Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 18 May 2022

Weighing of Fisheries Products: Discussion

Deputy Mac Lochlainn is substituting for Deputy Carthy and Deputy Doherty is substituting for Deputy Martin Browne. Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and persons in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. The purpose of today's meeting is to examine the weighing of fisheries products. The committee will hear from representatives of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA.

Since 28 February, the legal requirement of mask-wearing in all settings has been removed. However, it is still good practice to continue to use a face masks or coverings, particularly in crowded areas. The service encourages all members of the parliamentary community to wear face masks when moving around the campus and in close proximity to others.

Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have 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 by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. 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. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in the committee meeting when they participate from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when contributing.

The committee will hear from the following representatives from the SFPA: Mr. Paschal Hayes, executive chairperson; Ms Olive Loughnane, senior executive manager and director of transformation; and Dr. Micheál O’Mahony, senior executive manager and chief scientific adviser. I welcome the witnesses and call on them to make their opening statement.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We thank the committee for the invitation to appear today. We welcome the interest in the SFPA and its work as the regulator for the sea-fisheries and seafood sectors. We also welcome the opportunity to outline how we seek to ensure effective and fair regulation of the areas under the authority’s mandate in order to support safe, authentic and sustainable seafood. I am joined by my colleagues, Dr. O’Mahony and Ms Loughnane.

By way of introduction, Ireland’s seafood economy was worth an estimated €1.26 billion in 2021, having experienced growth in GDP of 15.3% when compared with 2020, with Irish people consuming an average of 25 kg of seafood per year. The sector supports over 16,000 livelihoods, predominantly in coastal communities along the Atlantic Ocean, the Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea.

Effective regulation and oversight of the sea-fisheries and seafood sectors is essential to the achievement of our shared ambitions for the development of Ireland’s seafood sector, as well as ensuring that Ireland’s shared marine resources are sustainable for future generations of fishermen and fisherwomen, coastal communities and Irish and international consumers. The SFPA plays a key role in promoting compliance, verifying it and, where necessary, using the powers provided under legislation to enforce sea-fisheries and seafood safety laws for all areas under our remit. This includes all fishing vessels operating within Ireland’s 200-mile limit, almost 2,000 Irish registered fishing vessels - wherever they operate - and all seafood produced in Ireland’s seafood processing companies.

We acknowledge that the focus of today’s meeting is on the weighing of fishery products, however, fishery control is one of a number of functions performed by the SFPA. The SFPA’s work is broad and varied in scope. It includes ensuring legal and sustainable sea fishing. In food safety, it includes approving, registering, auditing and inspecting fish processing establishments, along with classification and monitoring of bivalve mollusc production areas. In food trade, it involves certification of Irish seafood exports and verification of imports. In data matters, the SFPA collates the State's formal record of fishing activity.

The SFPA employs staff in the major fishing ports around the coast and at our headquarters in Clonakilty, each of whom is committed to the mission of the SFPA and ensuring sustainable fish stocks for future generations of Irish fishers. Their work to fulfil their duties as set out under Irish law can often be undertaken in challenging circumstances. This is particularly the case for our staff based in the Killybegs port office in recent months. We are proud of the work undertaken by each and every one of these SFPA employees.

Under Irish legislation, the legal onus is on the fishing industry to comply with national and EU sea-fisheries and seafood safety regulations. The SFPA's systems are designed to provide regulatory oversight, with checks in place throughout the catching, storage, transport and processing stages. Similar to our counterparts in other EU countries, the SFPA operates a risk-based control policy to maximise its effort in those areas of greatest risk of non-compliance or abuse.

There are in the region of 20,000 landings of pelagic and demersal fish by larger vessels in Ireland on an annual basis. The SFPA does not have the resources to be on every fishing deck, at every haul, nor every landing of every vessel. This is what necessitates our risk-based control policy. Pelagic fish is a term referring to shoaling migratory oily fish which swim in the middle of the water column, including mackerel, horse mackerel, herring and blue whiting. Pelagic fish are stored on board fishing vessels in bulk tanks and pumped ashore in bulk quantities. Demersal fish refers to bottom-dwelling whitefish with a habitat on the continental shelf seabed such as cod, hake, whiting or monkfish. Demersal fish are typically sorted by species and gutted, iced and boxed on board.

Of the 20,000 landings annually by larger vessels, an estimated 600 are bulk pelagic landings, which is roughly 3% of total annual Irish landings. Bulk pelagic fishing is highly industrialised and pursued by some of the largest vessels in Europe. Bulk pelagic landings are large in terms of both fish quantity and monetary value, and can frequently exceed €1 million for a single landing. Pelagic landings involve commercial processes, the speed and automation of which adds to both control challenges and compliance risks. Control-supervised weighing of a small proportion of pelagic landings is only one part of SFPA controls for pelagic fisheries and landings. At-sea data monitoring, pre-landing checks and post-transport weighing controls in permitted plants are also used. Records of these Houses in 2005 and 2006 will show that among the central reasons for the Oireachtas to establish the SFPA, through the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, were allegations of significant non-compliance in pelagic landings and the need for meaningful controls.

In this submission and in our contribution to this committee, we hope to emphasise the following points: the SFPA implements and regulates as provided by the Oireachtas and as required under Irish law; fish-weighing obligations exist for operators for the express purpose of ensuring the amount of fish landed is accurately assessed and to ensure sustainable fishing stocks for future generations; the SFPA does not catch, land, weigh or declare fish; the accurate weighing of fish is the legal responsibility of the operators, and not the SFPA; of the approximate 600 landings of bulk pelagic fish on an annual basis, 19 out of every 20 landings currently avail of a derogation in the interim fisheries control plan to weigh after transport at a processing facility; one out of every 20 bulk pelagic landings is subject to a supervised weighing upon landing; specific control focus on a small proportion of bulk pelagic landings is an explicit control requirement to manage the particular risks of such landings and is a significant part of what secures the overall derogation to enable post-transport weighing of all landings to Ireland; and, in the absence of an interim control plan that enables the weighing after transport, every landing into Ireland would be required to be weighed upon landing.

One of the requirements of EU legislation which the SFPA is bound to enforce by this Oireachtas is an obligation on operators to weigh wild caught fish on landing. That EU legislation, as agreed by Ireland, has a default starting point of all such fish being weighed immediately at landing with no delegated authority to the SFPA to diverge from that. For clarity, the default position under EU and Irish legislation is that all landings into Ireland should be weighed upon landing. The potential for fish to be transported from the point of landing before weighing is set out as one of two potential derogations of Article 61 of Council Regulation EC No. 1224/09. In both cases derogations can only be implemented if approved by the EU Commission.

In 2012, the SFPA secured EU Commission approval for a control plan under Article 61(1) of Council Regulation EC No. 1224/09 to facilitate a derogation for weighing in Ireland after transport from a place of landing in Ireland. Such weighing could only occur in plants specifically permitted for that purpose. The SFPA had a variety of different controls in place to manage compliance risks arising from this post-transport weighing regimen. In the case of bulk pelagic weighing, there was an overt reliance on operators' weigh-belt systems with the SFPA control input both at landing and at post-transport weighing.

Subsequent to the introduction of the 2012 control plan, SFPA controls identified significant and ongoing non-compliance risks in post-transport weighing of bulk pelagic fish. Several instances of weigh-unit manipulation resulted in temporary revocation of permits until necessary enhancements were made, including one subsequent conviction. In no case of manipulation was there any particular deviation between the declarations of masters, purchasers or weighers and this point is worth repeating. The SFPA responded to increased understanding of non-compliance risk by enhancing its control focus on landings and weighing, and strengthening the permit conditions, to include, for example, a CCTV feed to the SFPA. Nevertheless, a clear sentiment existed of ready manipulability of such systems, with any such manipulation resulting in inaccurate declarations of the amount of fish landed and potentially fraudulent food marketing. This puts at risk the reputation of Ireland’s entire sea fisheries and seafood processing sector, the sustainability of Irish fishing stocks for future generations and the authenticity of Irish seafood consumed domestically and across the globe.

In 2014 and again in 2018, the Directorate General of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries at the European Commission, DG-MARE, conducted an audit of bulk pelagic control in Ireland. The 2018 audit formed the view that the risk of non-compliance by bulk pelagic operators with their weighing obligations was unacceptably high. That report also highlighted deficiencies in the control methods being implemented by the SFPA, finding that these were not sufficiently robust to ensure operators did not underdeclare their catches. A subsequent administrative inquiry by the Commission was used to quantify the extent of the concerns. The SFPA worked to address the various concerns through enhanced controls. A particular focus of DG-MARE was the perspective that, as part of the overall control regimen allowing most landings to be weighed after transport, there must be some instances of control authority-instigated pre-transport weighing. The SFPA incorporated such events into its pelagic controls from 2020 under the previous control plan. In response, industry used a pier-side device that would actively dewater and then weigh those dewatered fish, before reuniting fish with their original water. Irish courts found no reason in law to prevent the SFPA from approving such a device for weighing and it was used for weighing pelagic landings during 2021.

In April 2021, DG-MARE revoked the Irish control plan as a result of significant and ongoing concerns regarding inaccurate weighing of catches, particularly by operators landing bulk pelagic catches to Ireland. Accordingly, all landings to Ireland, which previously would have been weighed at an Irish establishment in accordance with the plan, were then legally required to be weighed at landing. At a hearing with this Oireachtas committee on 11 May 2021, members were clear in relaying and endorsing concerns voiced throughout the industry about the impracticality of this. In the case of demersal fish landed in standardised boxes, the Irish sampling plan remained in place to reduce the impact. In September 2021, a control plan for pelagic and demersal catches was submitted by the SFPA followed by ongoing dialogue with DG-MARE. During this dialogue ,it became clear that the EU Commission approval would only be achieved with the inclusion of pre-transport control-supervised weighing, performed on a non-industry-owned, non-industry-operated device, such as a weighbridge.

The SFPA accepted such a control plan on an interim basis from January to April 2022 in the interest of facilitating post-transport weighing.

Under this interim control plan, the SFPA had multiple obligations, including the assessment of processing plants’ compliance with weighing conditions as set out in the interim control plan and issuing of permits to allow the invoking of the provisions of the plan to apply. In simple terms, the SFPA had to develop the control infrastructure reversing the paradigm shift that had occurred in April 2021 towards pier-side landing to, in January 2022, developing controls on post-transport weighing.

As the very premise of an Article 61(1) regimen under a control plan is one of overt reliance on the vast majority of fish being weighed after transport, the SFPA controls needed to shift back to weighing upon landing pier-side. Additionally, the interim control plan had explicit obligation for pre-transport controls as part of an overall control of post-transport weighing. One of the explicit stipulations which arose from dialogue with the EU Commission was that pre-transport control-supervised weighing should take place for bulk pelagic landings on non-industry-owned, non-industry-operated weighing systems. Key representatives of the Irish pelagic industry were informed of the inclusion of this new stipulation in late 2021. The expected frequency of controlled weighing upon landing was linked to Article 107 of Regulation No. 404/2011, meaning that 5% of bulk pelagic landings, or 7.5% of fish quantity, would be subject to control-supervised weighing. Under this regimen, therefore, 19 out of every 20 landings could be weighed after transport at a permitted facility.

During the period from the opening of the season in February until the beginning of March, the SFPA accepted weighing on an industry-owned pier-side device. It subsequently became clear that the use of this industry-owned pier-side device did not fulfil the requirements of the interim control plan, which stipulated that weighing must be conducted on a device under non-industry ownership. It is clear that operation of the interim control plan without fully insisting on the strict terms as set in the EU-approved control plan is regrettable and detracted from overall implementation. At this stage we are of the view that the significant amount of work done by the SFPA in early 2022 to implement the interim control plan should have moved more quickly to implement this stipulation.

