SFPA Refuses to Answer Key Questions at Stormy Oireachtas Hearing

Executive Chairperson Paschal Hayes repeatedly invokes legislation to avoid discussing collapsed ten-year prosecution as frustrated TDs demand accountability

The Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs witnessed extraordinary scenes late November as Sea Fisheries Protection Authority representatives deflected repeated questions about a controversial court case, leaving committee members visibly frustrated and demanding changes to the law that allows regulators to avoid scrutiny.

Executive Chairperson Paschal Hayes, accompanied by Barry Murphy (executive manager for legal services), Michael Finn (senior executive manager for operations), and Louise Murphy (senior executive manager for corporate services), appeared before the committee in what quickly became a heated confrontation over accountability, enforcement practices, and a prosecution that took ten years before collapsing in court.

The Ward Case: Ten Years, No Answers

The flashpoint centred on the recent collapse of a prosecution against Sean Ward (Fish Exports) Limited – a case dismissed by a judge who cited a “total lack of evidence” after a decade long ordeal for the company.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, appointed as the committee’s rapporteur on fisheries protection, led the charge. The case was taken under the Metrology Act and relied heavily on the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI), which found no issues with weighing systems.

“The NSAI did not find any issue with the weighing system whatsoever, the case went over ten years, the case was referred to in a leaked audit report document to the European Union in two separate parts and officers who gave evidence in the case apparently worked on that audit. Does that cause Mr. Hayes concern?” Mac Lochlainn asked.

Hayes’s response was unwavering: “I cannot comment on this. Section 68 of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 prevents me from commenting on that case or any other such case.”

Mac Lochlainn pressed harder, noting the devastating court evidence. “The NSAI, in evidence to the court, made it clear there was absolutely no evidence of any issues with these weighing systems, and indeed, that one of the SFPA’s officers may have interfered with the weighing system by leaning a spanner on the weighing scale. It was absolutely damning and Mr. Hayes has no comment to make on that case. Mr. Hayes has no statements, no comments, no review and no actions taken in relation to that court case.”

When asked whether the SFPA would review taking cases under the Metrology Act when the NSAI, the designated authority for weighing devices, clearly hadn’t found wrongdoing, Hayes remained immovable: “I repeat that I cannot comment on the individual case as per section 68 of the 2006 Act but I will say again that in general, the DPP takes cases. The DPP prosecutes; the SFPA does not prosecute. There are a number of checks and balance before that process happens. The DPP is the decision maker as to whether a case proceeds.”

This repeated deflection to the DPP became a pattern throughout the hearing, frustrating deputies who felt the SFPA was avoiding responsibility for cases it had initiated.

Selective Press Releases: Success Stories Only

Mac Lochlainn then exposed what appeared to be a glaring double standard in the SFPA’s communications strategy.

“I am going through the SFPA website reading statement after statement issued by the SFPA following court cases that the authority has been successful in, but I cannot find any statement from it about court cases it has not been successful in. How does Mr. Hayes feel about that?”

Hayes attempted to distinguish between the legal prohibition on discussing cases at committee hearings versus issuing press releases but acknowledged he couldn’t remember putting out releases about unsuccessful cases. He explained such releases are meant to promote compliance across the sector.

Mac Lochlainn wasn’t buying it: “Mr. Hayes is referring to a part of legislation so that he does not have to comment on a court case that is frankly shocking and that has been reported on in the public domain. He is refusing to comment on it, yet I can find statement after statement. When it wins court cases the SFPA cannot be silenced in commenting on what has happened and in commending its officers, yet, in the instance of this court case where an officer of the SFPA apparently tampered with evidence. Mr. Hayes has no comment to make on that.”

The Deputy delivered a damning conclusion: “I have found statement after statement where the SFPA immediately comments when it is damaging to the industry but when it is damaging to the SFPA, it has not a single word to say. The witnesses were given a chance in this committee, and they have not had a single word to say. They hid behind a legislative technicality in order to do so. That will be noted by this committee and the industry.”

