. We have moved the process on. We are currently involved with phase 3 of what will be a four phase process.
Did the SFPA send a copy of its report to the Department?
Mr. Peter Whelan
No, because it was part of an internal process.
Was it sent to anybody?
Mr. Peter Whelan
No.
Even after the matter was the subject of a newspaper report, no one contacted any Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas. To put it mildly, that was a mistake on the SFPA's part. Members were obliged to read the newspaper in order to discover that Wolfe and Associates was carrying out a survey. We have now discovered that the SFPA is at phase 3 of the process. Where the seven quotations I read into the record accurate?
Mr. Peter Whelan
Yes, I think the direct quotes were accurate.
If the committee and the SFPA are to have a working relationship going forward, it is extremely important that members should be kept abreast of developments with regard to the authority's work. The SFPA is, after all, answerable to the Dáil.
Some of the questions I posed earlier were not answered. In that context, I wish to ask how the board was appointed.
Mr. Peter Whelan
Mr. O'Mahony and I applied to the Public Appointments Service, which recommended to the Minister that we be appointed. Mr. Kinneen was previously seafood control manager at the then Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. He transferred to the authority from that post.
Who carries out the annual assessment relating to the performance of the board?
Mr. Peter Whelan
We receive plenty of comments from our consultative committee but we do not have a formal assessment process.
So there is no formal assessment on the performance of the board.
Mr. Peter Whelan
No.
Which is the main union that represents staff?
Mr. Peter Whelan
IMPACT.
Will Mr. Whelan indicate the number of cases currently before the Labour Court, the LRC and the rights commissioner?
Mr. Peter Whelan
There are no cases before either the Labour Court or the rights commissioner. We are dealing with some in the LRC. These are ongoing.
How many such cases are before the LRC?
Mr. Peter Whelan
Two.
Did the SFPA establish a complaints department and, if so, is it very busy?
Mr. Peter Whelan
I apologise. I meant to reply to the Deputy in respect of that matter.
This has been an excellent meeting and I have learned a great deal from it. As legislators, there is much we need to do in respect of administrative sanctions and the discards issue. As Deputy Ferris stated, this is how it should be done. I have learned a huge amount today. I tried to highlight why some people cannot obtain licences. We will be obliged to give further consideration to that matter and perhaps I will contact our guests directly in respect of it.
Mr. Peter Whelan
We do not have any responsibility for licensing. Such responsibility lies with our parent Department. We did establish a complaints procedure, which is available on our website. It is a three-step procedure. We appointed a barrister to work as the independent complaints officer for a period of one year. When his contract expired, we were informed that we could not reappoint him and would be obliged to make an application to the Department of Finance through our parent Department. That application is currently with the Department of Finance. Only one complaint was made to the complaints officer.
It is similar to the Carlsberg advertisement, where someone telephones the complaints department, decides it is the wrong number and then hangs up. Will the SFPA remain in the technology park in the long term?
Mr. Peter Whelan
We have left the technology park and are now in a new building at Clogheen.
When did the SFPA transfer operations to its new office?
Mr. Peter Whelan
Three weeks ago.
Are our guests in a position to indicate when BIM will be relocating to the same building?
Mr. Peter Whelan
No.
Does the SFPA have daily contact with the Department or the Minister?
Mr. Peter Whelan
Our contact is fairly regular and would be almost on a daily basis.
So departmental officials would be aware of what the authority is doing at any given time.
Mr. Peter Whelan
Yes.
I presume they are also well acquainted with the strategy.
Mr. Peter Whelan
Yes.
On behalf of the committee, I thank our guests for making their presentation. This has been an extremely informative meeting. We welcome our guests willingness to appear before us again at any stage.
The joint committee adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until noon on Wednesday, 15 July 2009.