I welcome Mr. Peter Whelan, chairman, and Mr. Andrew Kinneen and Mr. Micheál O'Mahony, board members, from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. Before Mr. Whelan commences his presentation, I wish to draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in any such way as to make him or her identifiable.
Fishing Industry: Discussion with Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.
Mr. Peter Whelan
I thank the Chairman for inviting the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, to come before the committee. I will begin by briefly outlining the role of the SFPA.
The SFPA has two primary functions. The first of these relates to sea fisheries conservation and the second to seafood safety. Our role in both areas is to secure compliance with Irish legislation which gives effect to the European Union Common Fisheries Policy and food hygiene regulations, respectively. To this end, the SFPA has manned offices at six major ports and at its headquarters at Clonakilty. The SFPA provides services from these offices on a 24-7 basis. It also provides services at 40 secondary ports where regular landings of fish take place and at 80 additional places where occasional landings occur. In addition, the SFPA monitors the production of fishery products and shellfish at various seafood processing establishments and shellfish production areas throughout the country.
The authority currently employs 51 sea fishery protection officers, SFPOs, at the port offices to which I refer. These are supported by 19 SFPOs who are based at our headquarters in Clonakilty. These sea-fisheries protection officers all have professional backgrounds in maritime and food affairs. Following recruitment, staff members are given specific induction training prior to receiving legal authorisation.
The European Commission evaluates the systems of control in place in each member state by conducting announced and unannounced missions to member states. Ireland's sea fisheries control regime has come under close scrutiny by the Commission in recent years. Several missions were undertaken by the Commission in Ireland each year since 2001 to assess compliance with our obligations as a member state under the Common Fisheries Policy. The mission reports received prior to the establishment of the SFPA indicated that Ireland's system of fishery control was deficient in several areas. Such was the concern at the deficiencies recorded that the Commission decided to take proceedings against Ireland in the European Court of Justice and, in November 2004, a judgment against Ireland was issued. The court declared:
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations as follows:
Failing to comply with community rules on conservation;
Inadequate monitoring of fishing activity;
Failure to ensure appropriate inspection of landings;
Failure to record catches, inspections and other controls;
Failure to put in place criteria and detailed rules for the use of fishing quota;
Failure to prohibit fishing in excess of quota; and
Failure to initiate administrative and criminal proceedings.
A letter of formal notice was received by Ireland in March 2005 which stated, "...the commission is of the opinion that the control system in Ireland is insufficient and allows uncontrolled landings and serious and repeated non-compliance with the provisions on recording of catches...".
Following this and based on the Commission's opinion of insufficient progress on remedying these deficiencies, a reasoned opinion was made against Ireland in July 2006. Procedurally, a reasoned opinion is the final step before penalties are imposed against a member state for non-compliance with Community obligations. The French Government had been fined €20 million for non-compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy and €58 million for every six months in which its fisheries control regime was deemed to be inadequate. Ireland formally undertook to address the deficiencies identified in our system of fisheries control and reported to the Commission in 2007 improvements made to our legislative arrangements, the establishment of the SFPA; the Farrelly report reviewing the fishery control regime in Ireland and the Cawley report setting out a strategy for a restructured, sustainable and profitable Irish seafood industry.
Ireland's seafood safety controls have also been the subject of scrutiny and overt criticism arising from audits undertaken by the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office. There have been missions on fishery products, bivalve molluscs in 2001 and 2004, as well as various missions on residues of animal remedies, border inspection posts and animal by-products. The audit findings include: inadequate central support for seafood safety controls; inadequacy of human resources allocated to seafood control; inadequate training of official control staff; poorly documented procedures; inconsistent follow-up of food safety breaches detected by inspectors; legislative breaches detected during on-site visits; the presence of illegal animal remedies; and inadequate structural standards.
A key facet of the Government's strategy for a viable and profitable seafood sector, as outlined in the Cawley report, is adding value to fish harvested from our seas through further processing. Domestic and foreign markets access will need to be developed and maintained for these value-added products. The aquaculture sector will need to face its own sustainability issues and grow its market share. These processes are all significantly underpinned by a robust system of official controls. Analogies are apparent in the worldwide market penetration and consumer confidence enjoyed by Irish meat and dairy products. Domestic food business operators have learned the merits of embracing the highest food safety standards and the marketable credibility of an official control system that stands up to scrutiny.
During 2007 the SFPA and Naval Service conducted a total of 3,614 inspections of fishing vessels, both Irish and non-Irish. Infringements of fisheries regulations by 160 vessel masters, premises owners or individuals were detected by SFPOs during routine inspections. These cases represent a total of 223 infringements of the legislation. Of the 160 cases, 133 constituted serious breaches as defined in the Common Fisheries Policy and national legislation. A total of 75 cases were not considered to warrant prosecution and were dealt with through the issue of a warning notice and no direct penalty was applied. In the remaining 85 cases the offences detected were considered to be of such a serious nature as to warrant detention of the vessel — in 42 cases — and-or the preparation of case files for submission to State prosecution services for consideration.
A significant proportion, 25%, of infringements were based on lack of full disclosure of catch details in the vessel's EU fishing logbook. This included the serious offence of under-recording of catch where the vessel master chose to attempt to hide the true catch figures, in the hope the quantities on board would not be inspected or detected on inspection. The more serious of these infringements were detected on UK and French vessels where quantities of fish in excess of 2 tonnes, hake, and 1 tonne, monkfish, were discovered to be unrecorded. It is apparent that the main driver for non-compliance with fisheries legislation is financial. In the current circumstances where the industry is under increasing economic pressure from diminishing quotas and increasing fuel prices, it is ironic that the presence of unrecorded fish in the marketplace serves to depress the prices paid for fish to the detriment of law-abiding and non-compliant fishermen alike.
Based on surveillance and information received, the SFPA commenced in-depth investigations into a number of serious infringement cases in 2007. To date, the indications are that several hundred tonnes of illegal fish have been landed and, in the case of one species, three times the national annual quota was landed in a two-month period by a small number of fishing vessels. These infringements and investigations serve to illustrate the necessity of the SFPA's role in sea fisheries conservation. The application of the law is done to protect fish stocks and seek to avoid financial penalties being imposed on the State, and thereby the taxpayer, by the European Commission.
Contrary to some recent commentary, SFPOs have full powers to inspect all fishing boats in Irish waters or at Irish ports, regardless of nationality. Foreign vessels are inspected. Our inspections of foreign vessels verify completeness and accuracy of records such as logbooks, the functioning of VMS, as well as compliance with technical measures such as net mesh sizes. The fishing activity of non-Irish fishing vessels within our 200-mile limit is monitored by a combination of maritime air patrols by the Air Corps, the simultaneous deployment of several Naval Service patrol vessels to board these boats, the monitoring of the position signals from these fishing vessels relayed via satellite to the fisheries monitoring centre and by direct inspections of these fishing vessels by the SFPA when they enter Irish ports to land their fish. The efforts of all these agencies are co-ordinated though daily contact and regular meetings between the agencies to ensure the most effective fisheries protection is provided in Irish waters.
The SFPA and the Naval Service carried out a total of 1,348 inspections of non-Irish fishing vessels in 2007. Inspections of non-Irish fishing vessels represented 37% of all inspections carried out by both agencies last year. These inspections resulted in a total of 42 cases being referred for consideration by the Office of the Attorney General, while an additional 23 written formal warnings were issued. The infringements committed by non-Irish fishing vessels included several cases of EU logbooks not completed properly, fish catches being under-recorded or not recorded, non-functioning vessel monitoring system, VMS, units while engaged in fishing, failure to facilitate inspection, no fishing licence on board at time of inspection or where fishing was taking place without the required permit, falsified or concealed fishing vessel identification number, fishing nets with undersized mesh used or fishing gear used in a place where its use was prohibited and the master of the vessel failing to transmit a fishing effort report. These infringements constitute serious breaches of Community fisheries law and are dealt with accordingly under Irish law.
