Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Jun 1978

Vol. 307 No. 11

Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1978: Second Stage .

: I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main objectives of this Bill are: (1) to substantially increase penalty levels for offences under the parts of the Fisheries Acts which deal specifically with sea-fishing and in particular breaches of the exclusive fishery limits of the State by foreign sea-fishing vessels; and (2) to provide for confiscation of all gear and catch on conviction on indictment; for confiscation, where appropriate, of unlawful gear and catch and lawful gear unlawfully used on summary conviction, and for possible confiscation of the actual vessel in the case of a second indictable offence.

Consequential amendments have been made in the provisions for trial of a defendant and for detention pending trial or appeal and for release on lodgement of adequate security.

I have availed of this opportunity of the need for amending legislation to make provision in the Bill for the following: the detention of any suspect fishing vessels in port for up to 48 hours for examination prior to the institution of legal proceedings; the complete separation of the offences of illegal entry and illegal fishing; some textual amendment of section 35 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1962; the extension of my powers to restrict the use of certain types of gear in prescribed areas; the taking of powers to regulate sea-fishing operations in accordance with an International Convention on Conduct of Fishery operations in the North Atlantic which was drawn up in London in 1967, and, finally, for the re-definition of the words "fish" and "net" in the Acts.

As Deputies are aware, that part of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 (Section 221) which provides for forfeiture of fish and fishing gear in cases of unlawful entry of foreign sea-fishing boats within the exclusive fishery limits was recently declared to be unconstitutional in the High Court. The basis of this judgment was that forfeiture of fish and fishing gear in such cases constituted a penalty so great that the offence cannot be a minor offence within the meaning assigned under Article 38 of the Constitution. In effect, the severity of the punishment placed the matter beyond the competence of the District Court. While the judgment applied only to section 221 of the Act, it must be assumed that the courts would take a similar view of any other section of the Act where provision for forfeiture arises. While notice of appeal has been served by the Attorney General against the High Court ruling, I am advised that no advantage is likely to be gained by pursuing the appeal. Even if the forfeiture provision had remained, however, the penalties were still inadequate in my view bearing in mind the importance of safeguarding fish stocks at present.

There has been criticism of me because of a delay in initiating this Bill. I was well aware of the possibility of our losing the case in the High Court but no responsible Minister would endeavour to remedy possible defects in legislation while an appeal was pending; doing so would obviously prejudice the result of the appeal. The final ruling of the court was not received by me until March and because of the constitutional and international issues involved great care has had to be taken in drafting the Bill.

I am sure Deputies will agree that although the Bill is short it is nevertheless a complex piece of legislation.

I am confident that the increase in fine levels for offences committed by foreign fishing boats, which range from £500 on summary conviction on a charge of illegal entry to £10,000 on conviction on indictment on a similar charge to £100,000 on conviction on indictment on a charge of illegal fishing, will, in addition to the various confiscation and forfeiture provisions, provide the necessary deterrent and protection against would-be offenders. These fines and forfeitures are set out in Tables I, II and III to section 2.

Deputies will observe that in some cases of summary conviction provision has been made for automatic forfeiture as a consequence of conviction of fish unlawfully caught, unlawful gear or lawful gear unlawfully used. The Attorney General considers that such provisions are not in conflict with the High Court ruling because in this decision the "forfeiture" provisions of section 221 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 which contain no distinction whatever on the basis of the lawfulness or otherwise of the catch or gear or the use of the gear, but provide for a simple forfeiture of all catch and gear found on a boat in respect of which a conviction had been obtained, were held to be unconstitutional.

Fines for some other sea fishery offences which would affect local as well as foreign skippers have also been increased to a more realistic level.

Preventing crime is better than detecting it. I have no doubt but that the penalties now proposed together with our improved fishery protection services will convince would-be poachers that illegal fishing in our waters would not be worth while. Further improvement in our protection services including the acquisition of an additional spotter plane are contemplated with substantial EEC aid towards the cost. These planes are a great asset in fishery protection in helping to locate intruding vessels and while unable to effect an arrest can lead a protection vessel to the offending vessel. They can help also to provide supplementary evidence in court if this is necessary. No change in legislation is required to enable sea fishery protection officers on board planes to give evidence in court, but of course they must be in a position to give satisfactory evidence as to the identity and exact location of the offending vessel.