From early March 2021, the SFPA moved to ensure that control-supervised pre-transport weighing events met all the terms of the interim control plan for those approximately 5% of bulk pelagic landings. In the absence of an alternative, this meant the weighing of bulk tankers of fish with transport water on a State-owned weighbridge. To meet the requirements of the interim control plan, operators may select one of two options for conducting weighing before transport at Killybegs Harbour. Under the first method, fish exiting the vessel are discharged into an industry-owned pier-side system which momentarily separates the fish from the water. The fish are immediately placed directly into a tanker that has been pre-filled with water and pre-weighed. The tanker containing the fish and the water is then reweighed on the SFPA-approved weighbridge and an accurate weight for the fish is obtained.

Under the second method, the fish and water exiting the vessel are discharged directly into a pre-weighed empty tanker. The tanker containing the fish and the water is then reweighed on the SFPA-approved weighbridge. The fish remain with their original water which operators seek to minimise in order to balance quality considerations with concerns about the accuracy of the weight of the fish.

In both options, the pre-transport weight, that is, the weight on the weighbridge, must be used in all statutory declarations, including the landing declaration by the master, the sales note by the purchaser and the transport document of the transporter. Under neither option is there any requirement for the fish to be dried before, during or after control-supervised weighing.

It is with genuine concern that the SFPA became aware of a sustained campaign of disinformation and misinformation suggesting the SFPA was not adhering to provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol following the UK departure from the EU. The SFPA confirms there has been no change in the fish weighing on landing arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and other jurisdictions as a result of Brexit. Under the EU regulations, which the SFPA is bound to implement by this Oireachtas, landings to Northern Ireland could never have been weighed in Killybegs under the terms of an Irish control plan. That derogation is only applicable to post-transport weighing of fishery products when weighed within the member state of landing. The only way in which fishery products might be weighed in Killybegs following a landing to Northern Ireland would be through a common control programme between UK and Ireland approved by the EU Commission. It is important to reiterate that no such common control programme has ever existed, either before or after Brexit. Therefore, landings to Northern Ireland are treated similarly to landings in any EU state with which Ireland does not have a common control programme.

Irish operators may choose to purchase fish landed to a jurisdiction with which Ireland does not share an approved common control programme, such as Northern Ireland. In such cases, the weighing must have taken place in the landing jurisdiction, either through the default of immediately at landing or perhaps at a permitted post-transport establishment in that landing territory if a control plan exists there. Crucially, however, the weight of the fish upon landing in another jurisdiction must be the weight declared by all parties. Declaration of a weight after transport at a processing facility in the jurisdiction of Ireland is not permitted.

Permitting establishments to weigh after transport at a processing facility following a landing in the Republic of Ireland is a significant exemption available under the interim fisheries control plan to operators who have the systems to apply such a permit appropriately. The SFPA will not accept the misuse of the weigh after transport system, which has the potential to jeopardise the EU Commission-approved exemption for the entire fishing and seafood processing sector. If this exemption is revoked, all landings of pelagic and demersal fish across Ireland could be required to be weighed pier-side.

The interim control plan agreed in December 2021 had a prescribed applicability from 1 January 2022 until 30 April 2022. On foot of a proposal by the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG MARE, in March 2022, the SFPA applied for an extension of approval of the interim control plan until 31 December 2022. It is a positive development that this was approved by the Commission in late April and the control plan was adopted by the SFPA to extend previously issued weigh permits for several months. The SFPA anticipates further dialogue with the Commission with a view to having an Irish control plan on a permanent footing by the end of 2022.

I emphasise again that the role of the SFPA is to regulate the sea-fisheries and seafood sectors to ensure compliance with Irish and EU laws and so that we can ensure sustainable fishing stocks for future generations. We encourage committee members to see the broader merit of the work being undertaken by the SFPA to ensure fish are weighed completely and accurately with minimal overall impact on quality. In the absence of approval from the European Commission of an interim or full fisheries control plan, there is no exemption to weigh fish after transport at an approved facility and so all landings, pelagic and demersal, would be subjected to weighing upon landing. As the industry and this committee experienced last year, the ramifications of no control plan are experienced right across the seafood sector and in coastal communities around Ireland.

Control is what the SFPA provides. Declaring fewer fish than are actually caught is a real and ongoing risk that threatens the sustainability of fishing stocks for future generations and the authenticity of Irish seafood.

Responsibility for compliance with the regulations lies with the industry, which has a legal onus to comply. Our role is to oversee compliance. For those involved in bulk pelagic fishing, the control plan enables 19 out of every 20 landings to be weighed after transport. The control-supervised weighing of one out of every 20 landings of bulk pelagic fish should be viewed in the context of the very real alternative of 100% of landings needing to be weighed at the pier. We ask the members of the committee to consider carefully the array of potential motivations of operators choosing to decry the need to weigh one out of every 20 landings outside of systems-----

On a point of clarification, Mr. Hayes has just made a serious statement. This is very important.

There will be time for questions, Deputy.

Mr. Hayes must clarify what he meant by his last sentence.

No, Deputy. Mr. Hayes is making his opening statement and the Deputy cannot ask questions.

With respect, Mr. Hayes cannot impugn the reputation of people outside the House in this committee. I ask Mr. Hayes to clarify his last sentence.

There will be an opportunity-----

The opening statement has gone on for half an hour. I do not mean any disrespect. In all fairness, five minutes is long enough for an opening statement. We should all be given an opportunity to ask questions.

The statement that has just been made is very serious.

I fully accept that the opening statement has gone on for a long time, but there is great interest in this subject and that is why I have not censured its length. Each member will get a quarter of an hour following the opening statement.

With respect, I am asking the Chair to deliberate on this point. If the Chair does not mind, I will read that sentence. Mr. Hayes said: "We ask the members of the committee to consider carefully the array of potential motivations of operators choosing to decry the need to weigh...". What does the phrase "the array of potential motivations" mean? Is this questioning the motivation or the character of people outside this House? This is a serious matter and we must clarify it.

On a point of order, as the Chair made clear at the outset that it is not for any witness before this committee to cast aspersions on people who cannot defend themselves. There are a limited number of operators in this sector and the sentence uttered is very serious. It should be withdrawn.

I ask for that statement to be withdrawn.

The point has been made that Mr. Hayes is making allegations against individuals. In the opening statement I read on privilege, I made it clear that no one at this committee meeting should do that. Does Mr. Hayes wish to withdraw that comment?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I did not intend it in that way, but if it causes offence, I am happy to withdraw that sentence.

No, that is not a withdrawal. Mr. Hayes knows exactly what was being said. He is an intelligent man. I ask for that comment to be withdrawn.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I am agreeing to withdraw it.

Okay. That is good. I thank Mr. Hayes.

Okay. I ask Mr. Hayes to continue.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I have one more paragraph.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The SFPA's duty is to implement the laws passed by this House, encompassing both Irish and EU regulations. Committee members are no doubt aware that weighing provisions are among the considerations of an ongoing revision of the EU fishery control regulation. If new or amended laws and regulations pertaining to the sea fisheries and seafood sectors are passed by this Oireachtas, the SFPA will implement them. Until then, we will discharge the duties set out for the organisation as set out by this House.

I thank Mr. Hayes for his opening statement, which was lengthy. We go now to questions from the members, each of whom will have 15 minutes. They need not feel obliged to use their full time. I call Deputy Michael Collins.

I welcome the witnesses. I also welcome, behind us here, Mr. Patrick Murphy from the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, ISWFPO, and Mr. Cormac Burke from the Irish Fish and Seafood Alliance, IFSA. They have worked hard to try to make the lives of fishermen a little easier in what are extremely difficult times. I hope this will be the first of many meetings we will have with the SFPA and perhaps with other organisations. A massive gap needs to be bridged between the man or woman on the ground and the SFPA. This is obvious to the whole country and perhaps the whole world.

I welcome Mr. Hayes and his colleagues. I also welcome this opportunity to ask some questions regarding Mr. Hayes's appointment and the policy changes that appear to be on the way in the authority since his appointment and since he began to discharge his duties in his new role as chair and sole director of the critically important SFPA. This occurred in circumstances where the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 stipulates that there should be three such directors. Many of my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Hayes personally and wishing him and the SFPA every success in discharging such a critical role. It is undertaking this role in circumstances in which the future sustainability of the important resource we have in the seas surrounding our small island nation must surely be achieved in conjunction with ensuring the viability, sustainability and socio-economic health of our widely scattered and often remote and island-based coastal communities. The people most intimately connected with the living resources of our seas must be entitled to derive the greatest economic benefit from these resources.

I have 15 minutes and my colleagues also need a chance to contribute, so many of my questions require a simple yes-no response, while other questions require answers lasting no more than a minute. I would appreciate if Mr. Hayes would stick to that time because I have many questions. When a senior position is filled in the SFPA, the announcement is made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine. Was this the case with Mr. Hayes’s appointment? This question requires only a yes-no answer.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Yes. The appointment was under the-----

A yes-no answer will do fine.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

-----Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, which sets out the process for the appointment. Appointments are made by the Minister in accordance with that legislation.

Thank you. The "Yes" was perfect. When the SFPA takes the owner of a fishing vessel to court, it is represented by two senior civil servants. Am I right in saying this? These are Cecil Beamish and Josephine Kelly from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Has this been the case during the last five years? Again, I ask Mr. Hayes for a yes-no answer.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

No.

Okay. If it was the case, how could the SFPA declare itself to be acting as an independent body?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The answer to the initial question was "No". The SFPA is independent in the performance of its duties. The two officials the Deputy named work for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and have no function in regard to the SFPA.

Have they represented the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in any cases?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The Deputy would have to ask them that. I do not know the answer. Well, I do know the answer, actually. I know they have represented the Department, but certainly not the SFPA.

Will Mr. Hayes outline the official working relationship between the SFPA and the Department?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The SFPA is an agency that is independent in the performance of its duties. Its role is set out by this House under the 2006 Act. Our funding comes through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine via its Vote, which is allocated by this House. The Department has responsibility for the corporate governance of the organisation, but that is the only role the Department has. I will check with my colleague to see if there is any other aspect.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has set out a code of practice for the governance of State agencies. There is an arrangement in the shape of a performance contract between the Department and SFPA, as set out under that code of practice for the corporate governance of State agencies.

I thank Mr. O'Mahony. The last time we had witnesses here from the SFPA, the then chair, Dr. Susan Steele - who has since moved to a different job and we wish her the best with that - claimed there was a good working relationship between the SFPA and the industry and its representatives. This committee, however, has been strongly advised that this is not the case. I ask Mr. Hayes to inform us of which organisation or organisations from the following list of representative groups the SFPA has a good relationship with: the Irish Fish Producers Association, IFPA; the Irish Fish Producers Organisation, IFPO; the IFSA; the ISWFPO; the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, ISEFPO; the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, KPO; the Islands-----

Is this question on the topic for discussion?

I am leading into another question. I refer to any fisheries co-operative nationwide.

The topic we are discussing today is the weighing of fish.

I am coming on to that. It is my next question.

In fairness, to ask the chair of the SFPA if he has a good working relationship with an organisation is not a fair question.

Yes, but this is something the organisations are concerned with. The SFPA has consistently stated that it wishes to work with the organisations. I could be wrong here and perhaps it has a great relationship with all the representative organisations. We certainly need to know, however, if there is a better relationship with one above another, because that is not what is being said out there.