The DPP Shield and Barry Murphy’s Explanation

Throughout the hearing, Hayes repeatedly emphasised the SFPA’s limited role in prosecutions. When Mac Lochlainn pressed about the Ward case process, Hayes outlined: “If the SFPA detects a suspected non-compliance, the first thing that happens is there will be some internal checks put in place in relation to the detection. The master of the vessel or whoever has been detected will be given an opportunity, under cautioned interview, to put forward his or her side of the story. A file will be completed by the sea fisheries protection officer. That file will be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP will then determine if the case is to proceed.”

He stressed: “The SFPA does not prosecute anybody for a fisheries offence. As far as I am aware, it has never prosecuted anybody for a fisheries offence. These cases are taken by the DPP. I am telling the committee what happens in the general case.”

On costs, Hayes shifted financial responsibility entirely: “In situations where the DPP takes a prosecution, the DPP pays any costs involved with it. The Deputy would have to raise any question about the cost of prosecutions, be they fisheries or otherwise, with the office of the DPP rather than with me.”

Late in the hearing, Mac Lochlainn directed a question to Barry Murphy, the executive manager for legal services: “Will he clarify whether he is conducting a review of existing cases and making recommendations to the DPP? Would he say that, under his oversight, there has been a change in policy in dealing with legal cases, in what cases find their way to courts and in what cases a settlement is negotiated?”

Murphy provided the clearest insight into internal operations: “We review all cases on an ongoing basis. They progress through the courts. We have opportunities to review files at all times. That is the extent of the review process we undertake. We have always complied with our enforcement policy, which has been in place since before my tenure. The policy reflects that any enforcement action be proportionate and that not every infringement will result in a prosecution. That is set out in the enforcement policy. There has not been a change in policy. We avail of the tools provided for under the Act and under legislation. The file is prepared for the DPP and then, as has been outlined, the DPP makes a decision on whether to proceed to prosecution.”

This acknowledgment that not every infringement results in prosecution raised questions about decision,making criteria that weren’t explored in detail during the hearing.

The Legislative Shield: Section 68

When Mac Lochlainn asked Hayes to read the legislation preventing him from commenting, Hayes cited Section 68 of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, which states the authority “shall not be required to account to a Committee for any matter which is or has been or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State.”

Hayes emphasised repeatedly: “Section 68 does not prevent the SFPA from issuing press releases. Section 68 refers specifically to our appearance at an Oireachtas committee. It is not that I am choosing not to answer the questions; I am legally prohibited from answering the questions.”

He added: “If I commented on that case, I would be breaking the law, as it stands. The members are the legislators. If they are that frustrated about it, it is in their hands to do something about it. If the legislation is changed, I would be more than happy to come back and talk about individual cases, obviously within the other parameters within which I am allowed to do so.”

Hayes also noted the case might still be sub judice: “We are still not past the time for appeals. It is a matter for the DPP as to whether it is appealed or not. I have nothing to do with that decision but as far as I am concerned it is still sub judice in that regard, in any case.”

Later, defending himself against accusations of stonewalling, Hayes stated: “I can understand the frustration but that frustration is being taken out on me for complying with the legislation of this House.”

Deputy Maxwell: “Clear as Mud”

Deputy David Maxwell, representing an inland county but having visited Killybegs during the summer, brought a fresh and increasingly frustrated perspective to the questioning.

“It was a horror story to see boats tied up and factories closed. What we have heard so far today has been as clear as mud. We asked about the court case; we cannot comment on that. The SFPA does not take court cases. The DPP is responsible for taking cases.”

Maxwell challenged the notion that the SFPA bears no responsibility: “Is it not right that the DPP will ask for evidence as to why it should take the case? Somewhere along the line, the SFPA had to direct the DPP and say this case was worth taking. While the DPP took the case, it had to get direction from the SFPA. There are no two ways about it. The DPP in Dublin did not sit and say it would take this case for it then to be proved after ten years.”