One secondary but very important provision to which I should like to refer is that providing for detention for up to 48 hours of vessels suspected of having committed an offence. At present a vessel may not be detained unless charges are being brought against the skipper. With the larger vessels now in use and the complex conservation regulations such as minimum mesh sizes and maximum bycatches in operation it is virtually im-possible for a sea fisheries protection officer to confirm at sea that an offence has in fact been committed. The new provision will make enforcement of all sea fishery legislation much easier.

The other amendments proposed are mainly designed to remove deficiencies in existing legislation.

I commend this Bill to the House.

: We welcome this Bill and compliment the Minister on introducing it, although it is somewhat late. Last week we covered fairly well the background to this legislation. I should like the Minister to comment on what we consider to be a couple of omissions so far as the Bill is concerned. He expressed the hope that the EEC will grant-aid the buying of another spotter plane. I have raised this matter before with the Minister for Defence and I understand that the grant relates only to the actual purchase of a spotter plane or other protection vessel and makes no provision for the maintenance and the running costs of the vessels or for the cost of the provision of the personnel concerned. I suggest that the Minister has a very strong case in this regard.

We all agree that the 200-mile limit must be our territorial right and that it must be patrolled by ourselves. If this situation is accepted by the Community we should be entitled not only to 75 per cent of the purchase price of protection vessels but to a grant in respect of the operation of the vessels, their maintenance and the cost of providing the personnel necessary to man them.

We are talking in terms of about £30 million but during a period of five years the running costs of the protection vessels would be much in excess of that figure. I wonder why the Minister did not see fit to introduce a clause, as I understand has been the case in other countries, whereby aerial surveillance can be accepted as evidence in court.

: That is the case. However, it is an interesting point and I shall refer to it in my reply.

: In time it will be a point that must be considered seriously. The point I am making is that if a spotter plane crew can prove by modern methods that a boat was illegally inside the 200-limit, the photographic and scientific evidence should be accepted in the court as proof of the illegal action. But there is no reference in the Bill to any provision regarding aerial surveillance. Perhaps at a later stage of the Bill's progress through the House a section could be added in order to ensure that this very important point is provided for. We must be realistic about this. At present we have only two proper fisheries protection vessels, the Emer and the Deirdre. I know it is our intention to replace our mine sweepers with different types of boats during the next few years. At the moment we have only four fishery patrol boats. I understand that as far as the east coast is concerned the equilibrium line is halfway between England and Ireland. We must realise that those four boats cannot patrol a 200 mile zone.

We know that the air corps work hand in hand with the Navy and that the one spotter plane we have does about four sorties a week. If the spotter plane sees any illegal boats it notifies the Naval Service and one of the patrol boats may have to travel 200 miles or 400 miles to get to this illegal boat. At the moment when an illegal boats sees the spotter plane it moves outside the limit. The Minister talks about patrolling our 200-mile zone, but the only way this can be done is to have a Bill brought before the House to ensure that the evidence of the people in the spotter plane is accepted and that those who are fishing illegally can be convicted of their crimes. That is the most important thing as far as the Irish fishermen are concerned. The Minister speaks about preventing crime but this will only happen if we tighten up our law.

The Minister said he hopes to get money from the EEC. Perhaps he has knowledge from his trip to Brussels and has brought home a bag of goodies for a change. I hope he will be able to tell us that at least half of the £30 million has been granted to us as a temporary measure until we have our final fishery agreement, which we all hope we will get. There is no point in talking about building extra boats, buying an extra plane, bringing more people into the Naval Service unless we get at least part of this £30 million. I do not see the Minister with his usual smile on his face. When I do not see the smile the news is not usually good.

: We cannot always judge the book by the cover.

: The Minister spoke about the exclusive fishery limits of the State. When he says that I take it that he means the 200-mile limit.

: That is right.

: What way will the new limit the Minister has introduced off the Clare-Galway coast be classed? We have two types of limits at the moment. We have the 200-mile zone and this area off the Clare-Galway coast which is reserved exclusively for the Dutch and the Irish, which Deputy Killilea is very interested in. Does the Minister not intend to call this a different type of zone? What happens if the French or the Germans have fishing boats illegally in this zone? I am not a prophet and I am sure the Minister is not one. We cannot allow the northwestern coast to be closed but we can accept an exclusive fishing zone for Irish fishermen even excluding the Dutch.

: That was tried before.