No, no, no, Deputy Collins. I rule out this line of questioning.

Okay. Throughout the Killybegs blue whiting controversy, the SFPA has publicly insisted that it has continually offered the option to the vessels landing that they could use the pelagic flow scales. This, however, was done without specifying that the SFPA was ordering that this state-of-the-art system, which was declared suitable by the High Court as being fit for purpose, must have the element of water removed from the system, thereby ensuring this option was just a different method of dewatering or dry-landing the fish. This would make those fish of no use for processing for human consumption. Will Mr. Hayes share his thoughts in this regard?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

On the pier-side weighing device, we have got to distinguish between the 19 landings out of 20 and the one landing out of 20. The obligation is to control and supervise one landing out of 20 to enable the other 19 to be brought to the factories and weighed or weighed on the pier-side weighing device, which is owned by the industry. Therefore, there is an option to weigh the 19 out of 20 in the factories or on the pier-side weighing device.

On the one in 20 whose weighing we need to supervise, there are currently two options open to a master landing in Killybegs. One is to pump the fish from the vessel into the pier-side weighing machine and then place them in a tanker that has been pre-filled with water and weighed on the weighbridge. Following the placement of the fish in the tanker, the tanker is brought back to the weighbridge and weighed again. One weight is subtracted from the other and the result is the weight of the fish in the tanker. The second option open to the master or operator is to discharge into an empty tanker that is the pre-weighed. The fish are pumped into it with the water they were originally in. It is up to the operator to take off as much water as deemed possible without interfering with the quality of the fish. The weight is then determined on the weighbridge, and that is recorded as the official weight of the fish.

Under whose instruction is the SFPA employing methods of monitoring and regulation that are not being used anywhere else in the EU? Are such decisions taken by Mr. Hayes or by the SFPA management board? Are the instructions handed down from above?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

As I said in my opening statement, the default position on fish landing is that the fish are weighed at the point of landing. Ireland has some unique aspects, particularly in respect of the way bulk pelagic fish are landed, but I will let my colleague, Mr. O'Mahony, deal with the general landing conditions, the position on the regulation and the difference in Ireland.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The instructions are set out in the EU regulations. The SFPA is the regulator and implements the regulations. The regulations come to us from the legislators, including the Houses of the Oireachtas, and we implement them. As Mr. Hayes said, the default position, the starting point or the baseline of the regulations is such that the fish are weighed immediately on landing. There are potential derogations whereby weighing can take place after landing but authority in this regard is not delegated to the SFPA or any authority in any member state; it requires approval by the European Commission.

I thank the witnesses. What is Mr. Hayes's opinion on the introduction of remote electronic monitoring and the deployment of remote cameras?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

This is a matter in the policy sphere at the moment. It is not contained in any regulation and, as a sea-fisheries protection authority, we do not comment on matters of policy.

Could Mr. Hayes give his opinion on how the technology is not deemed sufficient for control purposes in a factory setting?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Dr. O'Mahony will address that.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The tool is a control tool that adds some assurances. For example, it manages the risk of fish being put over the weighbridge without the flow belt even being turned on. It manages the risk if we can see the flow belt moving and the clock clocking up. However, there are risks that the tool does not manage, such as that of the flow belt under-weighing, whereby a kilogram does not come up as a kilogram. The tool affords some assurances but, as with all controls tools, it does not provide assurance in the order of 100%. The tools help but are not in themselves a 100% solution.

Should Mr. Hayes, as a sole member of the board of the SFPA, support stakeholders in their view that commercially sensitive information coming into the hands of the authority should and must not be shared public other than in accordance with the law?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I would agree.

Are the data held by the SFPA not subject to the laws on the confidentiality of data and data protection of both Ireland and the EU?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

They are. Could I clarify which data the Deputy is referring to?

Various data that come before the SFPA. Are they protected such that they do not get out to the general public?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I may be wrongly construing something but if the Deputy is referring to CCTV data, we do not hold those.

Could Mr. Hayes inform the committee about his appointment as head of the SFPA, having previously worked in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, to replace the outgoing Dr. Susan Steele, who sat on the interview panel? How many more candidates were interviewed?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I do not have that information but I am not sure that the Chair would consider it-----

It is not the subject that we are dealing with now.

I have asked enough questions for now.

I welcome our guests. My background is not in fishing, nor is it my area of expertise in Leinster House, but I realise this issue is causing serious reputational damage and a loss of jobs in my community in Donegal. It could have widespread implications in other areas. The opening statement referred to a campaign of disinformation or misinformation regarding the SFPA and the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol. Since we are talking about Article 61(1), what is the status of the North regarding Regulation No. 1224/2009?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I hope I can answer the Deputy's question. The status of Northern Ireland, in respect of which I presume we are talking about Article 61-----

No, the whole regulation. I am interested, in particular, in the scope of the regulation. Does it apply to the north of Ireland?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Parts of the regulation apply to the north of Ireland?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

An annex to the Northern Ireland protocol has a long list of regulations that apply and that Northern Ireland implements.

The Northern Ireland protocol designates Derry as a port for landing and so on. What part of the regulation applies? It seems to apply only to member states.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Yes, it explicitly applies to member states. The Northern Ireland protocol does not designate any port; it does not get into that level of detail.

It applies to member states of the EU. Does that include the north of Ireland?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Yes.

It comes fully under the regulation. Therefore, the north of Ireland is a member state, as defined under this regulation.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Essentially, yes.

“Essentially yes” or “Yes”?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

There are connotations to that. For the purpose of today's discussion on fish-weighing, the answer is “Yes” without any qualifier.

What is the competent authority in the North?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

My understanding is that the competency is allocated to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.

So, just as the SFPA is overseeing the weighing of fish in Killybegs, it has responsibility under the regulation to make sure that-----

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I cannot speak with any authority about the delegation of authority-----

Does the SFPA have the authority in the North?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

No.

Mr. O’Mahony stated fish can be purchased from the North by a processor in Killybegs or elsewhere.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Yes.

Must they be weighed first in the North, be it in Derry or wherever they come in?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Yes.

Who is responsible for ensuring they are weighed?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The operators weigh the fish. Responsibility for the accuracy of weighing rests with the operators.

What authority ensures that is happening?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The competent authority for fishery control in Northern Ireland, which I believe is the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

So when the Ingrid Majala came into Derry because it was prevented from coming into Killybegs and being able to offload its fish in a manner where it would still be of a standard where it was suitable for human consumption, was the fish weighed in Derry?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Number one, that is a particular case. I must take issue when the Deputy said it was not allowed to come into Killybegs because-----

I qualified that; in a manner that would allow for the fish to be available for human consumption.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I take issue with that.

And I take issue with the fact that Mr. Hayes takes issue with it but to return to the point, was the fish weighed in Derry?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

We are now speaking about a specific case.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I would be more comfortable talking about the generality but the Deputy is asking me about a specific case.

Do processors purchase fish? Is this routine, where a processor would purchase fish that had landed in Derry in the past?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

It is not abnormal.

It is not abnormal. Okay. How does the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority ensure that the regulations which have nothing to do with it, because the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in the North is supposed to do this and the SFPA is not concerned whether fish is being landed in France, Spain or wherever because the SFPA has its job to do in the jurisdiction in which it is the competent authority. How is the authority able to ensure that all the landings that happen in Derry and that are purchased by processors in Killybegs are weighed in Derry?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

They should be weighed in Derry.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

They should be weighed where they land. If they are landed outside of the jurisdiction then they should be weighed there.

How is the SFPA notified of whether they are weighed? Or is it notified?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

An explicit notification of whether they are weighed does not come to us. But it is a moot point because they cannot be weighed in Ireland.

They cannot be weighed in Ireland.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

They have to be weighed before they get here.

Yes but they can be bought by Irish processors.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

They most certainly can.

Okay. If there have been 100 landings since the start of the year, how does the SFPA satisfy itself that all the landings have been weighed in the port in which it was landed originally?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The controls in the port in which they land are a matter for the port authorities of that jurisdiction.

But the SFPA decides then, because the SFPA decided in a case, which is a unique case, to strip away the weighing licence of two operators. This was because, what, loads of publicity because RTÉ was showing up what was happening in this dispute?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Absolutely not.

Has it happened in any other case where fish have come into the port of Derry and been purchased by processors in the Twenty-Six Counties?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Fish being landed to Derry and purchased by processors in the Twenty-Six Counties can happened legitimately provided it has been weighed in Derry and the weight obtained in Derry, if we are picking that example-----

That is the question. We know that. The question is how does the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority satisfy itself whether that is happening or not? It went out of its way in some way to find out that it did not happen. I am not suggesting that it did not happen but the SFPA obviously assumed that it did not happen because as a result of that, it took the weighing licences off two operators in Killybegs.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We are seriously straying into an area in which we are not comfortable. We are talking about two particular cases here. We are talking about two particular cases where it is likely that files will be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We would prefer not to talk about individual cases.

Okay. On the procedure, the officials have mentioned that it is common for fish to be landed in a jurisdiction and then to be purchased by operators. Basically, the SFPA has intruded in another jurisdiction. Will the witnesses convince the committee that what the SFPA has done is not vindictive as a result of the controversy that is going on in Killybegs, which is very serious? I respect the officials' point about straying into individual issues but there are many individuals who lost their jobs and did not have employment as a result of the decisions that are being taken. Many companies are in serious jeopardy, have big loans and are wondering, because of the reputational damage that has happened. What are the procedures for the SFPA? Will the witnesses convince the committee that what happened with this landing was not vindictive? What are the procedures to look at all the landings that have happened in the past because my information is that the procedure that the authority followed here was never used in the past?

We will not accuse them of being vindictive. We will ask them-----

I am not accusing them of being vindictive. I am asking them to convince the committee that this was not vindictive. That is my point.

I have no problem with the Deputy asking the officials to go through the procedures-----

That is fair enough.

-----but not the Deputy's implication that it is vindictive. The Deputy is perfectly entitled to go through the procedures as to what procedures operated in the Northern Ireland port.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

This is about sustainability of fish stocks at the end of the day. It is about making sure that there is an accurate account of the fish that are being killed and landed. We have many fish stocks off the coast of Ireland. Each of those stocks is assessed by scientists and a calculation is done to figure out how much of that stock can safely be taken out and landed -----

With respect, I am not questioning that. I agree 100% and the fishermen that I speak to also agree because the preservation and management of those fish stocks is their livelihood. The question I asked is in relation to procedures around landing in Derry. What are the procedures for notification? How has the SFPA identified whether weighing has taken place or not? What are the procedures that alert the SFPA to decide to follow up action in relation to processors which may have purchased fish shore-landed outside the jurisdiction?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Sure. We will get that in a second but if I can just finish the point about sustainability. If the fish is not accurately counted and if the stock is overfished then it is not just the Deputy's constituents that he is talking about at the moment-----

Nobody is disputing that. With respect-----

Mr. Paschal Hayes

-----it is for many years into the future. It has already happened with some fish stocks off our north-west coast. If there is not an accurate count of the fish, whether they are being landed in Ireland or in Northern Ireland-----

We all want an accurate count. Will Mr. Hayes please talk to me about the procedure? Take the context as read. I want an accurate count. I want the SFPA to do its job to make sure that it is an accurate count. Take that as read. I am asking about procedures and then I will come to the weighing mechanisms in Killybegs.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Okay. We are speaking to the generality of fish landings in Northern Ireland and our procedures regarding our controls if that fish were to arrive back in Killybegs, yes?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We have roles there. The Northern Ireland authorities have roles as the port state. The flag state, that is, the state that has given the fishing vessel licence to kill those fish, has roles. There was a flag state here and a port state here, that was Northern Ireland. We have roles in our jurisdiction for being responsible for controlling the first purchaser of those fish. We carry out checks of the data provided to us by the first purchaser. I will not speak to individual scenarios but it is likely that in the event of the transporter being present in Ireland, then we have a role as the member state responsible for controlling the transporter. So both the transporter and the first purchaser are obliged to make declarations to us. We assess those declarations to assess whether the fish have been weighed in accordance with the weigh regulations and to assess their declarations, which are obliged to be the same as the weigh records. We have to assess the accuracy of the declarations in both of those instances. We make checks to ensure the accuracy to the best of our ability from the data available to us. Those are the procedures.