Hayes was firm: “Nobody directs the DPP, as Deputy is aware. The process is that the DPP gets a file from us.”

When Maxwell insisted, “In the file, the SFPA must have directed that there was a case to be taken here,” Hayes repeated: “It is not a direction and nobody directs the DPP.”

Maxwell then described the security infrastructure he’d witnessed in Killybegs: “I spoke to people who said that whiting was put through and it was made into fishmeal. I visited a factory. You would not see more security cameras at Dublin Airport than the number of security cameras that the SFPA made that factory install for weighing, yet people are emptying fish into a box on the pier, whether it is mackerel, blue whiting or whatever.”

He referenced industry criticism directly: “I read an article at the weekend. It described the relationship between the industry and the SFPA as toxic. It stated that Mr. Dominic Rihan, head of the Killybegs fishermen, suggested that the SFPA displayed a level of heavy handedness and that, at times, vessels felt they were being targeted and victimised. We are hearing that the biggest obstacle to the Irish fishing industry is the SFPA.”

Maxwell questioned the monitoring setup at Killybegs pier, asking whether SFPA staff sit in the control tower watching the pier. Hayes corrected him that the harbourmaster occupies the tower but confirmed SFPA monitors camera feeds from the ground floor of the same building.

When Maxwell pressed about why foreign ships weren’t coming to Killybegs to land fish, the Chair had to cut him off due to time constraints, though Hayes attempted to answer.

In his closing remarks, Maxwell’s frustration boiled over: “I have found the morning highly frustrating. I see why fisherman have the angst they have about the SFPA. When questions were asked, rules our predecessors made were used against us to not answer questions. A silo was put up.”

He referenced their earlier exchange about the tower location: “I asked Mr. Hayes about the live feed into the tower. He said ‘No’ and then he said the SFPA was not on the top floor but admitted it was on the bottom floor. That sums up the level of answer we were getting here. I understand why Irish fishermen feel the way they do about the authority.”

Hayes responded: “The tower is a very specific location. It is important to be accurate when you are sitting in front of a committee.”

Maxwell shot back: “It is important, and I asked whether the live feed went into the top of the tower. Mr. Hayes said ‘No’. I made a mistake. It was not the top of the tower; it was the first floor. I had the wrong floor. That was the way Mr. Hayes wanted to take the question. He said: ‘Yeah, it’s in the tower but we’re not on the top, we’re on the bottom.’ That is fair enough. If that is the angle he wants to take, that is no problem. If he is saying that to me having never met me before, then the disconnect is coming from how he deals with fishermen on the pier in Killybegs, Castletownbere or anywhere.”

Hayes attempted to explain his frustration was being taken out on him “for complying with the legislation of this House,” but Maxwell concluded: “I did not know that legislation was there. Maybe that is on me. We have to look at ourselves to see how we can go forward and do better so that when we have someone before the committee, we can get the answers we want.”

Deputy Gallagher: The Cost of Failure

Former Minister of State for Fisheries Pat the Cope Gallagher brought his experience and anger to the questioning, particularly on the selective application of Section 68 and the accountability vacuum around failed prosecutions.

“All I can say is there is an accusation that there is a lack of consistency when the SFPA applies section 68 depending on the result of a case. I will leave it at that. It is wrong that the SFPA can respond to those cases that are favourable to it but then it puts the shutters up when it comes to section 68. That is something we will pursue further.”

Gallagher then delivered a withering assessment: “I am sure, and this just a statement, that the DPP is totally embarrassed a result of this and the evidence that was supplied. It is only as strong as the evidence the SFPA supplied to it. It would be much better for the witnesses to come in today, put their hands up and say that they got it wrong and they apologise to the DPP, not to us or the fishers, but the DPP, for the lack of evidence that was produced. After harassment for ten years, there is no comeback whatsoever for that company. I hope the SFPA may change its ways as a result of this and be consistent.”