: When the new Minister for Fisheries was appointed the country expected a great deal from him. We will not accept the total banning of this particular zone but we will accept a certain exclusive limit for the Irish or even, as has been done at the moment on a trial basis, for the Dutch and the Irish. Is it the same fines and convictions if a German boat or a French boat is caught inside the Clare-Galway exclusive limit?

We hear a lot of talk from Brussels about conservation. It is fair to state that the Irish did not plunder the fish. It was probably the other members of the EEC who did it and we should not suffer for this. There is a section in the Bill which deals with the definition of the net. I hope there is some section in the Bill where the size of the mesh is laid down. When we talk about conservation we must see that the size of the mesh is large enough to allow a lot of the smaller fish through.

I would like to welcome this Bill on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. I hope the Minister will deal with the few points I have put to him. Even though I have not spoken for very long the points I have made are very valid ones.

: They are.

: The Labour Party welcome this Bill which we feel is overdue. The scale of penalties is very severe. We must bear in mind that an extended period of unlawful fishing can be extremely profitable to the owners of the boats who dare to undertake that kind of work. The forfeiture proposals and the scale of penalties are not excessive. The Bill has been very carefully drafted. We feel that the loopholes which were there—the Irish authorities have suffered embarrassment in their prosecutions to date—have been carefully and effectively closed. The closing of these loopholes will give more confidence to the fishery protection staff and will give them extra competence in ensuring the conservation of fish stocks.

In recent months the Minister has not had an enviable task. Listening to the BBC television version of the British Minister's return from the negotiations, one can appreciate the horseplay that went on and the extreme difficulty facing our Minister.

Recently there has been a new climate in relation to our expectations, which were heightened in the latter part of 1976 and in the earlier part of 1977, when there was a great deal of domestic horseplay in party politics about our fishery resources. We are now at the bargaining table and facing reality. Certain aspects of that reality are not pleasant. It is not likely to be too productive in terms of the national interest, but that is the price we have to pay for our greater involvement in the Community. There is now a more sober approach to this matter and this legislation is a mark of that sobriety. I know the Minister will do his utmost to protect our interests. I do not envy him because he will not get all that his party, the Opposition and the fishermen wish him to get. People are now approaching this matter more rationally. I suppose we will see the outcome of this matter during the summer recess and the House will not have an opportunity to discuss the matter until next November.

I welcome the Bill. The only matter that I would question is the current cost of general protection measures on our national budget, leaving aside any subventions that we might get from the Community. That cost must have increased rapidly in the past 12 months. It is a cost which the taxpayer should not be unaware of, and one which is likely to increase substantially in future.

I should like to conclude by expressing my admiration for the work now being done by the fishery protection staff, both on shore and at sea. They have had a difficult task because our legislation has been defective. The massive scale of their operations and the demands made on them have been exceptional. At the same time our boats and equipment have not been capable of coping with protection work. However, in recent years our pride and competence have grown. I am not unduly worried about whether that competence is reflected in a number of prosecutions. Much of our work is preventive. If our patrols are effective it is fair to say that we will not have to drag people through the courts for every attempt to commit an offence. I hope that foreign and Irish skippers will not be tempted to breach this legislation. I wish the Minister and his staff well in ensuring its effective implementation as speedily as possible in the national interest.

: The Bill is a good one and contradicts the accusations that were made against the Minister both inside and outside the House. It shows that the Minister is capable of doing his job. There is no doubt that the Minister has been given the most difficult portfolio of this Government.

Section 5 relates to the restriction of foreign vessels and is a very adequate piece of legislation. The provision in this section is valid, clear and necessary, and I am glad that so much consideration was given to it. It is to the credit of the Department that the section is so well worded.

The provisions in the Bill in regard to detention are very good. When a boat was arrested by a protection vessel it was brought to port. Both boats were laid up for anything up to two weeks, not only the one which was detained but also the one which did the detaining. The new Bill allows that protection vessel to go back out to work. This is a very good point in the Bill. It corrects something which was quaint and old. May be in its time it was a good idea but, as fishing became more intensive, it was a point of law which was used to facilitate others on the high seas who were raping away at their ease.

The rational conservation provision in the Bill is most necessary not only as regards outer sea fish but also salmon stocks and shellfish stocks. I hope it will be used when it appears to the public that abuses are being created by people over-fishing shellfish stocks. I am sure it will be used wisely.