Will the officials inform the committee of the landings and how that procedure was applied right throughout the last year perhaps, to ensure that it was not just a one-off?

I want to go into the options and what is at the nub of this to complete my questioning. In his opening statement, Mr. Hayes mentioned that the High Court has deemed the industry weighing system as operational or as fine. Is it the case that the lack of ability to use it as a mechanism to weigh blue whiting and other fish is because it is industry-owned? Is that the core of the issue?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

To be clear, what the High Court has said is that there is no reason that we cannot permit that weighing device. That weighing device has been permitted and is available for use for the 95%, that is, 19 out of every 20 landings that come into Killybegs if the operator chooses to use it.

But we are talking about the 5% here. If properly calibrated independently, can that weighing machine be used if we got over the anomaly of it being industry-owned?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The control plan says that weighing must be conducted on a device that is non-industry owned, non-industry operated such as a weighbridge.

The industry has made an offer to the SFPA that it will purchase it or gift it to the SFPA, is that correct?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

It is sort of correct. It is not fully correct. My understanding of what happened there was that there was a lot of interaction with the industry on the lead up to the control plan being agreed last December.

On 9 December, in the lead up to the control plan being agreed last December, there was a meeting between the industry and the SFPA where it was pointed out that one of the conditions that the Commission was insisting on was that the weighing device would be non-industry owned and non-industry operated. On 4 February, there was a further meeting with the catching side of the industry where options for the ownership model of the weighing device were discussion. On 11 February, there was a follow-up meeting, from the catching side of the industry, with a lease proposal in terms of leasing the machine. On 21 February, there was a further meeting with the processing side of the sector where they informed the SFPA that the catching side of the sector had no authority to enter into any lease arrangement, and that any such offer was withdrawn.

I thank Mr. Hayes for the timeline.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

At all points in the process the SFPA made it clear that to be compliant with the control plan the 5% controlled weighing on landing had to be carried out on a non-industry owned and non-industry operated device such as a weighbridge.

I am fully aware of that. If the industry was willing to either lease, sell or gift the machinery, notwithstanding the complexities that have been outlined, would the SFPA be able to operate that and, therefore, allow for that 5% to be weighed using that mechanism on the pier?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The Deputy might have noticed that I said in my opening statement that we do not weigh fish. We supervise the weighing of fish.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

So we are not interested in leasing or owning a weighing device. Our role is to supervise the weighing of fish.

To save jobs, help the industry and make sure that vessels do not turn away from Ireland, would the SFPA consider the option as a compromise? If the Department or a charity owned it would the SFPA be happy then to have it calibrated and use that as an option? There are two options. Would the SFPA be willing to use that as an option if it was not industry owned?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

In one of our many meetings with the industry I asked people if they wanted to make proposals along those lines. They undertook to make some proposals and I still await those proposals. I cannot enter into any commitment until we see what is suggested in this here, keeping in mind that what the control plan states is a non-industry owned and non-industry operated weighing device such as a weighbridge.

The European Commission, in its recent statistics, rated Ireland as the most compliant member state in the EU in terms of fishery regulations. Does the SFPA agree with that rating? Is it correct?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I am not aware to what the Deputy refers.

I repeat that the European Commission has stated Ireland is the most compliant member of the EU in terms of fishery regulations.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

From what is the Deputy quoting?

I refer to the Commission's recent statistics. Are the witnesses not aware of this fact?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

No, Deputy.

So the SFPA is not aware that Ireland is the most compliant member state in the EU in terms of fishery regulation. Is that what Mr. Hayes is saying on the record?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I have not seen the publication.

I did not ask about that. Can the SFPA confirm whether Ireland is the most compliant in the EU? Surely the SFPA must know that.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I am not sure what metrics were used to measure and without knowing the metrics-----

So the answer then is that Mr. Hayes does not know.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The answer is that I do not know.

That comment is on the record now.

My next questions concern CCTV. I have witnessed the following with my own eyes in terms of a factory in Killybegs. I understand that there are ten CCTV cameras in one factory that are accessible to the SFPA officials at all times. It means that they can sit in their office in Killybegs and in real time monitor the weighing and the operations that take place within the factory. Is that correct?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

It is a condition of the permitting.

Am I correct? It is a "Yes" or "No" answer.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I do not know what plant the Deputy is talking about. I do not know how many cameras are in that particular plant. What I do know is that there is a condition in the permits for the processors in Killybegs that they must deploy CCTV to monitor the flow-scales, and the cameras must be left on for the duration of the permitting.

So the authority has access through CCTV to at least one factory in Killybegs for these purposes. Mr. Hayes said that in his opening statement.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Yes, Deputy.

Can the SFPA make unannounced inspections in any relevant factory in Killybegs?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Yes, Deputy.

Is Mr. Hayes aware of anywhere else in the European Union where a fish processor has CCTV cameras in place that are monitored by the regulator and the recording is stored for around 30 days? Is there any other EU member state that has such a provision in place?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

To be clear, Deputy, we need to back up a little bit here.

Please answer my question first.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I am going to answer. We need to go back to April 2021 when the Commission revoked the control plan that we had in place because of serious reservations about the misrecording of fish, particularly with bulk pelagic landings.

We are short on time so I ask Mr. Hayes to answer my question, please.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I am answering if the Deputy could give me a chance.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We came to look at a new control plan at the end of 2021. One of the conditions that the Commission attached to that, in light of its concerns, was how the permitting was to be done and the conditions. That situation arose from concerns-----

I did not ask that question. I asked Mr. Hayes if he was aware of a fish processing factory in any other EU member state that has that provision applied to it by the regulator. Is that the case anywhere else in the Europe? If Mr. Hayes does not know then he can just say that he does not know.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We do not know for sure, Deputy. We cannot speak for control authorities in other member states.

I will recap. First, I understand that the European Commission stated that Ireland was the most compliant State in all of the EU in terms of regulation. Second, Ireland has a level of oversight that is unprecedented anywhere else in the EU. Mr. Hayes does not know if that is true but I believe it to be the case. I have outlined the level of oversight to which the industry is subjected yet we face the following debacle. The SFPA is in negotiations with the industry on the pier side flow-scale system and if these negotiations or agreements break down, then the matter goes to the High Court. On 4 June 2021, Mr. Justice Garrett Simons in the High Court ruled:

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority has acted ultra vires by continuing to withhold approval for the pier-side weighing facility at Killybegs Port by reference to the “ownership” concerns raised by the European Commission. There is no legal basis for these concerns and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority has not sought to argue otherwise.

It is almost a year since the ruling was made. That was surely an instruction at that time for the SFPA to regularise the situation and ensure the calibration, and certification, of said weighing system. Does Mr. Hayes accept that the failure of the SFPA to do that has created the difficulties in which we find ourselves?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We have not failed to do that, Deputy. That machine is certified.

Deputy Pádraig MacLochlainn

Has the SFPA taken control of the system?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

What did the judgment say about taking control?

Has the SFPA taken control of the system? Has the SFPA done the natural thing?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

No, Deputy. We do not weigh fish and the judgment did not say-----

Prior to the judgment did the SFPA convey any concerns in that the problem was that this was not in the control of an independent body? Was that the SFPA's concern prior to the High Court decision?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I think that the Deputy might have confused two different issues, from my understanding. Certainly, I was not on the job at the time.

I will ask my question again. Did the SFPA articulate, prior this matter, unfortunately, going to the High Court, that the difficulty was that the matter was in the control of the industry? These were the concerns of the SFPA before the case went to the High Court. Is that correct?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Yes, but the case went to the High Court. There was a judgment that said there was no reason for us not to certify the machine. The machine was examined, was certified and can be used for weighing fish for the 95%.

In the opening statement, the witnesses refer to their frustrations about the length of time this took to address. Would they agree it is peculiar the European Commission had not articulated any issue with an industry-owned system, but suddenly it had an issue? Is it peculiar to it the witnesses that the Commission had an issue after the High Court decision? The correspondence from the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, to the European Commission assures it that it is not industry-owned, but it did not raise concerns prior to this High Court case. Is that peculiar to the witnesses? Where did this come from? This requirement for a weighing system that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority negotiated does not exist in any other member state of the European Union. Is it not peculiar that the concerns of the European Commission suddenly align themselves with the authority's concerns?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The Deputy is referring to the court's June 2021 decision.

I will summarise it. My understanding is the witnesses' objection is that this weighing system is owned by the industry. It went to court and the judge made a clear decision that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, is acting ultra vires in how it is dealing with this. Suddenly, the European Commission started to share the authority's concerns. It has been said publicly in many forums that the industry wants this to be taken away from its control and it is happy for it to be controlled independently. I think we would all want that. Why was that not addressed? Why is there another barrier to resolving the problems at Killybegs? Why was that not implemented? It is a damning decision by the judge against the SFPA acting ultra vires, which is very serious. The SFPA has not sought to regularise it, take control of the weighing system, and demonstrate clearly to all concerned parties that it is an independent system. It could demonstrate it is the best regulator in Europe and good at its job, so there is nothing for the European Commission to worry about. It could have CCTV cameras and unannounced inspections, with a level of oversight that is unprecedented in any other industry in Ireland or throughout Europe. That is the level of oversight it has obtained and all it needs to do is to make sure the weighing system is outside the control of the industry. Why did it not resolve those issues rather than having more barriers appear?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

There are a few things in what the Deputy said. He said the industry wants the chance for ownership of the pier-side weighing device. That is not how we left it with the industry. As I said at the meeting on 21 February, the owners of the machines said they were not prepared to enter into a lease arrangement. We have not heard anything different in the meantime. The Deputy read out the judgment from the High Court case. It was not the court's view that the SFPA or any other State body should take ownership of the pier-side weighing device. It was the court's view that we were acting ultra vires by not permitting the pier-side weighing device. It was subsequently permitted and we were in full compliance with the judgment of the court.

I have here a copy of correspondence sent to Mr. Hayes on 5 May from the SFPA consultative committee, which exists under the same legislation as the SFPA. It has grave concerns about how this has been handled and the lack of consultation with it. It asks, if the ownership of the flow scales on the pier in Killybegs is transferred to systems not operated or owned by the industry, whether the SFPA can meet the requirements of the interim control plan. In all my talks and discussions with the industry, as is my responsibility as a Deputy for Donegal and Sinn Féin spokesperson on fisheries, it has been made clear to me that it does not want to have ownership of this weighing system. It wants a solution. I will put this to Mr. Hayes and Dr. O'Mahony. What industry in this country would allow round-the-clock CCTV monitoring of its workers and operation by a regulator? It is agreeing to and has accepted that level of oversight. This is not an industry that is resisting co-operation. It allows a level of oversight that is unprecedented in the European Union. It is saying to take possession of the weighing system and the pier since it does not need to be industry-owned. Will that finally address any concerns about oversight?