Some 13 of these foreign vessel cases have been heard and have concluded, resulting in a total of €141,500 in fines being imposed on the defendants with associated fish catches and fishing gear to the value of €286,850 being forfeited. These fines and forfeitures are having a dissuasive effect on those non-Irish fishermen determined to circumvent Community fishing rules and reflect well on the efforts made by the Air Corps, the Naval Service and the SFPA to monitor and protect the fisheries within our 200-mile limit on a 24-7 basis. The SFPA recognises Ireland's important position as custodian of some of the largest and richest fishing waters within the European Union.
In a recent audit of a number of member states the Court of Auditors examined what was causing the failure in the management of Community fisheries resources. They concluded there was unreliable catch data, inspections were of limited effectiveness, and systems for following up infringements and imposing sanctions were often inappropriate. All of this happens in a context of overcapacity which jeopardises compliance with the rules.
The Court of Auditors makes numerous recommendations that the political authorities must implement if they wish the Common Fisheries Policy to achieve its objective of sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. The Court of Auditors also emphasises that the over-capacity of the fishing fleet is an incitement to non-compliance with catch limitations and it also affects the quality of the data submitted. The report concludes that the present control, inspection and sanction systems in EU member states must be strengthened considerably and recommendations are made in that regard.
The authority has engaged with the fishing and seafood industry in an open and transparent manner with a view to carrying out its business in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect. This includes the legislatively mandated role of the SFPA consultative committee and extends much wider ongoing access to senior authority staff afforded to the producer organisations. We have met and continue to meet the producer organisations. We are informed by their views and can illustrate their influence on issues such as designation of ports, complaints policy, SFPA code of conduct for our officers and policies on pelagic weighing. The SFPA also provides written information in a user-friendly format on a variety of topics such as lobster fisheries, hail message requirements, logbook completion, bass fishery and landings by third country vessels, and so on.
In summary, the SFPA is an authority established out of the need to improve Ireland's compliance with the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy and food safety legislation. SFPA does not create breaches of the legislation; it detects them and does everything in its power to deter their recurrence. Compliant fishermen and seafood processors have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the work of the SFPA. Since our inception we have conducted our business in an open and transparent way with due regard for the opinion of those we are tasked to regulate. Infringements are detected and dealt with in a proportionate manner, within the powers given to us by the Oireachtas. We respect these powers entrusted to us to ensure the harvesting of food from our seas is carried out in a viable and safe manner. We are confident the control system we are building will stand up to external scrutiny and serves to benefit the greater good of the fishing and seafood industry and wider society. We specifically inform the proportionality of our actions according to the seriousness of breaches detected. We endeavour to treat fishermen and seafood producers with the dignity and professionalism they deserve. We accept that it is natural even for fully compliant operators not to welcome increased regulation of their sector. However there continue to be breaches of sea fisheries and seafood law, and SFPA works towards a day when this will not be the case. Ireland has much to gain from a fully compliant fisheries sector and SFPA will work towards meeting that goal.
I welcome Mr. Whelan and his colleagues from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. I am sure he will not be surprised to hear the committee has received extensive briefing and complaints from people who are at the other end of the industry. Anything said at this meeting is said in a spirit of trying to find the best way to proceed as this is a new agency. Our interest is to ensure the industry is allowed survive and prosper. I do not believe anybody in the committee holds any truck with lawlessness or with undermining of the viability of law-abiding fishermen and our comments are made in that context.
It is important to put the industry in context. In recent days we have seen the militant side of French fishermen blockading French ports. This is symptomatic of the problems faced by the industry and particularly in the context of the significant increase in fuel prices over a 12-month period. I heard an anecdote recently that up to 70% of a good day's catch could be gone on fuel costs and this is a significant factor which is not within the remit of the authority to address other than in its capacity as an organisation which has a legislative role in advising the Minister. I would like to hear the authority's analysis of the economic viability of the industry and in that context, the issue of fuel prices, decommissioning and competition.
There have been allegations of sweetheart deals between President Sarkozy and the French fishermen with up to €120 million being offered. Is this to be regarded as state aid or is it distorting competition? I presume these are issues that fall under the legislative remit of the authority to advise the Minister on the industry.
In the recent past there has been a sea-change in the attitude of the State in terms of policing and this has been since the inception of the authority. The State has changed its method of policing the industry. The authority will understand that the industry is facing challenging times not just because of competition and fuel costs but also because of the new regulatory environment. This is something the authority needs to take into account in terms of its relationship with the industry. The police and the policed must have a working relationship but this is not the feedback we are getting. There is a chasm opening up between the authority and the industry which I am very concerned about. I would like to hear the authority address this issue.
The authority's report is predominantly to do with the raison d’être for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and a report on its activities. I would have preferred to see a report concentrating on the authority’s bridge-building relationships with the fishermen’s organisations and fishermen and an effort to work together to chart a viability plan for the industry in what are very difficult times.
I refer to the information presented to the committee by the authority. I suggest an analysis of the infringements and inspection of 3,614 fishing vessels of which approximately one third — I am generalising here — were foreign boats. Of the 3,614, which is about ten vessels a day, in 85 cases offences detected were considered to be of such a serious nature as to warrant detention of vessels. The number 85 seems to me to be a very low figure in terms of lawlessness. It does not fit the picture that is being painted of an industry that is almost beyond control. The reality seems to be much different in terms of what is borne out by the authority's figures and this needs to be stated repeatedly.
I refer to the recent radio advertisement campaign which gave serious offence to people involved in the industry. I have heard anecdotes of people whose children were being targeted as fishermen's children and regarded therefore as being lawless. We must work collectively to try to ensure that people are not given the wrong impression of the industry. There are serious issues that need to be tackled and they are not all within the remit of the authority to address. However, forging alliances with fishermen is important and will ultimately lead to better compliance with regulations.
I would like more information about the service level agreements with the various agencies, particularly with the Naval Service. I understand that approximately 80% of the catch taken out of Irish waters is taken by foreign boats. There are other issues about boat sizes, capacity and so on, but I note that approximately one third of inspections are of foreign boats. Out of a total of 3,614 inspections 1,348 related to foreign boats. In the context of dealing with quota breaches, when an Irish boat is boarded, because of the way the quota is managed here, that boat's quota for the month will be known immediately. Owing to the way their quotas are managed, I understand the Naval Service will not know whether they are in breach of their quota. I am interested in the observation Mr. Whelan made in page 3 of his presentation regarding French and UK vessels dealing with unrecorded fish. Can the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority police quotas for non-Irish boats in the way it can immediately know whether an Irish boat is in breach of its quota? What is the service level agreement with the Naval Service in terms of policing such a level, 80%, of the catch? Are sufficient Naval Service resources available to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority? Is the authority satisfied or would it like more? What is the Naval Service's capacity to do all the required checks on non-Irish boats?
The legislation provides that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority be a three-person authority. While I know there is also a consultative committee, does that leave it isolated from the industry in many respects? Any good police organisation needs a working relationship with its local community. Could the board be structured better than a three-person authority? As the authority has been in existence for 12 months, do the witnesses have any observations regarding changes that might be necessary?