The aerial survey is a very good idea. When I was in Iceland I had the privilege of watching an aerial survey being made. Lines of longitude and latitude were included in the photographs to show the exact location of the fishing boats. These photographs were used very effectively in courts of law in Iceland. They use every possible type of legislation to protect their seas. While the provision in this Bill is not very clear, I am sure the Minister will clarify it when he is replying. I hope the machinery used will include lines of longitude and latitude so that there will be definite and positive evidence in a court of law.

The Minister made a wonderful effort in Brussels to get the amount of money he received to finance this Bill. He had a tough battle to get the finance to implement it. It will not cost the nation an enormous amount of money. The Minister utilised his knowledge of Europe to get the greatest possible amount of money to service this Bill. The Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party have endorsed the Bill unanimously.

I feel so strongly about fishing and conservation that it is only right that as a backbencher I should give my opinion. I welcome the Bill.

: I commend the Minister on introducing the Bill at this stage. In his statement to the House he might have been a bit more generous to the Opposition, and in particular to Deputy Deasy. He could have gone so far as to acknowledge that this Bill is a response to the initiative by Deputy Deasy in producing a Private Members' Bill in this area. I should mention that Deputy Deasy was very anxious to be here to discuss this Bill but, as the House is aware, unfortunately he met with an accident which prevented his attendance to-day. He asked Deputy White and myself to stand in for him and perhaps our joint efforts may equal what he might have been able to do himself.

The Bill should be put in perspective and Deputy Deasy's contribution should be acknowledged. I hope the Minister will do so in his reply. I accept that there are difficulties in putting together this type of legislation, practical, constitutional and legal difficulties. We have to accept that, over the past 12 months, our seas have been open waters to foreign poachers, in particular Spanish poachers. The record shows that the number of Spanish boats prosecuted between 1970 and 1977 was at the rate of one a year. Last year this accelerated to an average of one a month, and last month seven Spanish boats were prosecuted for illegal fishing in our waters. These figures represent the tip of the iceberg only. These are the boats which were caught. We can only estimate the huge numbers which were not caught. It is quite clear that this problem had to be tackled firmly and quickly.

On all sides of the House there is common agreement on the need to restrain and restrict the activities of foreign poachers. The Minister said he was aware of the possibility of losing the case in the High Court and that no responsible Minister would endeavour to remedy possible defects in legislation while an appeal was pending. For the record it is proper to say that the Minister made a statement last December, long before the appeal was heard, that he intended to circulate a Bill in January. In the situation which was developing more seriously month by month and week by week, this Bill should have been introduced a long time ago.

Having said that, we now have the Bill before us and we welcome it. Last week when we were discussing Deputy Deasy's Bill, we indicated that we would give the Minister every possible co-operation in putting this Bill through the House, having received an undertaking that arrangements would be made to ensure that it would be law before the recess. To us the most important fact was that for the next six months our seas would not be open again to further and growing incursions by foreign trawlers. From that point of view the Bill is welcome.

The Bill is somewhat complex. Having made the point that we not alone wish to have the Bill become law before the recess but have been insisting on this, I must point out that it is a bit dangerous to rush these things through in a matter of hours. Possibly we must accept the dictum that desperate situations require desperate remedies. For the future I would suggest to the Minister and the Government that a more reasonable time, a matter of weeks, should be given for the proper consideration and teasingout of problems in a Bill so that loop-holes will not be found. One of the safest ways of doing this is to have a full and proper debate, particularly on Committee Stage.

The Bill provides for substantially increased penalties for foreign poaching and illegal entry, and this is as we would wish. The jurisdiction of the District Court is retained, and one of the fears that has been expressed is that for the sake of convenience the District Court jurisdiction would be over-used and as a result the minimum penalties provided would be all that would be levied against poachers. I accept that the Bill provides that District Court jurisdiction is not to be used except on the consent of the defendant, the Attorney General and the District Justice, but there is a possible danger that because of administrative and other problems, and because of the ease of having matters dealt with in the District Court rather than on indictment, this provision could be over-used. I understand and accept that there may be technical breaches which should be dealt with in the District Court, and obviously there must be provision for this. I would ask the Minister to undertake as far as he can that this provision enabling trial before the District Court will not be used except where breaches are of a technical nature, and that any foreign trawlers which set out to poach in our waters will be hauled up on indictment before the Circuit Court and heavily fined with the consequential effect of forfeiture. This has caused some concern among the fishing fraternity, and I should like the Minister to put minds at ease on this point.