I have no tolerance for illegal fishing or for an unsustainable approach to our fisheries. It is a precious resource and I think the SFPA does an important job. I think it does it well and so does the European Union. I understand that the compliance level in Ireland is 98%. We are not a rogue state or the Wild West. We are compliant with regulations and the SFPA does its job well. Can we come to a point where we solve the issue in Killybegs and address the concerns of the European Commission in a sensible way? The SFPA has an incredible level of oversight in Killybegs, which the industry accepts and was needed to deal with the concerns about illegal practices that may have taken place in the past. In 2022, the SFPA's level of oversight in Killybegs is incredible. Why can it not take possession or find some way for those scales to go into independent possession to address everybody's concerns? Will the witnesses get to the crux of that issue?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

There were initiatives relating to a lease proposal on 11 February. They were followed up at a meeting on 21 February with a certain position that the owners of the scales were not prepared to transfer them and the people who suggested that they be leased or transferred did not have the authority to do so. I ask the director of transformation to address the consultative committee.

Ms Olive Loughnane

I have responsibility for the relationship with the consultative committee. We recognise the value of that relationship. It is important for ensuring consumers across the world can have confidence in the provenance of Irish fish. It is important because while there will always be friction between the industry that is regulated and the regulator, we need to work together to find solutions that benefit everyone, that benefit Ireland Inc., and that benefit coastal communities around the country. The Deputy spoke about transfer of ownership. Following up from that February meeting, at a subsequent meeting with the consultative committee, we invited it to make a proposal about ownership. We are still waiting for that proposal.

Fair enough. I am happy to give way.

Senator Lombard will take the Chair since I have another engagement. I will call Deputies Pringle and Sherlock.

I am conscious that I am not a member of the committee. I am happy to come in last.

No other member is looking to speak.

I thank the Chair.

Senator Tim Lombard took the Chair.

I thank the representatives for their presentation. A couple of things arise from their presentation and what has happened at the committee meeting. I welcome that they withdrew the last paragraph. The second paragraph of section 4 states:

Several instances of weigh-unit manipulation resulted in temporary revocation of permits until necessary enhancements were made, including one subsequent conviction. In no case of manipulation was there any particular deviation between the declarations of masters, purchasers or weighers.

Is it not the case that the weight of what was landed would be based on what was weighed at the factory in that case?

Is that not calling into question people who should not be called into question?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We are saying if there was manipulation in one case, we expect the tallies of the other two operators involved would not match and different weights would be recorded by them. What happened-----

Would it not be based on the figures recorded by the factory? The landing figures are based on the figures the factory records, when the weigh-in takes place in the factory.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

They are obliged by law to match under Article 60(5) of the regulation, which states that weight "shall be used".

That is grand. The representatives go on to state there is a risk of non-compliance with the audit form and that the SFPA was not sufficiently robust either. What was the fault of the SFPA in that regard?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

What paragraph is the Deputy referencing?

It is paragraph four of section 4 of the opening statement.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

This relates to an audit of control of pelagic landings in 2018. Various concerns arose from that. As we highlighted in the statement, the overall concern was that our controls were not sufficiently managing the risks of under-declaration in those pelagic landings.

On the basis of that audit, the SFPA was not doing its job properly.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Our job is control. Compliance is not ours to give but the industry's. Compliance arises from the actions of industry and not from the SFPA. Our job is to have a control system that minimises those risks. We had an array of controls, highlighted by Deputy Mac Lochlainn, including, for example, CCTVs and other significant controls. The view of the auditors was there needed to be more.

As I said, the SFPA was not doing its job properly.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

We were doing a difficult and comprehensive job. The view of that audit was more needed to be done in order to manage the risk of pelagic under-declarations.

Grand. On the 5% of bulk pelagic landings or 7.5% of fish quantity that is required to be weighed - I presume it is 5% of landings - if that 5% has been reached, is that the end of SFPA inspections? Does it weigh 10%, 20% or 30% of landings?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The control plan, which builds upon the regulations, sets that out as a minimum for full inspections. That is certainly not the totality of our inspections. Again, I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for referring to the broad array of controls we have in place. In effect, 5% is still just 5%. There is no point on having an entire focus on 5% of landings. If 19 or 20 landings are going up the road to be weighed, we need to be there also.

I understand that, but once the SFPA has reached the 5% that has to be weighed on the pier, the requirement has been met.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

That is the benchmark reached but it does not mean we will not be inspecting more than that. Our inspections are risk based but to comply with the control plan and to unlock the weighing of 95% of the fish in the factory, it is required that 5% is weighed on the pier side on supervised landing.

In some circumstances, could 20% be weighed on the pier side?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

It would be unlikely it would ever reach 20%, but it is possible.

Could it be 10%?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

It is unlikely. I do not have data in front of me, but I can tell the Deputy it is unlikely we would ever go very far beyond 5%.

Is 5% only a guideline and not a figure the SFPA wants to achieve?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The figure of 5% is set out in the control plan. That is a pivot or reference to Article 107 of Regulation No. 404/2011, where 5% and 7.5% were established.

If at the end of every year, 100,000 tonnes of pelagic has been landed and the SFPA has checked 5,000 tonnes of that, it is in compliance as far as-----

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

If the Deputy is referring to tonnes, it is 7,500.

It is 7,500 tonnes. I was asking about 7.5% of the landings-----

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

This is a part of our overall controls.

If the quota is 100,000 tonnes, and at the end of the year the SFPA has checked 7,500 tonnes of it, it is happy enough with that.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

It is a portion of the landings and not the quota.

If there are 1,000 landings, the SFPA has to collect 7.5%.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

It is 5% of the landings and 7.5% of the fish. To be clear, it is each species within that.

Okay. It is clear as mud.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Maybe some numbers would help. In general terms, there are 600 pelagic landings and 5% of 600 is 30. I trust that is helpful. In general terms, it is approximately 80,000 tonnes of pelagic fish and it is 7.5% of that figure. I cannot do the sums in my head.

It is probably about 6,000 tonnes.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We keep harping back to it, but we need to keep in mind the bigger picture that this is about the sustainability of fish stocks into the future. Whether it is 5%, 6% or 7%, it is still about making sure that too much fish is not taken out of the sea so that resource is there perpetually for future generations. Our job is to make sure the operators are weighing those fish accurately for that very reason.

I am aware of that. On weighing scales on the pier, the representatives stated they had heard nothing back from the industry on offering ownership of that and so on. Does the SFPA take a view on who the owners should be? If the industry came back and said it wanted Joe Bloggs to operate this machine, will the SFPA accept Joe Bloggs will do it or does it say he is too close to the industry? If he is based in Killybegs, is that a problem? Should he be based in Donegal town, Dunglow or Galway? What are the requirements for the person who would be the operator of the scales?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I do not want to get into the parameters that might or might not work. When I answered the other Deputies' questions, I emphasised the control plan states, "such as a weighbridge". A flow scale is a long way from a weighbridge.

The phrase "such as a weighbridge" does not mean it has to be a weighbridge.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I agree, but there are other parameters to be taken into account. We have asked the industry to put proposals forward and we will examine them, but I am not giving any further guarantees regarding that. When we see the proposals, I have undertaken we will look afresh at them. I would not like to give the impression it is as simple as transferring the owner from A to B.

The SFPA has to see what comes from the industry, if anything does.

On the landings, one of the problems in Killybegs is that blue whiting going for human consumption requires different handling than if it is going for fishmeal and so on. It makes a big difference to the crews as regards wages because blue whiting for human consumption is of significantly greater value when it goes to the factories. The view of the fishing industry is that weighing a full vessel of blue whiting does not prevent it going for human consumption. The SFPA may argue it does or does not; that is a moot point. The way it works at present is it goes for fishmeal, which has a major impact on the incomes of the crew of the boat and on the workers in the factories in respect of whether there is work available or not. There is something wrong with the way blue whiting is worked. Is it the view of the representatives that blue whiting will work through the scales on the pier? If that is not possible, why not? Could the 5% be checked on every vessel rather than picking one vessel out of 20 on which to do that check?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

There is certainly a debate about quality, which I will ask Mr. O'Mahony to address in a minute. Our view is that one of the options available in Killybegs at present would very accurately weigh the fish without affecting the quality.

We have regular interactions with the industry. One such interaction related to one part of the industry that was willing to use the pierside device in the context of the first option, as I outlined in my opening statement, namely, pumping the fish into the pierside weighing device, putting the fish into a pre-weighed, pre-watered tanker, bringing it to the weighbridge, weighing it again and subtracting one figure from the other, which will show the weight of the fish. The man in question wanted to put two stipulations on that. First, he wanted to switch on the weighing facility on the pierside device, which I agreed to on the basis that the official weight would be the one obtained on the weighbridge. The other would certainly be a good reference but could not be used as the official weight. Second, he wanted to photograph the fish to see whether there was any damage to it. The agreement was that would be done. I do not know why it was never done, but it is a pity it was not because it would have given us much more information about how that scales would operate and whether the fish would be damaged. Furthermore, if there were damage as shown by the photographs, it would show what modifications could made to the scales to minimise or eliminate that damage. Perhaps Mr. O'Mahony will talk about preserving the quality of the fish.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Sure. I might first speak to the final part of the question, which, as I understand it, related to whether we could deal with some of all the landings rather than with all of some of the landings.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The answer is "No". The regulation is worded such that 5% of landings, plural, means we have to conduct these types of controls on all of some of the landings. It is not sufficient to do it on some of all the landings. The control panel refers directly to inspections according to Article 107 being done in this way. Because it pivots back to Article 107, the answer to the Deputy's question, in the context of the regulations that the Legislature, including the Oireachtas, has given to us to implement, is "No".

Where would we have to go to change those regulations?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

It is an EU regulation.

So it would be the Commission.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

There are different EU legislation formation processes.

The Commission makes the laws.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

There is an entire EU Legislature, so I think the Deputy's point might be a bit simplistic, in fairness.

I would not think so and we can argue about that, but that is a different matter.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I might speak to the question on quality, if the Deputy would like. Several members of the committee attended both of our most recent appearances before the committee, which we were happy to make, in 2021, when there was no control plan in place. Under no circumstances has the SFPA ever disputed the view that there could be a negative impact on quality arising from weighing. We have never gone there and that is manifest in our pursuit of, initially, the 2012 control plan and then the 2021 interim control plan. We went after those plans to address potential quality concerns. We see the benefit of allowing weighing to take place after transport.

I might approach the Deputy's question in two ways, namely, in the context of both the numerical concept and the practicality thereof. Numerically, we have a requirement to weigh 5% of 600 landings in a certain way, and that 5% figure is what is in contention here. We genuinely accept that there is a significant challenge in meeting the weighing accuracy and the quality and maintenance obligations of fishermen when they are conducting those 5% weighings. We do not deny that. As Mr. Hayes pointed out, we have offered the option that we believe best manages those weighings and it has not been taken up. We point out the context of any detrimental impact on quality in the overall context of 100% of landings and the alternative to 100% of landings. Five per cent of 600 landings is a much smaller figure than 100% of 40,000 landings.

Yes, but it makes a big difference to a crew member doing it on the boat.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

There is the issue of blue whiting, and it is true that there are four different species. Blue whiting would be reasonably described as a soft fish, and it is different from both horse mackerel and boarfish. They are different creatures, for sure. It would be useful to describe the totality of the food chain for the committee. Once these fish have been trawled at sea, the net is pulled up alongside the vessel and the fish are pumped on board using a high-pressure, high-volume pump-----

I apologise for interrupting but I have time for only one final, brief question. Mr. O'Mahony might have a chance to finish his point in a moment. If the factories were based on the pier in Killybegs, would we still have this problem?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

That is a difficult question to answer. It might be a short question but it is difficult to answer. For sure, in other jurisdictions where bulk pelagics are landed and where the factories are based on the piers, different arrangements are in place that are certainly not as complicated as those in Killybegs.