The presentation focused largely on the level of operation breaches and lawlessness. There is another side to the story that we would like to hear, which is the authority's remit regarding policing of seafood safety. I would also like to know its service level agreements in that regard. Are they with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland? I understand the authority has 51 support-based staff and 19 sea-fisheries protection officers based in Clonakilty. Are they mobile in terms of carrying out spot checks? What is their role relative to other sea-fisheries protection officers who are coastal-based? Is the authority's staff competent in food safety and training? Is that function outsourced to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland?
I apologise for meandering all over the place. Those are my preliminary observations on the matter.
I welcome the gentlemen from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. The high level of enforcement of sea-fisheries legislation is causing hardship among fishermen. Only in the past week I received correspondence from a boat owner in Baltimore who on 1 May was held up from 1 a.m. until 1 p.m. in the port in Baltimore for an inspection by sea-fisheries protection officers. His vessel had been already boarded and inspected by naval officers from the LE Orla only ten hours previous to that. My principal point is about enforcement. Everyone is aware that the legislation is draconian and its enforcement is causing hardship. We understand the spirit in which it was intended.
There is a safety element to begin with. Fishermen are ready to go to their home ports and may be advised to go from Baltimore to Kinsale or Union Hall. On many occasions they need to go a number of hours out of their way to be inspected by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. Given the weather conditions and other circumstances beyond the control of trawler owners, does the excessive emphasis on that type of enforcement not jeopardise safety and create an element of danger?
People are also subjected to extra cost. For example, the incident in Baltimore at the start of May resulted in additional costs of approximately €1,000, as a lorry was required to transfer prawns from one location to another. An ice berth was used which created its own difficulties. Other boats were detained as a result of this inspection. It also cost approximately €500 in labour to facilitate the inspection. Is that not excessive enforcement of legislation? A ten-hour period of inspection resulted in that type of cost. Fuel costs are creating financial hardship for many people operating in the fishing industry. There will come a point when one more straw will break the camel's back.
In many respects the State depends on the good will of people fishing our waters to enforce other types of law. For example, the catch in Dunlough Bay over a year ago happened as a result of the good will of people in the area who owned boats. If a white bale had been floating around the sea some weeks after that seizure we would depend on the good will of fishermen to bring it to the attention of the authorities. If there is excessive emphasis on inspection where the level of enforcement is causing financial difficulty and hardship, fishermen may not be so co-operative with authorities regarding other areas of law breaking that are rampant around our coastline. The resources the State is putting into enforcing sea-fisheries legislation far outweigh the resources going into policing our shores for illegal drugs. We are depending on fishermen for that.
Regarding the Baltimore incident, it was not fair to apply that level of scrutiny on a boat owner who is not escaping the law. He had been already inspected by the Naval Service ten hours previously. Why is there such a high level of enforcement? The sea-fisheries officers have extensive powers. They can seize boats, confiscate catches and bring fishermen before the Circuit Court for offences. It is appalling that fishermen may be required to dump a catch at sea in order to comply with quotas that — to say the least — are in need of review. We need to consider the criminal sanctions imposed on fishermen. We need to look at other states in the European Union that use administrative sanctions. I accept the law needs to be enforced, with which everybody agrees. However, with such a level of enforcement, co-operation from fishermen in other areas of law enforcement will dwindle. Ultimately, that does not serve the fishing industry well nor does it serve the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.
I thank the representatives of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority for their presentation. This meeting is taking place at a crucial time for the sector. Great costs are imposed on those engaged in the industry, particularly with the ongoing strike in France, all of which add to what is a very depressed economy. There is a perception in the fishing sector that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is coming down very hard on those involved in the industry. There is also a lack of respect, at least towards the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, by those engaged in the industry particularly when they struggle to make their payments each week. Some 70% of the proceeds of the gross catch go to pay for diesel. The quotas are totally inadequate. Fishermen are trying to feed their families and keep the banks off their backs. They regard the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority as the enemy, which should not be the case. I do not condone illegal fishing in any way. However, fishermen who exceed their quota by a certain amount in their last haul are obliged to throw an equivalent quantity of fish back into the sea the next time they go out, which does not make sense. It creates more resentment and leads to a bad working relationship.
The representatives of the authority referred to a judgment that was made against Ireland in 2004. I understand the judgment was the result of departmental negligence rather than any problems caused by those involved in the industry. How many other countries has the European Court of Justice issued judgments against for fishing irregularities or non-compliance with the regulations?
I understand that France has been fined €20 million for non-compliance, with a further fine of €58 million for every six-month period that passes without compliance. Can the authority confirm that the fine was never paid? I am relying on information I have been given. It seems that the fine was not imposed after the conviction was handed out.
The delegation mentioned that some court prosecutions resulted from sea-fisheries infringements in 2007. Some 85 of the infringements detected were serious enough to warrant attention. In 42 of those cases, files were prepared and submitted to the State prosecution service for consideration. How many convictions were achieved on foot of those 42 cases? Can the number of convictions which related to Irish fishing vessels and non-Irish fishing vessels be given to the committee?
It has been suggested that some cases of under-recording took place when the vessel master chose to attempt to hide the vessel's true catch figures in the hope that the actual quantities would not be inspected or detected by inspection. Is it possible that mistakes have been made in that regard? If the inspections undertaken by the fisheries officers were not accurate, mistakes could have been made regarding the quantities of fish on board.
The officials from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority have said there are "indications" that several hundred tonnes of illegal fish have been landed. They suggested that in the case of one species, three times the Irish national annual quota was landed in a two-month period by a small number of fishing vessels. I note the use of the word "indications". Is such over-fishing merely an assumption or is it a fact? Have any charges or convictions been brought on foot of these "indications"?
It has been pointed out that 1,348 inspections of non-Irish fishing vessels were conducted in 2007. It has been suggested that 37% of inspections related to Irish fishing vessels. Deputy Creed has mentioned that more than 80% of the fish caught in Irish waters are taken by non-Irish vessels. Is it not disproportionate, to say the least, that 37% of all inspections relate to Irish vessels when they take just 20%, or less, of the catch?
I am worried about the authority's strategy statement. Has the statement been approved by the consultative committee? I understand the final draft of the statement has not been shown to the committee. Is that the case? Has a decision been taken in the absence of consultation with the consultative committee? If that is the case, why has a consultative committee been established?
Does the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, or operational units within the authority, set targets for the number of detentions to be achieved by its protection officers? In other words, is pressure put on the officers to get more and more detentions? How does the size of the authority's staff and fleet compare with its equivalent agencies in Spain, France and Greece? Do those countries make a similar effort to uphold the restrictions which are imposed on their fishing fleets?
I have met fishermen in west Cork, south Kerry, west Kerry, Clare, Galway and Killybegs. When the sea-fisheries protection Bill was brought through the Houses, the then Minister used the actions of a few fishermen to bring about the public demonisation of fishing communities throughout the country. It was disgraceful that newspaper articles were used to demonise entire communities. I do not blame the authority.
When infringements take place, the first penalty to which the authority has recourse is a criminal conviction through the courts. I met officials from the authority recently. They explained their views on the comparison between the imposition of administrative sanctions and the taking of court proceedings. Members of this committee, representing all shades of political opinion, made the case for administrative sanctions with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey. The policy being pursued serves to criminalise communities, in effect, which all reasonable people will agree is deplorable.
When Deputy Sheehan and I raised the issue of administrative sanctions on the Adjournment recently, we were told the entire matter is to be re-examined and that administrative sanctions will be considered favourably in that context. I welcome that reply and hope the Government will live up to it. I am not sure whether a change will come to fruition.
I thank the representatives of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority for their report. My comments about their work are not personal — they merely reflect the concerns of my constituents. I am concerned that a gap is opening up between the fishermen and the authority. People are hurting badly because they are unable to meet their boat repayments and their overhead costs. As a result, they are unable to feed their families.