On costs, Gallagher pressed a crucial point: “Can Mr. Hayes tell me, with this case being cost neutral to the SFPA, were all of the expenses from the investigations and the preparatory work a matter for the DPP? It did not cost the SFPA anything.”

The implication was clear: the SFPA faced no financial consequences for preparing files that resulted in collapsed prosecutions, removing a key accountability mechanism.

Gallagher also challenged Hayes on enforcement consistency: “Mr. Hayes referred to the Common Fisheries Policy. All the regulations are common, but it is strange that the SFPA implements them differently. I would suggest that, if Mr. Hayes’ people have not been to other countries, they should go there. Now that this case has not cost the SFPA anything, it should go there and see how they are implemented. They seem to be implemented more vigorously in this country than they are in other countries.”

Drawing on his ministerial experience, Gallagher questioned the camera installation process. He reminded the committee that processors paid €2.4 million for camera installations and challenged Hayes’s initial statement that the SFPA doesn’t supervise their installation.

“Would Mr. Hayes reconsider one of his previous answers? He said that the SFPA did not decide. Is it not true that the SFPA instructed the location of cameras and, on occasions, insisted on moving those cameras? Mr. Hayes might not have that information to hand, but I am asking him to reconsider his earlier reply.”

Hayes clarified that officers inspect premises and if cameras aren’t located correctly under the control plan, “they will advise the operator that it cannot be permitted unless the cameras are laid out according to the control plan. They may have found that the camera was not covering the correct area and may have advised the operator that this camera needed to be moved.”

Gallagher responded simply: “That was not Mr. Hayes’s earlier answer. I will leave it at that.”

Chair McGuinness: Missing Data and Skewed Inspections

Committee Chair Deputy Conor McGuinness expressed astonishment at a fundamental gap in the information presented.

“It is quite astounding that you are at this committee without having the figures and the statistics for at sea inspections of vessels in Irish waters. I cannot understand why you would not have those figures coming to this meeting. This is a critical part of what we are discussing today. I would like first to understand why you do not have those figures and if you can provide them to us.”

Hayes apologised but noted they had 37 different tabs trying to anticipate questions: “It certainly would have been useful if the committee had indicated beforehand the topics it wanted to discuss.”

The Chair wasn’t accepting this excuse: “Not to labour the point, but sea fisheries inspections are a fairly significant part of your work, I would imagine, and a significant topic that you should have anticipated would come up today. It is a core piece of information that is missing from this discussion.”

The inspection data Hayes did have painted a deeply concerning picture. For pelagic landings in 2024, 331 Irish vessels made landings with 34 inspected, while only seven other member state vessels landed (with four inspected) and 38 non-EU vessels landed (with five inspected).

The Chair’s analysis was damning: “So, 331 Irish landings were inspected last year. For every 34 Irish vessels to have their catch inspected, there were only five non-Irish, meaning EU and non-EU. If those are the figures, it is even more astounding than what I said in my opening question. It is massively out of kilter with the nature of fishing effort in Irish waters, where only 15% of total allowable catch is caught by Irish vessels, or Irish vessels only have that quota. Yet, the vast bulk of inspections on land, and I imagine it is a similar ratio at sea, shows the SFPA’s efforts are overwhelmingly directed at Irish vessels.”

When Hayes attempted to explain the percentages differently, the Chair pressed: “We do not have statistics here at this committee meeting for at sea inspections, so Mr. Hayes cannot tell me how many foreign EU and non-EU boats are being inspected at sea. I have made the point that we have no oversight of vessels returning to their home ports having caught fish in Irish waters. If only seven vessels landed in Irish ports last year and SFPA inspected four of those, how can SFPA give us any assurance that it is conducting any level of inspection or monitoring of fishing effort in Irish waters by EU or non-EU boats?”

