Mr. Miche?l O'Mahony:

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

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