I referred to the question of confiscation or forfeiture. I accept that there are some minor possibilities of confiscation in the District Court and I appreciate the constitutional difficulty here. We have got over this by ensuring that a defendant against whom it is hoped to levy such a penalty will be brought before the Circuit Court on indictment. On this point there is one difference between the Minister's Bill and ours. Deputy Deasy had proposed that there would be confiscation of the boat: the Minister provides for second conviction and referred in his speech to the possible confiscation of the vessel. I believe that there may be difficulties in enforcing such a forfeiture. In the case of a second conviction this matter is discretionary.

A second point relates to difficulties that may arise in the case of large companies who have a number of boats and a lot of skippers. In the case of a Spanish company with a lot of boats which engage in illegal fishing, there could be a situation in which a boat which had a previous conviction would be excluded from a particular operation but none of the other boats belonging to the company would be so restricted. In such a situation the deterrent would not be effective. In so far as we want to have possible forfeiture of a boat as a deterrent, the Bill as it is framed is not really a deterrent. Section 4 provides for discretionary forfeiture in certain circumstances which could be evaded by some of these large-scale companies from abroad.

Another major point is the matter of aerial evidence. At the moment there is no difficulty about producing aerial evidence in court; the difficulty relates to how effective this would be. The other problem is the lack of equipment. I understand that the Minister intends when purchasing a new plane to ensure that it has the necessary equipment to pinpoint and photograph invading trawlers. I am very much in favour of this. Whether with this equipment and producing this evidence in court we will find a more effective prosecution case is something we may have to discuss again in the future. It is a step forward to have the equipment and produce evidence in court.

I can see difficulties with regard to identification. As I understand it, the requirement for fishing vessels is to have the name and number on the side. If there is to be a growing use of aerial evidence, there should be some requirement making the name and number visible from the air, possibly painted on the top of the wheelhouse as well as on the side. The Minister might bear this in mind, not solely in connection with this Bill but in international discussions on the enforcement of fishery laws. I am aware that in a recent case in England evidence from an RAF Nimrod was accepted and a Spanish vessel was convicted as a result of the evidence given. Let us provide ourselves with the necessary equipment and begin to use this type of evidence. If difficulties arise in the future the Minister may be assured of the co-operation of this side of the House in bringing in amending legislation.

A further point in this regard should be mentioned. I can anticipate in the giving of such evidence in a criminal trial that officers of the air corps would be, as it were, tied up in court. To my own knowledge in the past officers in the Naval Service have found it necessary to be in court for a considerable time. Not alone that, but the difficulty which arose was that the naval vessels themselves were tied-up in port while these cases were proceeding. We must ensure from the point of view of the law of evidence that this is not essential, and from the practical point of view that our naval vessels and in the future any air corps planes involved in fishery protection are not grounded or, so to speak, ported for any unnecessary time. This is very important. Our resources are limited and we must ensure that be it a naval vessel or a spotter plane they are grounded or tied up in port for only the absolute minimum of time. We must ensure that there is no requirement that the captain of a vessel or the pilot of a plane should be the only person compelled to give evidence. Any officer should be sufficient in those circumstances, and we should ensure that our officer corps in both the naval service and the air corps is sufficiently expanded so that any of those officers who are engaged in giving evidence on a prosecution can be replaced. Basically, let us ensure that our limited resources by way of naval vessels and planes are used to the maximum extent, while at the same time having the evidence available in court from the officers involved in the capture or the spotting of the illegal fishing concerned.

One other aspect should be referred to at this stage in the context of recent events. This Bill provides for fisheries offences which would affect local as well as foreign skippers. The fines in this respect have been increased. I am not and never will be one to suggest to anyone that he or she should be in breach of the law. I am a believer in the rule of law, but one has to accept the viewpoint of people who have the impression that there has been, particularly in the recent past, more concentration on surveying the activities of local fishermen than those of foreign poachers. If this is true—and it has been suggested to me very strongly by people around the coast in my constituency—I would be very concerned about it. We do not stand in this House or elsewhere suggesting that the law should be broken; at the same time I ask that the matter be put into perspective and that the Minister will accept and realise that the depletion of our fishery stocks is due mainly to the ravaging of our seas by foreign trawlers, and that in this context the effect of any slight straying over legal limits by our native fishermen is having only a minor effect. In these circumstances therefore the concentration on protection——

: The Bill does not relate to salmon.