I welcome the officials from Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, which is based in my home town of Clonakilty, to this meeting. I acknowledge the need for an organisation like the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority to patrol our waters. It might be going too far for me to say that I welcome the manner in which they enforce rules which, in the first instance, may be too strict. I recognise that an agency is needed to keep some kind of a handle on the situation.
We have to recognise that there is a perception that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is confrontational. When I speak to fishermen, as I do on a regular basis, they tell me that some of the authority's staff are very helpful and very good. However, they feel that other staff members have a different attitude. Perhaps that can be looked into because it is causing problems. This is a time of difficulty for the industry. What advice is the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority giving the Minister on the economic difficulties being experienced by fishermen? If officials of the authority were to raise with the Minister the serious problems they encounter daily in the fisheries sector, their views could be heard and respected.
Deputies Creed and Ferris and Senator McCarthy raised many of the issues I intended to discuss. The main problem is the attitude of the officials of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority when they board boats. Fishermen, who do a difficult job under difficult circumstances on the high seas, believe officials' behaviour is better described as taking part in a raid than taking protective measures.
I will read from a letter I received from a constituent which highlights another problem affecting fishermen as they attend to their duties. I have received many such letters. I will not use the name of the vessel. The letter states:
Under current rules, because I had over 2 tonne of cod on board my vessel after 7 days, I had to steam 7 hours N.E. to Dunmore East or face criminal prosecution. While landing in Dunmore, we were stopped from landing for 1 hour while SFPA weighed our fish. The water adjacent to my landing berth was under lock and key. Yet we pay harbour dues for this. [That is not acceptable although it is not the fault of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.]
When we finished landing then we had another 7 hours steaming back west at 85 litres of diesel per hour at 70 cent a litre. This comes to almost 600 euros, now would probably cost 900. On arriving at our home port the SFPA had 3 officers aboard another local boat and held him from landing his catch for 2 hours while a crane which was waiting to lift a winch from my vessel lay waiting.
I highlight specifically the following part of the letter because this type of conduct illustrates the lack of co-operation shown by Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority officials in some cases. This non-co-operaton is giving the authority a very bad name. The letter continues:
I approached the SFPA personnel and explained my situation and was told to wait a wee minute. I had to wait and also the crane man, engineers and the fish lorry man but it was for another 120 wee minutes.
The operation cost the man in question €1,350. This is one of a number of cases in which Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority officers showed a lack of co-operation with fishermen. The authority must address this problem because there is a perception that its officials are not co-operating with those working in the fisheries sector. This may not be the case across the board but I am aware of a number of such incidents.
Deputy Creed referred to the composition of the board of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. I understand the three members of the board are also executives. Is this the norm and, if so, to whom are the board members answerable? Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this practice but it raises a question. Surely the board should include a person from the industry. It would allow fishermen to have a say and, by encouraging co-operation, to help matters.
I welcome the delegation from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. I am alarmed at the direction in which the fishing industry is moving. The sector is almost finished. There will not be much work for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority if current circumstances are allowed to continue.
Senator McCarthy outlined an incident which took place in Baltimore on 1 May. I understand three sea fisheries protection officers were in Baltimore at 11 p.m. when the vessel returned from fishing grounds. As the vessel had more than 750 kg of monkfish on board, it was automatically transferred to Union Hall. Who is codding whom? Three sea fisheries inspectors met the boat when it arrived at 11 p.m. on 30 April. Owing to regulations, red tape and bureaucracy, the skipper was compelled, at considerable cost, to take his fish and vessel to Union Hall. Why do the authorities or the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority not correct this anomaly and allow boats land their fish in their home ports and authorised ports? The Minister could do this with a stroke of a pen.
Life is difficult enough on the ocean wave for Irish fishermen. If they were to notify the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority two hours beforehand that they planned to dock at their home port, that should be considered as compliance. The time is right for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority to impress on the Minister the necessity to allow fishermen to land fish in their home ports on condition that they give two hours' notice.
I understand 26 sea-fisheries inspectors are based in Castletownbere. It would be easy for two or three of them to travel to Baltimore to inspect the catch of a fishing vessel as the distance is only about 50 miles. Even if they only had Honda vehicles — they have better vehicles than that — they would be in Baltimore within an hour of notification. How much longer can Irish fishermen put up with draconian measures? I will not rest on my oars until I have this draconian rule wiped from the slate. Whoever thought of this rule was acting against the interests of Irish fishermen and their association.
Mr. Whelan stated the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and Naval Service conducted a total of 3,614 inspections of fishing vessels, both Irish and non-Irish, during 2007. He also stated that 160 vessel masters, premises owners or individuals were found to have violated the law. Of the 3,614 inspections, 1,348 pertained to non-Irish vessels. A total of 2,266 Irish vessels were inspected. In other words, one non-Irish vessel for every three Irish vessels was deemed to be engaged in illegal fishing. In the name of heaven, who believes that story? I have proof that Spanish boats land catches at Dinish Island, Castletownbere, between 12 midnight and 5 a.m. without detection. If our Irish boats come into Castletownbere, they must give two hours notice. Spaniards do not have to give notice. Their catch is taken from the hold and put into an articulated lorry destined for Vigo in Spain. What inspections are they subjected to? Lord save us, no wonder our fishing stocks have dwindled given that the Spanish and French have been gobbling them up for hundreds of years. They would take the limpet off the rock if they got the opportunity. They ride roughshod through every EU fisheries law. In the name of heaven, let common sense prevail.
The Spaniards are not detected because no law, order or regulation pertains to their logbooks. I can verify that because it is clearly evident. It is clearly evident also that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is only watching the poor old Irish fisherman trying to make a living, and who is paying three times as much for his fuel as his European counterparts. Fuel is subsidised in France and Spain and this is allowed under the European Union. Irish fishermen are not responsible for the decline in fishing stocks in the North Atlantic. It is clearly evident that the stocks have been plundered day and night by the Spanish and French boats in the area.
I seek a commitment from the delegates that they will do their best to abolish the law to the effect that a boat with more than 750 kg of monkfish cannot land in Schull or Baltimore. Those catches must be landed in Union Hall, Castletownbere or Dingle. In the name of heaven, who is codding whom? Considering the cost of fuel and other products, how long more can the Irish fishermen keep going? There is a fine trawler tied up at the pier in Baltimore because the owner could not make a living and that will become widespread. The staff of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority will be out of a job very shortly given the demise of the Irish fisherman.
I will try to be brief. Most of what needs to be said has been said and I will not be repetitive. The budget of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is €15 million per annum and there are 70 staff. On reading its submission, I could not understand for the life of me why it referred to the Cawley report. I am sure that when it was printed, Mr. Cawley was not referring to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority or its heavy-handed approach to sea fishery protection. The words the authority uses to define itself include "conservation" and "safety".
For how long have the 42 Irish vessels been detained? For how long have the fishermen been unable to go out to make a living? Who would buy the confiscated gear? Does the authority sell it? It reminds me of the era, now gone, in which banks used to sell repossessed houses. What fisherman would buy another fisherman's tools?
"Conservation" was referred to. If I were fishing for pelagic stock and caught a different species in my nets, for example, two crates of monkfish or cod, would the principle of conservation involve my throwing them back overboard rather than bringing them to a port, where I would be hammered by the sea-fishery protection officers?
It is commonly stated that there are more fishery officers in Dingle than fishermen sailing from the pier. I do not mean to make light of the matter but I must relate the case of a fisherman who told me he was subject to an on-the-sport inspection by sea-fishery officers. Four fishery officers were pulled on to the pier in four different four-wheel drive vehicles. He said it reminded him of the film "3 Ninjas" only there were four in this case. It is a them-and-us situation. When a fisherman describes a fishery officer as a ninja coming at him to nail him, this point is reinforced. The protection and conservation of fish are regarded in a very different manner by the men out on the sea. The approach by the authority is confrontational based on the principle of "get them at all costs".