The answer, basically, is "No". I thank Mr. Hayes.

I am glad to have the opportunity to attend this meeting. I am trying to get a deeper understanding of the culture and the dynamics that exist between fishing communities and our guests' good selves in the SFPA. What I have seen so far, and I think they would objectively agree, is that a tension exists, and I use the word "tension" advisedly. I need to have a better understanding of the governance arrangements and the statutory functions of the SFPA in respect of its relationship with, in the first instance, the community as represented by fishers and processors, and also in regard to this consultative committee.

My understanding is that Mr. Hayes is the executive chairperson. He is the boss, as it were, to use a colloquial expression. Is that the case?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I am the executive chairman. The structure that is set out under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 is such that the SFPA comprises at least one and up to three members. From among those members, the Minister selects a chairperson and that is me. As it happens, I am also the only member, as we speak today.

Mr. Hayes is, de facto, the boss.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

There are a lot of people who might think they are the boss. I am the executive chairperson, which-----

It is a serious question and I will explain why that is. In the brief time I have been allocated, I am trying to get some clear understanding of the dynamics that inform the organisation. Is Mr. Hayes the boss or not?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The executive chairperson is the equivalent of a CEO. Before we move off this topic-----

That explains it. Bear with me-----

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Can I just say-----

I beg the Acting Chairman's protection. I am going to be very respectful and ask for brevity in the answers. That is all I ask for - I say that with the utmost respect - because I want to cover as much ground as possible. Mr. Hayes is the boss and the de facto CEO. That is what we understand, in business parlance, an executive chairman to be.

Very briefly, will Mr. Hayes explain what a notice to weigh on landing is? I will defer to him on this.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I will defer to my colleague on that, but what I was saying in regard to the question the Deputy asked earlier is that I would characterise the relationship as one with a healthy friction between a regulator and a regulated industry.

Okay. That is fine.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Under the Article 61(1) control plan regime, the normal expectation of fishermen rocking up to a pier in Ireland is that they are going to send their fish to a permitted establishment. That is a reasonable expectation. In the case of pelagic fish, we are obliged to weigh 5% in a certain way before transport so it is a completely different paradigm for that landing. The notice to weigh says that your landing has been selected as one of that 5%. This means that even though you had expected to be weighing up the road, you are weighing right here right now today. The important part of it is the weight before transport, which is the weight that counts for the declarations that Deputy Pringle referred to earlier.

Mr. Hayes referred to a meeting that took place on 4 February. Was the issue of notices to weigh on landing discussed at that meeting? If it was discussed, was an agreement reached in regard to the terms of the notices to weigh on landing? Was that agreed at that meeting on 4 February? This is a yes-no question. We do not need a long context.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Sorry, but it is not a yes-no answer. At that meeting, a number of things were discussed. Following that meeting, the industry was given three options to weigh on landing at Killybegs. One of them included use of the pier-side weighing device for the controlled landing. However, and this is why it is not a yes-no answer, the ownership model of the pier-side weighing device was also discussed at the same meeting. The three options were given on the basis that the ownership model would be addressed going forward. What happened after that was the ownership model was not addressed going forward. We found ourselves in a position where we were non-compliant with the control plan and on 6 March we withdrew the option to use the pier-side weighing device for the 5% of weighing.

Is it possible, within reason, to characterise how the industry would have perceived the outcome of that meeting on 4 February? Could the industry have perceived that there was some degree of agreement in regard to the issue of the notices to weigh on landing?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I referred to this in my opening statement. It is regrettable that there was confusion. From my information on the 4 February meeting, which I did not attend, it was made clear to the industry that compliance with the control plan meant that the 5% had to be done on a non-industry-owned, non-industry-operated weighing device. The options were given on the basis that the ownership model was going to change to be compliant with the control plan. That did not happen.

What was the process by which the notices to weigh on landing were withdrawn? Did Mr. Hayes say this was done on 6 March?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Does the Deputy mean the third option? I outlined this for Deputy Mac Lochlainn earlier. There was a subsequent meeting on 11 February when a lease proposal was put forward by the sector. The owners of the machine attended a meeting on 21 February and said that this was not going to happen and that there was not going to be a lease agreement. In other words, the transfer model was not going to change at that stage. From 21 February to 6 March, we were looking at what we could do in those circumstances. The option that was not compliant with the control plan was withdrawn on 6 March.

We all start from the vantage point that Ms Loughnane outlined earlier - we all value the industry and want to see a sustainable industry. That is built into the thinking of all of us who have an interest in the sustainability of the industry, including processors, fishers and those with other vantage points. I am trying to understand the dynamics in respect of the consultative committee. I understand Mr. Hayes attended the meeting on 4 March. Would there have been an opportunity at that meeting to further discuss the issues around the notice to weigh on landing? I do not have a masters degree in fisheries policy, and I am not being facetious when I say that. Many of us are on a steep learning curve. If there is a consultative committee, you would hope the culture of that committee would be such that you would all move together in lockstep and the consultative committee would be the mechanism through which you would work through or triage all of these issues. The perception I have is that the industry feels it is on the back foot now. This is the perception, rightly or wrongly. It feels it is being put upon. As a layman in this respect, I fail to understand why the industry would have ownership of a device that is the subject of a regulatory process. I ask Mr. Hayes to forgive me if it is a stupid question, but I am not afraid to ask a stupid question. Why would it be the industry? If you are regulating the industry, why would the industry own the device or the machine?

Mr. Hayes outlined options for us. I am still trying to understand fully the differences between options 1 and 2. I have been doing some searching and made some notes. Is there are a danger on option 1 that you are asking an operator to make a false declaration of their landings? Water will potentially be recorded as fish and not as water. I am operating from the notes I was jotting down and I could be wrong. I ask Mr. Hayes to forgive me if I am way off the mark. On option 2, it seems to me - again, I could be wrong so he can disavow me of my ignorance if necessary - that the operator can drain as much water from the fish he or she chooses but only 2% of the final weight can get recorded as water. Am I understanding that correctly? Does this not run contrary to the whole issue of sustainability and preserving the fish? If only 2% of the final weight can be recorded as water, what permutation does that have for the quality of the fish in situ while the fish are going through this process? We are in Kafkaesque territory if we have reached a point on this lovely island of ours where we are talking about such options. I really want to understand option 2, in particular. I am worried that under option 2, the quality of the fish could become severely diminished. The sustainability question then comes in. The quality question also comes in, as does the value question that we are all concerned about. Mr. Hayes does not have to tell me I am ignorant if it is an ignorant question, but he can educate me. I am happy to be educated.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I will start with the Deputy's correct statement that we all have an interest in sustainability. I think he left himself out of that. Legislators have a big role in sustainability. As a regulator, the SFPA does the bidding of the legislators. Legislators have a huge role in regard to sustainability going forward.

I will turn to the options that are available. The Deputy is dead right when he says that there is 2% allowed for water but in fact that means the water gets weighed as fish. That is not the ideal situation. It is up to the operator to let as much water as he feels he can out of that tank. He dewaters to the extent that he feels is possible without affecting the quality of the fish. We would say that is the least favourable option but it is an option that is available to the operator if he wishes. We would say that option 1 is preferable.

Does that tick the box for the SFPA in terms of DG-MARE?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

It is in compliance with the control plan. I will turn now to option 1.

I am not sure where in option 1 Deputy Sherlock is suggesting there could be a false declaration. The system is-----

Sorry, I meant to refer to the inadvertent making of a false direction. Is that a possibility? I am not saying-----

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I will go through the option again. Let us say half the truck is filled with chilled water, the truck is brought across the weighbridge and a weight is recorded. The truck then backs up to the pier-side device, the fish are added to the tanker and the tanker drives off to the weighbridge where it is weighed again. One weight is then deducted from the other, giving a very accurate weight of the fish.

Does that not require placing an onus on the vessel to have ice or storage facilities on board that are fit for purpose so as not to compromise the quality of the fish? Is that not placing an additional burden on the vessel thereafter or does this happen so quickly that there is no such compromising of the quality of the fish?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

This gets a little complicated. I will ask my colleague, Mr. O'Mahony, to go through the process of how the tankers would do this.

Is this not all very surreal? Does Mr. Hayes not sometimes ask how we got to the stage in fisheries policy where we are talking about taking fish off a vessel, putting it into another tank, and then taking that tank and putting it back into the vessel again?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

No, we are not talking about-----

On a human level, is that not a bit surreal?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We are not talking about doing that at all. My colleague will go through it in a minute. The reason we got to this point was to ensure the accuracy of the weighing so that we can sustain the stocks going forward and the Deputy’s grandchildren and great grandchildren have fish-----

Please do not patronise me, Sir.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

-----and my grandchildren as well, which is probably more important to me.

Mr. Hayes does not need to tell me about my role here. Mr. O'Mahony might explain. We are trying to get it effectively explained for the punter who is watching these proceedings.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I will answer the question about surrealism. No, this is not surreal. It is not rocket science; it is about weighing fish and figuring out how much fish are landed. It should not be rocket science. The fact that we are having a discussion about it is not surreal. This is the backbone of fishery control. The whole point of giving a quantitative, capped amount of fish that fishermen can catch is that it needs a backbone. This is about giving that backbone. There is nothing surreal about that.

I am not sure where the confusion is in option 1, but it is option 1 because it is our recommended option. We believe it will give a very accurate weight and absolute control over quality. There is no limit to the amount of water one could have. The big issue with option 1 is that the water is weighed and is in the tanker before the fish arrive in the tanker. Let us say there are 10 tonnes of water in the tanker. The tanker then comes to the pier-side device, which has been built as a weighing system. It has active de-watering, by which I mean the fish are tumbled between conveyor belts and a huge fan blows the water off them. The conveyer belt has a grid on it so the water can fall through it. Essentially, the fish will be without water for the few seconds that they are going over the conveyer belt. The fish then go into the pre-charged tanker. The only addition to the tanker from its first weighing is fish. That tanker goes over the weighbridge, the first weight is subtracted and a further 2% is taken off that figure to account for any residual water that might be in the gills of the fish, or anything like that. That gives an accurate weight of fish.

The Deputy asked if we are creating an onus. The answer is "No". The first tanker comes pre-charged and the second tanker can get its water from the water that was with the first tanker’s fish. It can be diverted one way and then the other.

The other question was whether we are creating an onus on the vessels. No, the vessels have their refrigerated sea water and refrigerated systems. They have refrigerated sea water.

We need to contextualise this. This is 5% and it is a way of unlocking almost 100% weighing at the factory. That is what we are getting to here.

I appreciate that.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I hope option 1 is now a bit clearer for the Deputy.

I request that we suspend for 15 minutes for a vote in the Dáil. There will be another vote shortly thereafter.

Sitting suspended at 7.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.44 p.m.

I thank our guests for their contributions and responses. Landings at Killybegs have been paused because the season has ended, probably until November or thereabouts, so there is time to resolve the issue between the SFPA and the fishing industry. What does the authority envisage doing over the coming months to resolve the issue once and for all?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Landings at Killybegs may have finished but they continue elsewhere throughout the country, so-----

Pelagic landings have more or less finished, however.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

That is correct, and of course there will be whitefish landings at Killybegs. We should keep in mind that, throughout the period, Killybegs kept going and there were always many landings into the harbour. There are 20,000 landings from large vessels in the country every year, and if smaller vessels are counted, there are 40,000 landings. There are still landings of whitefish into Greencastle and crab into Rathmullen, for example. In Deputy Michael Collins's area, potters land crab and lobster into Schull. All along the coast, landings continue. One important issue we did not touch on in the previous session is that if this control plan is lost, we will be back to the situation we faced last year between April and December, whereby every fish on the quayside will have to be weighed.