: I appreciate that, but the protection resources of the State may be used for one reason or another, and it is in this context I raise the matter. The Minister should ensure as far as possible that our resources by way of naval vessels, fishery protection and so on, should be directed, particularly after this Bill is passed, at full blast against foreign poachers and the concentration, which has been somewhat apparent in recent times, against some of our native fishermen should be put in that perspective. First of all let us ensure that these foreign raiders are removed from our waters. One of the greatest grievances of our local fishermen has been that so many foreign vessels have been coming into our waters. They know for themselves because they see them and in that context they feel it is unfair and unjust that such a concentration should be made against them while the others are escaping. I appreciate that this Bill is going to be one further weapon in the Minister's armoury. The difficulty in the past was that even on catching these vessels the fine of £100 was derisory and it was worth their while to do this illegal fishing openly. From that point of view we are anxious to ensure the passage of this Bill speedily so that it will be effective within a week or ten days. On that basis I make the point. Let us ensure that the Bill is put into effect straight away so that these foreign poachers may be cleared from our shores once and for all.

Subject to the points already made, we are very much in agreement with this Bill and we have a considerable welcome for it. We are anxious to get it into law straight away and even more anxious to see it enforced straight away.

: I am very glad of the welcome that this House has given to this measure, which everybody in the House and people who are interested in the fishing industry outside the House agree is essential in view of the rather ludicrous situation in which we find ourselves because of the High Court decision in regard to sea fishery offences which limited the penalties in this very important area to fines of £100, which have been described rightly by Deputy O'Keeffe as derisory. This Bill and its passage into law quickly will ensure a very dramatic redress of this situation, as one can see by perusal of the penalties set out in tables 1, 2 and 3 of section 2 of the Bill.

I want to acknowledge the help that has been given in the introduction of this Bill by Deputy Deasy and the spokesmen of the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party. I wish Deputy Deasy well and I want to pay him a tribute in this respect.

As regards the debate itself, on Second Stage certain points were raised. Deputy White inquired about the grant-in-aid from the European Economic Community of £30 million which has been agreed by the Commission and by eight or nine member states. That is the precise position now. That block grant is available to us on a fixed sum basis for the utilisation by the Irish Government of that money for the purchase of planes and the construction of boats to deal with protection matters up to 200 miles from our shore.

It does not cover operating costs. We are pressing the Community in that respect, but our main endeavour is to get £30 millions. At the meeting of the Council of Ministers yesterday I made it quite clear that unless there was agreement on this matter by the next meeting in four weeks' time we would not agree to any third country arrangements being proposed by the Council with non EEC countries and that we wanted agreement so that money will be available. On the basis that we are now guarding a 200-mile zone off our coasts since 1 January 1977 in the fishing interests of the whole Community, we have a strong case. At the moment I am seeking to get an instalment of that £30 million, in respect of expenditure for last year and this year. I am hopeful that in four weeks' time I will secure an instalment of about £8 million from the EEC.

The question of aerial surveillance was raised by a number of Deputies. There is no question that in practical terms aerial surveillance is of enormous help in protection work generally. Linked up with a boat in the sea aerial surveillance can cut a lot of waste time and energy that otherwise would have to be used. That has been the experience in relation to the single spotter plane we have, and that is why another spotter plane is practically ready for delivery to the Air Corps. This plane will have further electronic equipment installed which will be of help in relation to photographing the location of a boat and so on. This will provide the proper evidence backup required in Court today from the fishery officer from the Naval Service who boards the boat. In case there is any misunderstanding, this is really a matter of evidence, a matter of practicality rather than law. There is no need to have that incorporated in the Bill as long as the practical aids are there which are accepted by the Court as supplementary evidence to the evidence of the people making the arrest. We are really talking about practical matters of evidence relating to the law of evidence rather than a matter that needs to be incorporated in the Bill.

To facilitate the gathering of evidence Deputy O'Keeffe suggested that the registration of the boat should be displayed on top of the wheel house rather than on the side of the boat so that it could be photographed and made available from the point of view of aerial evidence. I understand that that method has been adopted in Canada in relation to this type of evidence, but it is not necessary to incorporate this in the Bill. It is a practical matter of the protection service adopting such suggestions so as to provide the back up evidence for the boarding party of the Naval Service or the Fishery Protection Service.