The authority staff and the Naval Service have collaborated such that 1,348 inspections were carried out on non-Irish ships. Can the delegates state how many of those were carried out by the Naval Service? The priority of the authority is to nail the Irish fishermen.
I am not a member of the committee and thank the Chairman for the opportunity to say cúpla focal. I welcome the delegates. Like many of my colleagues, I believe the fishing industry is going through a very difficult time. It must contend with the fuel issue and the Common Fisheries Policy itself. Fishermen are trying to operate with low quotas. The legislation criminalises them and they must also contend with decommissioning. In this regard, they have asked what will happen to fishermen who do not own boats.
The one issue of great concern to everybody in the industry is the relationship between the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the industry. I met 40 fishermen and their representatives in Kylemore Quay last Monday week and we discussed several of the relevant issues. The main concern is the threat posed to the industry by the authority. While I understand the authority has a very important role to play, there seems to be a considerable deterioration in the relationship between it and the industry.
A skipper might be heading home after four or five days of trawling and his crew will be anxious to land. The last thing he wants is to be diverted, thus incurring extra costs. He may not be treated with the utmost respect when he lands. This is what the members of the industry are saying. While I accept the authority will take its own view on such cases, I must listen to what the industry is saying and represent its view.
It was interesting to see some of the authority's figures. Out of 3,614 inspections, only 42 were submitted to the State for prosecution. This is approximately 2%, which, in any industry, represents a high rate of compliance.
The authority has 70 staff, including 51 officers in Ireland. I was informed there are only 119 staff in Spain, who deal with 15,000 boats as opposed to our 2,000. There seems to be a considerable overkill in this regard. A staff of 15 or 18 would be more fitting.
We are good Europeans.
We are very good Europeans. Over-enforcement and the redirection of boats to alternative harbours are considerable issues.
Does the authority meet the fishermen and the Federation of Irish Fishermen and how often? What could be done to develop the relationship between them? Legislative breaches by fishermen can be deemed criminal acts and there is a great deal of pressure on them to comply with the law. The figures suggest there is broad compliance throughout the industry.
I welcome the reference to the proportionate manner in which infringements are dealt with. This is welcome because, in many cases, it is a matter of common sense. Considerable common sense needs to be applied. We are all Irish and all have the same goal, namely, to ensure the survival of the fishing industry nationally and internationally. There seems to be a perception that our counterparts in Europe tend to support their fishermen more than the Irish officers do.
Deputy Christy O'Sullivan and I met the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen last night regarding the dumping of fish. In this day and age, it seems ridiculous to throw fish overboard. Surely they should be kept and the quantity logged. The fish are dead and could be exported. Half the world is starving and it seems crazy to dump fish overboard after catching them. Will the delegates address these points? I appreciate the opportunity to question them.
I will not repeat what I have said already. Being from an inland county, I do not have much experience of sea fishing. My county, Kilkenny, has access to Belview Port in Waterford.
Since we joined the EU, what we gained in agriculture we lost in aquaculture in that our quota system is totally wrong. Considering that Ireland is an island in the Atlantic, we got a very bad deal where our quota is concerned and have been suffering since as a consequence.
I refer to the survival of the fishing industry and the livelihood of the fishermen. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is over-regulating Irish fishermen. As has been stated, the Spanish and others are cleaning out our waters, yet they do not seem to be regulated to the same extent. I note that 37% of inspections were carried out on foreign trawlers, which means 63% must have been carried out on Irish trawlers. This is disproportionate given the amount of fish they catch. This leads to bad feeling.
I am not suggesting the authority has no role in that it must regulate and control, but it must consider the survival of the fishing industry. The size of the Irish quota is not the fault of the authority. It was established at another time. However, as my colleague said, it is terrible that fish are being caught and then dumped. There is something wrong when this occurs. Can it be addressed? Could the fishermen be allowed to land the excess fish and then stop fishing for two or three months? Could a different system be applied?
All that needs to be said has been said. There needs to be a happy medium between the authority's job and the survival of the fishing industry.
I apologise for being late; I had another appointment.
Can I have clarification on Deputy Sheehan's question on whether Irish fishermen must give two hours' notice when they are going to land? In this regard, what are the rules that apply to non-Irish fishing vessels?
Some 42 cases out of 1,300 have been referred to the Attorney General and 13 have been dealt with. Are the 42 part of the total of 160?
In regard to the authority's development of a culture of compliance, the submission states compliant fishermen and seafood processors have nothing to fear and everything to gain from working with the authority. Are there any statistics on the number of fishing boats that have gone out of business since the new regulations were put in place? Has any audit been carried out? Are the rules so draconian that a credit system and overall ceiling cannot apply to fish of an unsanctioned species landed in crates? Computer software can very easily tot up the total amount of fish harvested in respect of the Irish quota. A better communication system should be in place.
Mr. Peter Whelan
On the issues associated with economic viability, competitiveness and the environment in which fishermen are working at present, we are hearing from all fishermen that they are trying to service big loans. They have all the expenses of a small business with tax, insurance, crews' wages, harbour charges and rising fuel prices. The fish quotas are depressed because the scientific advice is that over 75% of commercial stocks are under threat. When the quotas are negotiated every year, there is pressure to reduce them. We have a fleet with a high-catch capacity but low quotas and rising fuel costs. It is making it difficult for fishermen to make a living lawfully.
Recently, we received a call from a fisherman who had two boats but a small quota. He claimed he could only manage to make a living on those two boats when there was no illegal fish catches on the market. When there is a glut of illegal catches on the market, prices become depressed. We recognise the pressures on fishermen.
We are trying to build bridges with the industry and be transparent about what we do. We provide all information and figures when requested, even if they are negative.
We have met with the Federation of Irish Fishermen on several occasions, including last Monday when we went through an extensive range of issues. We have also met with the consultative council on four occasions, again with an extensive agenda. We have brought out information for fishermen in user-friendly formats because the legislation is complex and changing all the time. Information has also been sent out on lobster fisheries, hail message requirements and other technical issues such as mesh sizes.
The Department, not the SFPA, designates ports. It is an EU requirement that if a vessel has two tonnes or more of, say, hake, the vessel must dock at a designated port. As recently as last week, we recommended to the Department that Kinsale and Schull be included as designated ports to allow local boats to land catches at them. I believe they will be designated presently. The EU must be given 15 days' notice of the designation of a port. We will also recommend Clogherhead, where much money has been spent in developing the port, to be designated, even though we do not have any accommodation there.
We must prove to the EU Commission we have an adequate control system. For example, in Castletownbere we have eight officers covering the whole south-west coast. We must show to the EU Commission that if we designate other ports in the region, such as Schull, Union Hall, Baltimore, Kinsale, Crosshaven, Oysterhaven and Cobh, we can inspect the landings on a structured basis. The Federation of Irish Fishermen has suggested a permit system for local boats. We are examining all the possibilities. In the past there has been criticism of our controls. We are not out of the woods yet. The EU Commission is still examining our controls to see if they are adequate and comply with the Common Fisheries Policy.
The SFPA has a complaints policy. The legislation establishing the board did allow for an independent complaints officer. An independent barrister, Mr. Raymond O'Rourke, has recently been appointed complaints officer and looks favourably towards small business operators. Fishermen who feel our actions may have not been proportionate or fair have an opportunity to use the process. To date, we have had only one complaint, which we dealt with. This system will be of use to fishermen.