Hayes defended the position by citing the Common Fisheries Policy: “The obligation does not only fall on Ireland’s control authorities in relation to other member states fishing in the Irish exclusive economic zone, EEZ. It falls on the control authorities of those member states as well. It is the member states working together at an EU level.”

The Chair wasn’t satisfied, pressing on accountability for failed prosecutions: “Has there been any reviews by the SFPA on the cases brought or files presented to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which then makes a decision whether to bring a case or not? Has there been a review of the files that have been prepared? The SFPA might provide figures for the number of files. How many of those resulted in a conviction and how many were dismissed? Is there any planned review of cases that have effectively been thrown out?”

Hayes confirmed ongoing reviews: “We review that on an ongoing basis. That would effectively be the work of one of our units. We have a system that keeps track of all this.”

When asked who this is reported to, Hayes replied it’s reported to the authority itself, with some criteria in the annual report and some reported to the Minister “without going into the individual cases, obviously.”

The Chair requested a comprehensive report: “I do not think the full detail is in the annual report. A question about cost has been asked several times. We appreciate there is a legal cost of bringing a case and that is a matter for the DPP. The cost of preparing a file in a case where, because of what happens in front of the judge, the judge says there is absolutely no evidence, is of public interest in terms of money not being wasted and from an accountability and transparency point of view.”

Hayes assured him that “the legal costs and every penny we spend are accounted for in our annual report and annual accounts.”

But the Chair clarified what he was really asking: “I am talking about the cost to the SFPA and the public purse of preparing files that go to the DPP and are then effectively thrown out of court on the basis, to quote a judge, of a total lack of evidence. That was the question.”

Hayes raised a procedural concern: “Just that we are clear, I have said we will provide statistics but that is a difficult statistic to provide unless there is a really good definition of what ‘thrown out’ means.”

The Chair offered a clear definition: “I will hazard a definition. It is where the case is dismissed by the judge summarily.”

A System Without Consequences

What emerged most clearly from the exchanges with deputies and the Chair was a picture of an enforcement system where the SFPA faces minimal accountability for failed prosecutions.

The authority prepares files but doesn’t prosecute. The DPP bears the legal costs of failed cases. The SFPA cannot be questioned about specific cases before or after they go to court. Press releases trumpet successes but remain silent on failures. Internal reviews happen but detailed statistics on outcomes aren’t readily available. And throughout it all, fishing families and businesses bear the stress, reputational damage, and practical consequences of prosecutions that may take a decade before collapsing.

As Gallagher put it: “After harassment for ten years, there is no comeback whatsoever for that company.”

The hearing ended with multiple calls for the SFPA to return, preferably with the Minister present. The Chair noted: “As a new and active committee, we have a lot of work to do. Perhaps the SFPA could come in several times a year, but certainly earlier next year.”

Mac Lochlainn will prepare a comprehensive report as rapporteur, drawing on commissioned research comparing fisheries protection regimes across Europe.

Hayes indicated willingness to return: “I am happy to come back here at any stage. At least now, bad and all as members may think it is, they have the other side of the story to consider.”

But for an industry already feeling under siege, this hearing offered no comfort whatsoever. The Committee had exposed what they saw as a regulatory authority that celebrates its wins, hides behind legislation when questioned about losses, faces no financial consequences for failed prosecutions, and maintains it has “a good working relationship with the fisheries sector” despite not a single committee member agreeing.

Maxwell’s closing observation captured the mood: “Listening to this, you would think the fishing industry is absolutely rosy, going really well, and the SFPA is to be thanked for that. I understand why Irish fishermen feel the way they do about the authority.”

Whether legislative changes, increased oversight, or fundamental reform will result remains to be seen. What’s certain is that the gulf between regulator and regulated has widened, and the SFPA’s appearance before the committee raised far more questions than it answered.