The Commission has approved the control plan to the end of this year.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The Commission has extended it to the end of this year and, indeed, we have submitted a further control plan, which might be called the permanent control plan and on which we will engage with it over the coming months. We have had one meeting with the Commission so far.

My question is what will be done to resolve the issue with the fishing industry, such as the processors and boats in Killybegs.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

As it stands, the control plan that has been extended until the end of December is the interim control plan and contains the exact same conditions that were in place between 1 January and 30 April. That includes the weighing of 5% of landings on a non-industry owned or operated device such as a weighbridge, as well as all the other conditions it contains relating to permitting and cameras, which Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned.

As we said earlier, we are certainly happy to discuss options with the sector. We need to be conscious of our role as a regulator. It is a healthy friction with us as the regulator. It is not something on which we can reach a consensus as such-----

It sounds as though the SFPA has gone as far as it is going to go and has finished with it now.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I would not say that. I acknowledge that at least one of the suggestions that came forward from the sector in regard to trialling the first option, as I outlined, which relates to using the pier-side weighing device, recording the weights on the device if desired and photographing it, was a useful option from the point of view of the sector and from our point of view in order that we could see exactly what was happening. I would certainly be interested in reviving that.

At a meeting on 16 March, we asked the sector to come forward with any proposals and no proposals have yet arisen from that. We are not sure at this stage whether, as some committee members suggested, there is a willingness to transfer the ownership. If that is the case, to whom will it transfer and will it be adequate to meet the conditions of the control plan? There are areas we can explore, but if there were an easy solution to this, we would have found it.

As it stands, the SFPA is waiting for the industry to revert with a response before it will hold any further meetings on the issue. Is that the case?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Yes, but I am open to meeting anybody who wants to meet about this.

I certainly acknowledge the efforts made by the Deputy over the past number of weeks to try to find a solution to this.

That does not really matter. What is going to happen over the next period? In respect of the final control plan that has gone to the Commission, if we or the industry decide on something or something workable comes out of this committee talking to the SFPA, it is the Commission or the European structures that will make the decision as to whether it will be acceptable.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I get uncomfortable when people talk about the SFPA negotiating with the industry.

Forget about the SFPA negotiating. If we decide something is a feasible and workable solution, it is the Commission or the European structures that must decide whether it is acceptable.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The competence rests with the Commission.

That is all I want to know.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

To be clear on that, we have submitted a draft control plan to the Commission and have had a meeting to discuss it. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Commission is dealing with a new control regulation. It is in trilogues so its resources are tied up in that. As soon as it can, it will sit down with us again and discuss that. I really do not know what will be the shape of the permanent control plan that comes out of the Commission.

The SFPA will only implement what the Commission tells it to do.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We make suggestions, the Commission gives us feedback and, hopefully, we end up with a control plan at the end of it. The alternative is no control plan, which we all know is not an alternative. We will certainly work hard to get there but I cannot say what the shape of the control plan will be at this stage.

I will be brief because I asked a lot of questions earlier. As Deputy Pringle noted, there is a bit of time to resolve this if there is to be any hope for the future of many fishermen. There are talks about transfer of ownership. The SFPA is waiting for the sector to come back to it about that and it is a possibility. Mr. Hayes said that if there is a solution, the SFPA would have found it. To me, though, making fishmeal out of fish is not an easy solution. It is no solution at all and a disastrous situation that all concerned find themselves in. I hope we will have regular meetings here over the next few months to see how we can find a solution.

A fisherman rang me today. Fishermen are talking about tie-up schemes and decommissioning. They want to get out. Is that what the Department, the Government or the country wants? I certainly do not see that because there is massive potential in the waters south-west of where I live and throughout our country. It is sad that fishing is almost at an end. For some reason, we seem to be continuously destroying this industry. Regardless of whoever is driving the rules, be it the Government or the SFPA, they do not seem to be the same as the rules that apply throughout Europe. We find ourselves in a dire situation and a solution needs to be found before we face wipe-out. On our part, we will try to make sure every option is afforded. I sincerely hope the Minister and Department will do the same. I ask the SFPA to find a solution and work with the sector to make sure the solution suits everybody.

Fishermen ask me when decommissioning will start. It is sad to think they cannot get a straight answer. It is unfortunate they are looking for decommissioning as a way out but that is what they are facing. I presume Mr. Hayes has no answer on when decommissioning will start.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I presume the Deputy's comments concern pelagic landings in Killybegs.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I again stress that the control plan stays in place for all the other landings. The ridiculous situation that pertained in Union Hall last summer where fish had to be weighed on the quayside and then brought 500 m to the factory up the road will not happen this year because the control plan stays in place. Regarding the dire situation, I will point out that Killybegs continued to operate through this period and there were many landings in Killybegs throughout the pelagic season this year. I can give the Deputy statistics about them if he wishes.

Regarding fishmeal, the Deputy is right to point out that a lot more blue whiting has gone for human consumption this year and last year. In years past, the bulk of blue whiting used to go for fishmeal. It is welcome to see value being added to this fish and that it is going for human consumption rather than fishmeal. With regard to landings of blue whiting, the catch of 19 out of 20 vessels that land there goes straight to the factory for weighing so the Deputy must take this into account when he describes the situation as dire. The catch of only one out of 20 vessels has to be supervised and weighed on the pier side. What the sector has chosen to do in respect of blue whiting since the requirement came in and the two options became available was divert all the landings that we declared controlled landings into fishmeal. It has taken that option rather than using either of the two options for pier side weighing and having this fish used for human consumption. I hope we can avoid this situation going forward because the more of this fish that is used for human consumption, the better. Deputy Pringle referred to the extra value to the fishermen if it goes into human consumption. I agree with that. It is much better to see it going for human consumption than for fishmeal. Decommissioning is a question for the Minister. It is not something we would comment on given the role of the SFPA.

Deputy Pearse Doherty asked about the approach taken to landings in the North. There is no control plan with the North of Ireland or Great Britain but very substantial numbers of landings have come through the North over the years. My understanding is that since 1983, there have been around 5,000 per annum. The SFPA has been in existence since 2006. How many licences for permits for weighing landings that came through the North has it removed during this period?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

There is nothing wrong with landings coming through the North.

That is not the question I asked. I asked how many times the SFPA has withdrawn the permit from an operator for landings that came through the North. The SFPA has been in existence since 2006.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

There is nothing wrong with landings coming through the North. We are quite happy to see landings coming through the North. Such landings are weighed on landing in Northern Ireland and that then is the weight that must be used for everything from then on, including sales notes, transport documentation, etc. There is nothing wrong with those landings.

Does Mr. Hayes not understand why it is difficult for this committee to comprehend why after all those years when landings through the North were taking place - thousands every year since 1983 while the SFPA has been existence as a regulator since 2006 - it is only now in this high-profile scenario where processors have challenged the SFPA that the SFPA is ruling on permits. Perhaps it has happened before. If it has happened before, that is fine. Mr. Hayes should just let me know.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I do not want to stray into operational matters here but we must look at all landings in the future or the past. Obviously, data would have been available to us in the past. I will leave it at that.

It is very peculiar. I am sure Mr. Hayes will accept that this committee finds it peculiar that it is only now that a weighing permit is being removed.

Thousands of landings are happening every year, and as Deputy Doherty confirmed, the Department in the North is responsible for doing that anyway. I will leave it at that.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I am not sure if it would help and I am sure the Deputy will cut me off if it does not, but I can speak to the reciprocal of his question.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Since the coming into effect of the control plan in 2012, we have had several cases of the opposite, with operators landing at a port in Ireland, including Dunmore East and Killybegs, and they were going to a Northern Ireland processing facility. They were not minded to be weighing in Ireland but we made it very clear they need to weigh in Ireland. We enforced weighing in Ireland on those landings for the same reason, which is that there was no common control programme in place. It is a reciprocal answer to the Deputy's question.

Okay. I understand the authority uses terminology in correspondence with companies including "outside Ireland". Does Mr. O'Mahony find it regrettable that the authority describes Derry as "outside Ireland"?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We are not going to talk about those particular cases.

In general is it regrettable to say Derry is "outside Ireland"?

Stick to the topic please.

I am sticking to it. It is the weighing issue and it is connected to it. Is it regrettable that an agency-----

It is outside the jurisdiction of where we are going, in fairness.

How is it? It is connected to the topic completely. It is directly connected to the weighing controversy in Killybegs.

That is a guesstimate.

It is totally connected.

I disagree. Please ask the next question.

I must accept the Vice Chairman's ruling but the question was not answered anyway. My next question relates to the weighing system on the pier at Killybegs. I have said, and all the public representatives understand, that the industry is very eager to hand this to non-industry control in order to address concerns. Will the witnesses define what is "non-industry control" in this respect? What does it look like?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I have said in that regard that we have asked the industry to bring forward its submission in how it would see this operating. We will look at that.

Okay. Will Mr. Hayes define "non-industry control"? Would it involve a charity or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine? What is non-industry control?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

This machine is in the ownership of the sector. It is up to them to bring forward a proposal on it.

Yes, but will Mr. Hayes define "non-industry"? I think "non-industry" in this case would be an independent or community organisation in Killybegs or the Department. Is that agreeable to the authority?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I want to make this clear. I made this clear with one of the other Deputies - not Deputy Mac Lochlainn - that this is not as simple as transferring ownership and there is more to this. I do not want Deputies going away from this meeting thinking the simple solution to this is to transfer ownership. We have said we will look at it in the round when the proposal comes from the sector.

Mr. Hayes cannot define what is "non-industry".

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We will look at the proposal when it comes from the sector.

The European Commission has indicated, resulting from its negotiations with the authority, which were peculiar, that it wants this to be "non-industry" but what is that?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

It stated in the control plan that it should be a non-industry owned and non-industry operated weighing device, such as a weighbridge. We must be satisfied by that and we are sort of splitting hairs where we are now. We must be satisfied as a regulator that we can use whatever device we can or feel is appropriate to conduct our controlled landings, which are 5% of the total. We must be cognisant that the Commission must also agree that. There is not much point in us reaching a benchmark of 5%, only for the Commission to say it does not believe we reached that.

It strikes me as a weighing system that a High Court judge has said should be brought into being and I do not believe you can get a better system than that. The issue is putting it into the control of somebody who is not part of the industry. In my simple brain, it seems quite straightforward to resolve if the authority has the will to do so. I hope it does because we should not be here today. It is terrible we all must be here today.

The final area I want to probe is risk analysis and what is available to the authority. There is the electronic fishing log and it was said earlier that the European Commission's view is that Ireland is the most compliant state in Europe in respect of regulations. That would make the authority the strongest regulator. There are electronic fishing logbooks, vessel monitoring systems, VMS, data, the dipping of refrigerated seawater, RSW, tanks and overt surveillance of vessels landing. All this is required for the authority to fulfil its task. There is covert surveillance and it can carry out joint operations with the Garda and Revenue Commissioners. I understand there can be phone surveillance as part of joint operations, if required. Will the witnesses confirm it has all those powers, either solely or jointly with the Garda or the Revenue Commissioners?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The powers available to us are the powers that this Oireachtas have given to us. They are set out in sections 17 and 18 of the Act. They include some but not all of what the Deputy mentioned.