There is a draft service level agreement with the Naval Service which it has not yet signed. For the first time last year, we asked the service to target 50% of their inspections at sea to foreign vessels. This was the first time this was put in wording. There was a small proportion, 23%, of the catch inspected from Irish waters in 2005-2006. We have been in touch with the Naval Service to increase that level to target vessels from other EU member states going beyond their days at sea allowance. There is much more to be done in that regard. We have put extensive resources in developing that part of the agency's role. A glance at the vessel monitoring system for Irish waters would show the majority, 80%, are foreign vessels. We depend on the Naval Service to do inspections at sea. We would like more resources allocated from the service and more focused attention.
Often when we carry out an inspection on a pier we know the track record of vessels. We undertake some form of risk analysis to inform our inspections. There will be routine inspections but also risk analysis based on information we have collected. The at-sea resource is dependent on the Naval Service.
This year we came to an arrangement with the Central Fisheries Board to use one of its larger vessels for inshore patrols. That was welcomed by the Federation of Irish Fishermen.
We have a service contract with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Of our 70 staff, 51 are based in various ports and 19 in Clonakilty in west Cork. They are expected to do sea-fisheries control and seafood safety work. We are certainly not over-resourced. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland will claim we are lagging behind the requirements of our service contract.
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
The seafood safety work is discharged through the same body of staff. We want to avoid a fisheries officer going on board a vessel to verify compliance with fisheries legislation and then another officer imposing another administrative burden on the fisherman with seafood safety. One inspector covers all issues. Our inspectors have a dual mandate for sea-fisheries conservation and seafood safety control. There are other locations involved in seafood production and processing such as fish farms, shellfish dispatch centres, which are all inspected by our officers. It would not be common in the EU fisheries control regime to have seafood safety to be included in the remit of those in sea-fisheries conservation control.
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is the central competence authority for food safety legislation enforcement in Ireland. It does not have people on the ground, but service contracts. Those service contracts are service level agreements that are enshrined in the legislation governing the authority, which ensure that resources are deployed appropriately. In the case of seafood safety, for example, we are the people who have a service contract with the authority. It monitors our discharge of the requirements of that service contract to ensure optimal consumer protection. The Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act created a transitional period whereby the service contract that had previously existed with the Department with responsibility for the marine was transferred to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.
We have a dual mandate, both parts of which are very important to us. There is a question of the role of the board, commensurate with these various requirements. The board has an overview of the entire function of the authority with regard to the discharge of those roles. Within the board, the executive chairman has deployed his resources in terms of one authority member having more responsibility for food safety than for seafood conservation and vice versa for the other authority members. I am the authority member with a direct role in terms of the official control of seafood safety.
There are approximately 30 fish farms in the country. Aquaculture is an increasing part of seafood production in Ireland and is actively supported by the State. There are specific food safety ramifications of an aquacultural approach to seafood production, which are independent of food safety considerations in terms of the catching of wild fish at sea. There are different sets of drivers, we are aware of this and are actively deploying our resources in that regard. Seafood is a great resource. It is a nutritious and valuable food source, and we are interested in protecting that.
There were queries regarding the Cawley report. One of the core threads was extracting the maximum value from every bit of fish we take from the sea — doing something more than gutting it and sending it to Vigo. We need to harness the value of that and bring the processing benefits back to Ireland. That processing needs to be underpinned by a meaningful official control system. In the chairman's opening address to the committee, he has alluded to the merit that accrues to the State and Irish food business operators by having an official control system that stands up to scrutiny. Trade delegations visit Ireland — we are meeting one tomorrow — to ensure continued access for Irish shellfish, so that they can see we have an official control system in which they can have confidence. We continue to discharge this very important role.
Much of the raison d’être for our being here today stems from our role in fisheries conservation. We have an important role in seafood safety as well, and I thank the Deputy for raising that. I trust I have addressed the queries on that aspect.
Does Mr. Whelan wish to come back?
Mr. Peter Whelan
I want to finish on a few other questions. One was the force majeure and safety at sea topic raised by Senator McCarthy. On the front page of our website it is stated that no boat should remain at sea when there is any danger to the vessel, the crew or the skipper. It should come into the nearest port and we have made very clear to the industry and the FIF that fishermen should not, at any stage, put themselves in danger. We will not take any sanction against a boat that has to come into the nearest port if it is a force majeure situation. No vessel should remain at sea, regardless of any regulation, where the boat, the crew or the skipper are in danger. We have been saying that very publicly.
It is on the website.
Mr. Peter Whelan
That is correct. It is on the front page of our website.
Perhaps Mr. Andrew Kinneen will speak to the committee on the discard issue and how this is a European matter which is now up for debate. Ireland should be very strong in addressing it. Most of the views on discards presented to the committee are supported by the SFPA, and we have said this to the industry.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
The issue of discards is raised frequently at meetings we have had with fishermen and their representatives. What members of the committee have said in this regard today echoes the opinions we have heard. We recognise that the discarding of fish is anathema to fishermen, who respect marine resources and the wholesomeness of the food they are trying to produce.
Discards arise from two scenarios. One is limitations on quotas or the management of national quotas and the other is where fishing gear picks up unwanted catches. In the second incidence a fishing net can capture unwanted species or juvenile fish which are no good in the marketplace, and are prohibited from being caught in any event because of minimum size rules. In those cases a certain amount can be done to modify the fishing gear, the use of separator panels, square meshes and so on. The netting can go some way to remedy the amounts of discards captured in that way.
One of the most important measures a fisherman can take is to have regard to the size of mesh used in his net. The larger the mesh used the fewer fish that will have to be discarded on grounds of undersizing. However, a very fine balance has to be employed by the skipper who has to catch the volume required to make a living.
The second reason for discard relates to national policy on the management of quotas, and the limitations of quotas, generally. It has been clearly said at today's committee hearing that Ireland's available quotas are very restricted. They have become much more restricted in recent years because of the advice given by scientists to the effect that certain commercial stocks are under threat. There are options available to the Government with regard to the management of the national quota. That is a policy matter for our parent, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We recognise that a national system, where monthly allocations are made, with an eye to vessel size rather than individual vessels, are in place at the moment from a driver that wants to make a small amount of available fish last over the years, so there is a supply available for those who are selling and processing or consuming the fish. We do not want the entire quota caught in the first two or three months of the year, with the need thereafter to rely on imports.
Those are the main issues behind discard. However, as our chairman has said, we shall be involved very proactively in terms of the European debate on this issue. We shall be very much supporting and seeking the views of the industry and those of individual fishermen as to how this matter may best be tackled.
There are a few supplementaries, and we shall hear first from Deputy Creed.
I thank the delegation for the very informed and beneficial responses. I am interested in the fact that the SFPA's service level agreement with the Navy is in draft form and has not been signed. Is the fact that this has been outstanding for a considerable time causing concern? Is it the issue that the Navy has concerns over its capacity to carry out the required level of work? Delegates might address the issue of quota law and the boarding of non-national boats, and whether they are compliant with quota regulations, given that they have different regimes.
The other issue I want to tease out concerns the SFPA's statutory obligation in terms of giving advice to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith. We have dealt with the difficulties facing the industry, not least quotas, conservation, the discard issue, fuel and a whole range of matters. Is this something the SFPA does on a regular basis? Is it advice given on request or does the authority periodically furnish information to the Department?
One thing we have established is that two thirds of the boardings have taken place on Irish trawlers, and one third on the vessels owned by the people who are catching all the fish. That is something which will have to be seriously addressed, as in no sense is this a level playing field. It just underlines the fact that our French and Spanish counterparts are getting away with a great deal. Looked at from an outsider's viewpoint, it falls on the SFPA to get this situation rectified.
