asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the name of the registered owner of the trawler Le Ravil when it was arrested by LE Gráinne; and the name of the registered owner now.
56.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trawler Arrest.
55.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why the State did not pursue court proceedings against the owner of an unregistered trawler, Le Ravil, which was arrested while fishing inside Irish territorial waters.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 55 and 56 together. On the information available to my Department the trawler Le Ravil was not registered at the time of her arrest and has not since been registered. As application for Irish registration had been made in respect of the boat at the time of her arrest and as the boat had been under detention for a period of eight days following arrest it was decided in all the circumstances to discontinue the court proceedings.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary think it is proper that any vessel may fish in Irish territorial waters, not being registered, and gain many weeks of time and extra fishing if they so desire? Is it not true that the crew of the Gráinne which arrested the vessel were doing their duty in a proper manner and that the State has let them down?
The circumstances here are different from what the Deputy has said. This boat is owned by Ireland Bretagne Fisheries Ltd., of which the directors are Messrs. Goalabre. It is an Irish-registered company with registered offices at Rathmore, Baltimore, County Cork. The company owns and operates a fish processing factory at Baltimore. This boat was not registered. They had withdrawn their French registration. They applied for registration in this country and when the case came before Midleton court on April 16th it was decided to adjourn it to Wednesday 24th April.
The application for the registration of Le Ravil had been made some time prior to the arrest but registration had not been completed. In the course of our inquiries we were informed that the former French registration of the boat had been cancelled which is the normal practice when new registration is sought. Consequently, so far as our information went, the boat had no registration at the time of arrest. Where an unregistered boat wishes to engage in fishing within our exclusive fisheries limit pending registration, a permit may be sought from this Department under section 8 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, as amended. Application for such a permit had not been made in respect of Le Ravil at the time of the offence —12th April, 1974—which led to the court proceedings but was subsequently made and granted.
In view of the fact that the boat had been under detention since 12th April, 1974, and had consequently suffered serious financial loss and as it is also understood that if the boat remained out of operation for much longer the crew was likely to disperse, it was decided in all the circumstances not to go ahead with the court proceedings.
Is it not improper to let a boat go that is not properly registered and was not able to produce either registration papers or a permit to fish to our coast guard service, which has a duty to safeguard our fishing within territorial waters? The master of this boat was not able to produce a permit or registration certificate and the boat was properly arrested.
Will the Deputy please ask a question?
The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that it has not since been registered—that it has not got a permit since. Am I to take that from the reply?
It has got a permit under section 8 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act and everything is now in order. I am satisfied with the decision made having regard to all the circumstances. The Deputy must bear in mind that this happened in the Easter period. Usually, when a boat is arrested the proceedings take place within a day or two.
It just was not in order. This is very important for our fishermen.
Question No. 57.
It shows there was underhand work going on.
Did I understand that two non-nationals were employed on this boat? If so were work permits available to them and, if not, is action being taken against them?
Work permits were available. Everything was in order and I can assure Deputy Meaney in reply to his rather uncalled for remark that there was nothing underhand so far as this matter is concerned.
It was through the back door.
Everything was in accordance with the law.
In view of the long reading of his reply by the Parliamentary Secretary to the supplementary question, do I take it that the application was made after the event?
That is correct, immediately afterwards.
And permission was granted then?
Permission was granted under section 8 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act.
The whole operation was legalised post factum.
I am satisfied, taking all the circumstances into account and that these people operate their fish plant properly down in Baltimore and having regard to the fact that work permits have been granted and that four members of the crew are Irish people——
We have given an inordinate amount of time to this question.
You should see after the local fishermen.
If an Irish national did this he would be prosecuted.