Dr. Susan Steele:

I apologise to the Chair. I only dealt with questions Nos. 1 to 8 and a number of questions are outstanding. Mr. Kinneen has answered some of them but, if it is okay, there are a few more I will address.

Question No. 8 was about the administrative inquiry and whether it looks like we agreed with it due to the language used. I will state for the record that the agreement was reached through the information provided, which was substantial information to the Commission rather than an agreement by the organisation. It is a discussion we have had with industry many times but it is just to be aware that that is the language.

On the question of whether we shared the audit with any NGOs or were there any leaks, I assure members that the SFPA takes its data duties incredibly seriously. If we have leaks, we will look at them. As we also take our protected disclosures and the whistleblower Act seriously, the answer to that question is "No". There has been no sharing of the audit or breaching of any confidences by the SFPA.

On the decision to revoke the plan and how this was communicated, it is a matter of EU law and accepted within Irish policy that the ultimate decision maker allowing post-transport weighing is the Commission. EU law does not delegate that to member states. The Commission's powers are not qualified by consultation or advance notification obligations and, therefore, since the day of approval of the control plan the risk of its revocation has existed. The SFPA forewarned the sea-fisheries consultative committee that the derogation was at serious risk. The SFPA has also frequently emphasised to Irish operators the overall precariousness or, at least, the non-automatic nature of the derogation. In many of the audits by DG Mare since 2012, the risk of post-transport derogations facing jeopardy was made explicit. The potential for a post-transport weigh derogation has been clearly to the fore in all the SFPA cyclic discussions with the pelagic industry. On notifying the industry of the Commission's decision to revoke the control plan, we began consultations with the industry immediately following publication by the Commission of its decision. We ask Members of the Oireachtas to understand that, as a regulator, we operate within existing regulations and decisions and not in a speculative manner regarding them.

On question No. 12 about the PwC report, the SFPA is subject to periodic critical review under its code of governance, as are all State agencies. The SFPA carried out a comprehensive review of the organisation in 2019. It was the first review of its kind of the SFPA and it recognised the significant changes that have taken place since the establishment of the organisation in 2007 in terms of the expansion of our remit and scale. The SFPA has grown from an organisation with 77 people and a budget of less than €11 million in 2015 to a budget of €24.8 million and a current staff number of 155 in 2021. The PwC report and its recommendations provide a clear path for the changes required to ensure that the organisation can effectively and efficiently deliver on our remit. In order to work with that, we have set up an advisory board, which meets with the authority monthly. We have appointed a director of transformation who came before the committee at its last meeting to meet members. Significant progress has been made on many of the issues raised in the review.

There were a number of questions about the control plan, its submission and the desk vacancy in the EU. Mr. Kinneen has answered all those questions very well. Again, on the building of relationships with the industry and our ongoing discussions with those working in it, I assure the committee that meetings have taken place and working groups have been formed.

Another significant question related to the interim plan and whether we could submit a draft plan. Deputy Michael Collins explained his frustrations with it. To be very clear, we have no authority in EU or national law to derogate in any way or to put in place transitional arrangements. We are aware that we face criticism for this. We are a regulatory authority and are agents of the State who implement what is on the Statute Book. We have no way to derogate from this. As Mr. Kinneen explained, we have been working on putting in a description of where weighing on landing occurs. In some ports and piers, that has led to an easing of tensions and good working arrangements. We are also very conscious that there have been significant changes for some of the islands and rural ports.

We are working very hard to rebuild the relationship with industry and the Commission. The SFPA has to work hard to rebuild the relationship with the Commission following the audit findings, the administrative enquiry and concerns about pelagic weighing.

I have noted a final question. I apologise to Deputy Collins but there was quite a list.

As I offered, I am very happy to meet the Deputy at any point. We will go back over this and will communicate with the committee in writing if there is anything I have missed.

Regarding the High Court case, the SFPA is committed to implementing the decision of the court. As the regulator, we support the correct weighing of catches, regardless of where that takes place, where we can have confidence in the accuracy of the certified weighing systems being used and being mindful of learnings from past experience. The approval process has been worked through. What is involved has been communicated to the industry and we will be working through that as quickly as possible. Regarding the details of the case, the judgment is available for anybody to read. I will not go into the full detail of it because I am aware that other Deputies want to come in. I am not sure if there is anything else I have forgotten from that significant list of questions.