With regard to seafood safety, I happened to be in a position to have seen first-hand, a boat's catch being inspected in relatively warm weather. There were boxes of fish all over the pier. I find it difficult to understand how that was helping to preserve a very delicate catch. Where do such fish end up or who pays for that type of activity? Is that the way it should be carried out? It is a serious issue and I have seen it at first hand. It is bad enough for the fisherman who lands a smaller species to face sanction for a small infringement of the rules, without having his entire catch——
The Deputy should ask a supplementary question.
It is important from the safety aspect, because these fish must be put back into the food chain. It is a serious issue. No matter how we look at it, throwing good food overboard after spending so much to catch it is serious. Rather than penalising these people so much, the authority should work with them so we can get around those problems.
I thank the gentlemen opposite as this session has been very informative. We will have to talk to the Minister about doubling their budget, having obtained the information today. Have officials from the authority boarded any foreign vessels? Is that being left entirely to the Naval Service? At least 80% of the authority's boardings have occurred on national boats, and the policing of foreign boats is not what it should be. I accept that the authority must work within its budget.
The complaints procedure under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 is effectively self-regulation. The authority appoints a complaints officer who sends a report back to the authority, which takes it on board. As far as I am concerned, that is self-regulation. The witnesses may say that the officer is independently appointed, but he is appointed by the board itself. He writes a report which is sent back to the board for consideration. We need to move away from that.
Mr. Kinneen made the point that dumping and discarding comes under the heading of conservation. I do not believe that net sizes will sort that out. The authority may be going down the road where sanctions are not so strong, but I believe that a penalty points system might work better.
While one might say we do not want all of the quota caught over two to three months, hence the monthly quota system, a fisherman cannot go out for two or three months of the year, depending on the bad weather. Is there a roll-up on that quota for those months?
What has the authority got against Baltimore that it cannot be a designated port? We only have a few fishing ports in the south west. Castletownbere is the premier port, but we also have Schull, Baltimore and Union Hall. It beggars belief that on the night of 30 April, two fisheries officers had to leave Baltimore for Union Hall to inspect a boat that also had to go from Baltimore to Union Hall for the inspection, which is a distance of one and a half hours by water. Common sense must prevail. If there is to be a future for the Irish fishing industry, it is up to those in the authority to make sure that their facilities are in the ports from which the boats are leaving. It is not a big request to have Baltimore included with Schull and Kinsale as a designated fisheries port.
Another solution would be to issue boats with a permit to allow them land their fish in Baltimore. On a bad night with a bad south-easterly gale, I would like to see fishery officers going around the Stags and into Union Hall. It would be suicidal.
I welcome the officials and thank them for their presentation. I welcome Mr. Whelan's comments on bridge building with the Federation of Irish Fishermen. After the authority settles down and gets over the teething problems with the fishermen, it is important to have that level of consultation.
I also welcome Mr. O'Mahony's comments. We cannot overstate the importance of food safety, as well as the development of the potential of the product, which I believe is his role in Clonakilty. Gerard O'Flynn often makes the remark that seafood should be to Ireland what ABBA is to Sweden and Nokia is to Finland. We have that opportunity.
In consultations with the Department, I presume the authority deals with the Minister himself. Would that also be the case for consultations on food safety? Marine responsibility is spread across four or five different Departments, which leads to a disjointed approach to marine issues by the Government. Many Members of the Government parties would agree. The fisheries function was not signed over until October. A number of Ministers seem to be involved in consultations with the SFPA and the Government.
I asked a number of questions when I spoke at the start, but as far as I can see none was answered. What was the reason for the judgment against Ireland in the European Court of Justice? Was it because the Department had not put in the figures? How many other countries were brought before that court? France was fined €20 million for non-compliance and €58 million for every six months after that. Did the French Government pay those fines?
How many convictions resulted from the 42 cases involving sea fisheries infringements in 2007? The SFPA indicated that several hundred tonnes of illegal fish had been landed in 2007, following its investigations into serious infringements. Were any charges brought or convictions obtained as a result of this? Has the SFPA developed a strategy statement for the organisation? Has this been approved by the consultative committee? I would like answers to all these questions.
I also have a supplementary question. Everybody involved in the industry feels that many of the foreign vessels are fishing with undersized mesh, especially those involved in gill netting. They might have nets of standard size on deck when they are landing fish, but they have miles of gill netting stored outside with undersized mesh. Is there any intention of the Naval Service or the SFPA to haul those nets to prevent this kind of undersize fishing? It is doing great damage. I have concerns about the size of the SFPA in terms of the Irish fishing industry, when compared with the industry in Spain, France, Greece and elsewhere.
We will let Mr. Whelan wrap up and we can then go and eat fish.
Mr. Peter Whelan
On the service level agreement with the Naval Service, we have negotiated the document and both parties are happy with it. The legislation requires that we get the permission of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance. We are currently waiting to get written permission from the three Departments. It will not be a problem in the case of our Department and the Department of Defence, and our Department will be talking to the Minister for Finance to get sanction. There is no change of funding in the service level agreement. It is purely for the level and type of service that would be provided.
Quota law is very different for Irish vessels and foreign vessels, which is part of the difficulty we have. When the Naval Service boards a foreign vessel, it will have an annual quota — perhaps Mr. Kinneen will address this. It is more difficult than in a routine inspection to ascertain whether a vessel has exceeded an annual quota or not. We are looking for more background information in this regard.
Maybe this is the reason we have more boardings of Irish boats, because it is harder to find anything wrong——
Allow Mr. Whelan to continue.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
I will address a couple of issues. With regard to the inspections carried out by the Naval Service and the SFPA, there is a regular routine review carried out of fisheries data. We examine the vessel monitoring system, VMS, data and the species and volumes of fish recorded in log books by Irish vessels and non-Irish vessels. We look for the presence of trends that would indicate illegal fishing.
With reference to a point raised by Deputy Ferris, last year we had a very successful co-ordinated campaign with the Naval Service targeting a flotilla of non-Irish vessels using static gear well off the coast of Ireland. Without going into operational details, it is intended to revisit that problem this year. We will augment this with the use of a fishing vessel under contract to retrieve unmarked and de facto unlicensed static gear off the Irish coast. We are taking this problem very seriously.
With regard to the regulation or policing of quota and quota use by non-Irish vessels, the system is different, as Mr. Whelan noted. However, we receive regular reports from the European Commission on where a quota for a particular stock or species has been exhausted by any or all member states. This information is available both to the Naval Service and the SFPA. We can proceed accordingly when we see the fish on board are logged or not logged, and we regularly take that into account.
We are also currently undertaking a number of projects to profile the characteristics of catches recorded on non-Irish boats when they use Irish ports, where there is a good system of fisheries control in place, as well as the equivalent landings those boats might make in non-Irish ports. We are trying to ascertain whether there is any change in the amount of fish or species being logged. We will have a report compiled on this and, if the trends are what we suspect they might be, we will report on that publicly.
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
I wish to deal with the point alluded to by many Deputies, namely, with regard to 37% of inspections being of foreign vessels versus a figure that is quoted of 80% of catch. The SFPA has jurisdiction over Irish ports and EU waters which were previously referred to as Irish waters. Irish vessels and non-Irish vessels fish in those waters. In general, Irish vessels come to an Irish port and we have control over them when they do so. In general, the non-Irish vessels do not come to Irish ports. Therefore, the 37% figure for inspections of non-Irish vessels should be recognised as reflecting two different tiers of activity, both at-sea inspections, where the figure is much closer to half and half, and at-port inspections, where it reflects what is landing at Irish ports. This needs to be augmented, perhaps mentally, by the fact that these vessels will be inspected at their port and will be subject to the control of the authority in that member state.