I am not asking the witnesses if the authority has done so but if it was felt to be necessary, can the authority do joint operations with the Garda and Revenue Commissioners in respect of phone surveillance? Could it carry out covert surveillance? Is that in the authority's power when done jointly with An Garda Síochána and the Revenue Commissioners?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

I am not aware of any legal provisions for that.

Is Mr. O'Mahony saying the authority would never have used covert surveillance of phones or phone tapping in co-operation with the Garda?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

The Deputy is using a broad phase in "covert surveillance" and then go to a narrow phrase of "phone tapping".

What is the point of this?

This relates to the SFPA's responsibilities and powers. What I am trying to demonstrate through my questions is that it has very significant powers-----

Would the Deputy consider asking what powers it has?

I have asked the witnesses to spell that out. I have said that I understand the authority has the ability to carry out covert surveillance. There is clearly much overt surveillance, which I mentioned and which the witnesses can confirm. The authority also uses covert surveillance. It really has huge power.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

Sorry Deputy, the powers we have are enshrined in the legislation the Oireachtas gives us. The bulk of that is in sections 17 and 18 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. There is no mention whatsoever, to my knowledge, of-----

The authority does not have the power to use covert surveillance jointly with other agencies.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

"Covert" is a much broader term than "phone tapping", in fairness. We look at VMS data so the fisherman is not aware we are looking at those, for example. I am not sure if that fits the Deputy's criteria of "covert".

The answer is "No" and the authority has never availed-----

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The answer is that the powers are set out in the legislation these Houses have put in place.

I am asking if those powers include joint covert surveillance with An Garda Síochána and the Revenue Commissioners. If it is in law, surely I can be told?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony

We conduct joint operations with the Garda. They involve us standing on the side of a road stopping trucks with gardaí. Representatives of the Revenue Commissioners may be present but it is more likely to involve people from the Department of Social Protection if the truck has people who may be at risk of conducting revenue fraud. If there is a truck full of fish, we look at the fish. That is an example of a joint operation between the Gardaí and other Departments.

The authority has really significant powers and has attained oversight of the factories with CCTV to an unprecedented level that does not exist anywhere in Europe. It is seen as the strongest regulator in Europe. However, we cannot get a solution to what is going on at Killybegs that is acceptable to the authority. It has the highest reputation in Europe as regulators and it is seen as the strongest regulator in the industry but cannot get agreement from Europe.

I appreciate the patience shown by everybody but we should sort this out. The authority must do its job and ensure there is no illegal fishing. It has an array of serious powers and it has achieved a serious level of oversight unprecedented in Europe. Surely we can sort this out and get to a point where we can allow the industry to survive while the authority does its important job. That is all I am asking.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I am glad the Deputy acknowledges the job we do but we must all keep in mind that is a job as a regulator and there are parameters within which we must work. We are willing to discuss with anybody how we can advance that, keeping in mind we have legislation from the Oireachtas as the Irish Legislature and EU regulations that it insists we implement. We must keep those functions and matters in mind when we arrive at a regulatory regime to underpin sustainability and authenticity while preventing food fraud, to be quite straight, within the Irish seafood sector and the food sector generally.

I have a few minor questions to which the witnesses might be able to respond. Mr. Hayes mentioned in his previous statements that the permanent control plan is being worked on at present and that the SFPA is in initial if not deep negotiations with the Commission on it. Will he elaborate on the timelines and when the authority proposes to have the control plan brought forward? What changes is the SFPA looking at, compared with the current control plan, to have an indication as to when the new control plan will come in and what the new regime will be?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The interim control plan, as we said earlier, has been extended until 31 December. While that gives us a window to enter discussions with the Commission, we do not want to get right up to the end of that window and, perhaps, be stuck with no control plan in place again for a period. We want to move straight from one into another. I am only guessing now, but we hope to have the control plan in place in the third or fourth quarter of this year, but not right up against 31 December, which is essentially what happened last year. The plan was agreed right at the death of the year and came into being on 1 January. It presented the SFPA with the enormous problem of permitting those factories Deputy Mac Lochlainn talked about and a whole pile of work to do.

As for the contents of the plan, I would prefer to wait until we are at a more advanced stage with the Commission, to be fair to it. I do not think it would be-----

At some stage, though, the SFPA will come back to the committee with details of the plan.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I am happy to do that when we reach agreement with the Commission, if that is what the committee would like. To be fair to the Commission, however, it would not be appropriate to have that negotiation in a public forum.

I appreciate that.

Will Mr. Hayes talk me through option 1 in his presentation? There is obviously an issue I just do not get as to why option 1 was not picked up. Can he explain to the layperson exactly where option 1 is, why it was not picked up and why it was not implemented?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I can certainly have a go at the first part of the Vice Chairman's question but, like him, I am puzzled as to why it was not picked up and acted on. The bigger picture is as I outlined earlier, that is, that we have a number of fish stocks off our coast. We are lucky to have the richest fishing grounds in Europe. Those stocks are assessed scientifically to establish what the outtake from them can be. That sets a limit and feeds into the quota management, which is the business of the Minister. Quotas are distributed and vessels go out to fish. That is where the SFPA comes into this. Vessels go out, they fish those stocks, they land and we meet them at the quayside. Nineteen out of 20 of them will go to the factories and will weigh what they have there. I am talking about bulk pelagic fisheries now: mackerel, horse mackerel, herring and blue whiting. Nineteen out of 20 will go straight to the factory because we have a control plan in place that allows for weighing in the factory. On the basis of those 19 landings going to the factory, one out of 20 has to be weighed under our supervision at the pierside. Those fish are transported in bulk tanks containing refrigerated seawater that is chilled down to preserve the quality of the fish. The vessel pulls up to the quayside and those fish get pumped into the pierside device, which is, to all intents and purposes - I am sure Deputy Mac Lochlainn has seen it - a hopper and a conveyor belt system that carries the fish up the conveyor. As he pointed out, there is a facility to weigh on it, a continuous belt weigher. In option 1 we do not use that weighing facility; we just use the conveyor portion of it to convey the fish into a tanker that is waiting under that machine and that has been pre-charged with refrigerated water and weighed on a weighbridge, so we have a weight for the tanker and the water. The fish is added and the tanker with the water and the fish goes back over the weighbridge again. It is weighed again. One weight is subtracted from the other to give a very accurate weight for the fish. The fish then go to the factory for processing.

Does that affect the quality?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Our view is that it has minimal if any effect on the quality but, as I said in reply to Deputy Pringle earlier, the proposal that the industry had for trialling this would certainly be very interesting from our point of view and from the industry's point of view, and I am at a loss as to why, when the sector agreed to do that trial, it never happened afterwards.

The other option was weighing on the pier itself, was it not?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The other option is that the fish do not go into the pierside device at all but get pumped directly from the vessel into a waiting tanker that is empty, but we know the weight of the tanker that has been weighed.

That does have an impact on quality.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

No, that probably does not have an impact on quality either. As my colleague outlined, some fish are more robust than others in these circumstances. Water and fish are pumped into the tanker, the tanker goes to the weighbridge and the operator removes as much water as he or she wants to remove, while keeping in mind preserving the quality of the fish. Then it is weighed on the weighbridge and the weight of everything in the tank is recorded as fish, and therein lies the issue.

Option 1 was the best of all the options.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Yes, because the issue with option 2 is that fish and water are weighed together. No matter how much water is let off, keeping in mind that the quality must be preserved, one will still be weighing fish and water.

I do not want to get into specifics, but in the permanent control plan some thought will be put into how the SFPA will deal with this issue. Is that fair?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

That is fair. I cannot say-----

I understand.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

-----that we will crack this nut, but certainly we have proposals in the draft control plan-----

Was thought ever given to the idea that the Department should have an input into and a stake in how fish should be weighed, whether with industry-owned machinery or otherwise? Were there ever talks on that?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

To be clear on that, the regulation states that the weighing has to be carried out by the operator, so our role is to supervise that weighing, but the weighing is the responsibility of the operator.

I appreciate that-----

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The Department does have a role in what we do at present because it owns the weighbridge we use. Other than that, however, there is really no role for the Department in that in 19 out of 20 cases the fish are weighed in the factory on a continuous belt in any case. One out of 20 has to be weighed under our supervision, and the options available under the current control plan are options 1 and 2, as outlined in my opening statement.

Mr. Hayes used a phrase in one of his contributions that suggested there is a healthy friction between the SFPA and the fishing industry. What was that phrase? He had some-----

Mr. Paschal Hayes

I would describe it as healthy friction. Maybe I would be better off letting my colleague, the director of transformation, deal with this, but I think there will always be that situation where there is a regulator with a role and the industry that it is regulating-----

How would Mr. Hayes classify the SFPA's relationship with the Department? Does it involve a healthy friction as well?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

We have a working relationship with the Department. The Department and the Minister depend on us for figures relating to landings, as we are talking about here, and for many statistics relating to fisheries. We have a working relationship. I would not say there is friction in that relationship.

Mr. Hayes will forgive my lack of understanding, but he might explain to me the SFPA's board or its set-up. It does not physically have a board, does it? How does it constitute itself?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

The Act sets out the structure, which is an authority of at least one and at most three who are appointed by the Minister. From within that authority one member is appointed as chair of the authority.

At present how many are appointed?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Just me.

What was the membership over previous years? Was it more than one?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Yes. It was at the full three. There is a process under way to recruit to the two vacancies. I hope that that happens as soon as possible-----

I bet Mr. Hayes does.

Mr. Paschal Hayes

-----but I certainly expect that in the coming months we will be back up to the full complement.

Do you want my colleague to-----

Ms Olive Loughnane

In terms of the relationship with the consultative committee, we have described it as one where there is a healthy friction but that is not to say that we do not work collaboratively, where possible. We are the regulator so there is an onus on us to regulate and implement the laws of these Houses. We have co-operated on the development of a code of conduct for vessel owners. I have actively engaged with the committee on the development of key performance indicators and there is some really good expertise on the committee. We have worked with the committee to provide extensive information on Brexit, and that predates my time to a large extent.

It is important to state that consultation happens in many forms. While the committee is one vehicle for consultation, section 48 of the Act states that we can work with the consultative committee or by other means. It is important to acknowledge the role played by people right across the organisation, including sea fisheries protection officers who engage with fishermen on piers and those who do things like canvassing the opinions and expertise of industry members on the development of new technology. We value this input as it allows us to be more effective and efficient in terms of carrying out our mandate, and ultimately securing the sustainability of the industry for future generations.

My final questions are on the authority's role as the regulator. I am familiar with the work of other regulators in other streams. The digital regulator, Ms Helen Dixon, has had a very competitive role with the Department of Social Protection on certain issues. Has the authority, in its role as regulator, ever had to take on the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with regard to certain issues? Is the authority's role as regulator about regulating the activities of the fishing industry, rather than the Department as it works within its remit?

Mr. Paschal Hayes

Yes, it is about regulating the fishing industry. There is provision in the Act, as provided by these Houses, for us to make suggestions on policy matters to the Minister. Our job is to regulate the fishing sector and the seafood sector. In my opening statement, I outlined all of our roles as a regulator, but they face towards the sector.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions at this very long session. I thank members present in the room and those who joined us online. At the next meeting of this committee, which will take place on Wednesday, 25 May at 5.30 p.m., we will hear from officials from the Department of Rural and Community Affairs and Bord na gCon. The first session will be on the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 and the Control of Dogs Act 1986. The second session will be on the priorities regarding Bord na gCon.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.24 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 May 2022.
Top
Share