We have acknowledged the validity of this point. We have made active attempts to increase the level of non-Irish vessel inspections in order to remove this disparity and move towards something we can better stand over.
Will Mr. O'Mahony clarify whether sea-fisheries protection officers carry out at-sea boardings on their own vessels? Are all their at-sea boardings carried out by the Naval Service?
Has the SFPA got boats?
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
No. To be strictly correct, we have one vessel.
Mr. Micheál O’Mahony
The bulk of the activity of sea-fisheries protection officers directly employed by the authority is at ports — on land. We have service level agreements with the Naval Service for inspections of vessels at sea and we have working service level agreements with the Air Corps for overflies. We also monitor vessels at sea through the electronic satellite tracking vessel monitoring system. That said, and to answer the question, we work at ports.
Mr. Peter Whelan
We agree with members on the discard issue, which does not make sense with regard to conservation of a fish stock. We will be putting that case forward in Brussels. We have spoken to the Federation of Irish Fishermen, FIF, and we are speaking to the industry about alternative ways of dealing with this issue. As a speaker noted, the fish could be brought into and logged in other countries outside the EU where they may be sold at a lesser price. Other countries have real time closures where, when a fishing vessel catches a lot of juveniles, it must move to another area because the juveniles must be allowed to spawn.
There are other ways of managing discards. At present, it is an EU requirement and is in our national legislation. It is there because it was felt that some fishermen might target a species if they were allowed to bring them in as discards. We have found this in a small number of cases. As a rule, this needs to change and we will be putting that case forward. A Commission paper on discards was published last week so we will have an opportunity to put forward the Irish view.
With regard to designated ports, we met with the industry and Baltimore is one of the ports we are examining. We would hope to move on Baltimore.
What of Schull?
Mr. Peter Whelan
Schull and Kinsale were dealt with last week. We have recommended them.
Senator McCarthy should keep out of it. He does not know the stem from the stern of a boat. Mr. Whelan said Schull and Kinsale are already designated.
Mr. Peter Whelan
No, we have recommended to the Department and the Minister that they are designated.
Has Baltimore been recommended?
Mr. Peter Whelan
We are considering a range of other ports, such as Baltimore, Clogherhead, Cloghmore, Rathmullen, Greencastle and Ringaskiddy, some for designation and some for de-designation as some species do not go to ports they may have been designated for in the past. It is to regularise the position.
It is of vital importance that Baltimore be designated.
We need to get out of west Cork.
Mr. Peter Whelan
Baltimore is a designated port for pelagic species. What is being sought there is to include other species, which is not something we will have a problem with.
In the SFPA recommendation, is the timeframe the same as for every other port?
Mr. Peter Whelan
It is the same as every other port.
There have been suggestions that the port would be restricted to certain hours.
Mr. Peter Whelan
We are examining other ports in that regard but not those ports.
It is not acceptable that there would be restrictions on hours of landing. It cannot be done from the perspective of fishing people. If it is a designated port, it has to be open so one can land fish when notification is given.
Mr. Peter Whelan
If we had more officers on the ground, we could designate all ports.
In comparison to our European counterparts, the SFPA has quite a few fisheries officers.
Mr. Peter Whelan
It depends on the countries to which we are compared.
We agree with regard to the potential of product, a point made by Senator McCarthy. Everyone is in agreement that to add value to the species in some way would be one way of trying to get the industry, which is under pressure at present, back up and running. We will support that 100%. We will not be shy about giving any advice that is required and our full support in regard to adding value in fish processing and complying with hygiene rules.
I was not around at the time of the judgment against Ireland, which concerned our sea-fisheries control regime being inadequate. The knock-on effect from the judgment was that it was stated that there were uncontrolled and unrecorded landings, not enough inspections and not enough controls. It was very wide and stated there were breaches in log books, vessel monitoring systems, sales notes, recordings and quota. While it examined the regime, the judgment made the point that whereas the regime is wrong, it also allows over-quota fishing and under-recording of fishing. Hence, it referred to both sides.
I have no idea whether France has paid its fine and that is a question for the Commission. While one hears on the grapevine that it probably has not, I do not know this for a fact.
One can be sure it has not.
Mr. Peter Whelan
As for the detention of vessels, we must go to court to get a 48-hour detention order. When a vessel is detained, the Garda goes to court and the judge decides whether to grant a detention order for 48 hours. We try to do all the work pertaining to the detention within that timeframe, after which the vessel is free to leave port again.
As for convictions, we send files through the State solicitor to the Attorney General. Considerable delays have arisen with regard to those prosecutions coming to court, possibly because of due process. We have no control over them as they go to the Office of the Attorney General after they leave our hands. We have heard it has taken from between 12 months to two years for cases to be heard. There is a facility within the Act for responsibility for the cases to move from the Office of the Attorney General to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. At present the aforementioned offices are in discussion on this issue regarding the resources required by the Director of Public Prosecutions to manage those files. That transition will take place at some point.
Is it true that Ireland is the only country in Europe that insists on bringing criminal charges against its skippers? I have been told that Ireland is the only country to do so and that in other countries, such matters are dealt with under administrative sanctions.
Mr. Andrew Kinneen
I will make a brief comment in this regard and I wish to respond to Deputy Ferris. I do not have the statistics to hand for the Deputy on the conviction rate. Historically however, the conviction rate in the cases taken has been extremely high. As my chairman noted, due process takes its own time.
As for the handling of fisheries infractions by other member states, European law provides for the civil, criminal and administrative codes to be used to address these issues. The remedy applied must have a dissuasive effect and must deny the wrongdoer any commercial benefit from committing the act. That said, my knowledge of this matter indicates that, for example, in the United Kingdom, Spain or France, the first option for minor fishery infractions is the use of administrative sanctions. However, to the best of my knowledge, more serious offences are dealt with by the criminal code.
My information from Europe is that Ireland is the only country that takes such actions against skippers.
Has Mr. Whelan concluded?
That measure was introduced by an Irish Attorney General.
Has the strategy statement been approved by the consultative committee?
Mr. Peter Whelan
We brought the strategy statement before the consultative committee. A specific meeting of the consultative committee was held to take on board its members' views. These views have been taken on board and a final draft of the strategy statement has been prepared.
Has the consultative committee approved the final draft?
Mr. Peter Whelan
It has not seen the final draft. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is supposed to approve a strategy statement and send it to the Minister, who then sends it to the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is within that process. We intend to contact our parent Department today to ascertain whether we can have some more time to bring it back to the consultative committee.
I suggest that should be the way to go. What is the point of having a consultative committee that does not approve the final draft?
Mr. Peter Whelan
Yes.
I refer to the indications that several hundred tonnes of illegal fish had been landed. I asked whether anyone had been charged or convicted in this regard.
Mr. Peter Whelan
Three separate investigations are under way. In the case of one investigation, we have sent ten case files to the Attorney General so far and more probably will follow. As for the other two cases, investigations still are ongoing.
I refer to the issue of advice to the Minister. Is it given occasionally or sought and what form does it take?
Mr. Peter Whelan
Initially, it probably takes the form of meeting the officials. We meet the assistant secretary general on a regular basis and talk through issues. As for the Minister seeking advice, we normally give advice when it has been sought. While we have given advice on a number of issues, we have done so through the officials of the Department rather than directly to the Minister.
On behalf of the joint committee, I thank Mr. Whelan, Mr. Kinneen and Mr. O'Mahony for their presentation and for answering the queries raised by members.
The meeting stands adjourned until Wednesday, 18 June, when the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Michelle Gildernew, will appear before the committee.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 12.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 18 June 2008.