Deputy White referred to the fines in the area west of Ireland where we and the Dutch will be operating a fishing plan from 1 July onwards. We propose to have the penalties that are set out here operable against any offenders in that area. It will be a Commission Regulation, and when it is adopted I will make a regulation under this Bill which will bring breaches of that Commission regulation within the scope of this Bill. Any further Commission fishing plans implemented around our coasts can be brought within the scope of this Bill in respect of offences.

The question of a ban in the north west was raised, and that is still a matter for speculation. The north west part of Donegal is part of the general west of Scotland fishing area, and there is some indication that the British Government may introduce a herring ban in that area which would have to be non-discriminatory. We are preparing the various options we will adopt in the event of the British taking such a national conservation measure. That is a matter entirely for the British at present. As far as we are concerned we will prepare our options in the event of the British doing so. There is no question of the Community initiating any such closure. That decision was reached at the meeting in Luxembourg yesterday. The Commission and the Council of Ministers all agreed that such a closure was not practicable and required further scientific investigation before being considered. The British Government made their position clear at the end of the discussion. They felt themselves free, if they decided, to bring in such a closure.

: On a point of order. Do I take it that as far as the Irish Government are concerned we do not envisage any closure of the north west coast?

: The British Government——

: Leave the British Government out of it. The British will look after their own waters.

: As far as we are con-cerned we may also have to look at the situation in the event of the British Government bringing in a closure. That will create problems for our part of what is called the west of Scotland fishery, which includes waters off our north west coast, and we will have to take measures to deal with these problems in the event of the British doing that.

: I can take it at this stage that as far as the Irish fishermen are concerned, they will not be prohibited from fishing this area?

: At the moment we are discussing this matter with the Irish Fishermen's Organisation. We have already had discussions on this aspect, but it does not serve any purpose at this stage to speculate. We must see exactly what the British will do, if anything.

The definition of "net" was raised by Deputy White. That is contained in section 226 of the Principal Act.

Deputy Desmond made a general speech welcoming the Bill, as did Deputy Killilea, who raised a point I have dealt with already concerning the aerial survey aspect. Deputy Killilea raised also what I regard as a very important feature of the Bill, that is the detention provision in respect of the boat for 48 hours in the port so that full examination can take place and evidence be gathered to mount an effective prosecution.

Deputy O'Keeffe, naturally as a representative of West Cork, raised the question of the illegal fishing of Spanish boats. Undoubtedly that is a particular feature of the whole area of the southern coast. At present we are having very detailed bilateral discussions with the Spanish Government. The Spanish Government are also having discussions with the Commission with a view to preparing Spain's position for entry to the EEC. I can assure Deputy O'Keeffe and the House that we will be very concerned to ensure that the whole question of Spanish fishing in the 200-mile zone off our coasts—particularly off the south and south-west coasts—will be regularised. At present it is not fully regularised. It is a question merely of putting it into some sort of regular shape. Indeed the Spanish Government are equally anxious to ensure that some order is brought into the whole situation of Spanish fishing within our waters and those of other Members of the Community.

Deputy O'Keeffe raised a point about recent activities in regard to Irish fishermen around the coast. These activities do not come within the scope of this Bill. They relate to salmon fishing which is outside its scope. Any such moves taken by the Naval Service were designed to ensure protection and conservation of the salmon species. Indeed I might say, in a tribute to Deputy Deasy, that these were measures advocated strongly by him here on numerous occasions over the past 12 months.

That, generally, was the tenor of the debate. I think I have covered most of the points raised. However I should like to make a few general points before concluding. This is a very important Bill and will, I think, suffice for some considerable time as the framework within which we can proceed against all forms of illegal fishing that do damage to our fishing stocks at sea. I would hope that the deterrent aspect of this Bill will prove fruitful, that its seriousness in regard to the very substantial penalties involved will show, primarily foreign fishermen, and in regard to some aspects of it our own fishermen, that we are serious about fisheries protection.

I am a great believer in legislation being a deterrent before the event rather than having to impose penalties ordered after the event. That is the great importance of this Bill. It introduces a dramatically new situation in which, if its provisions are enforced, certainly it will not pay anybody, to put it mildly, to break the law, there being substantial penalties ranging up to £100,000, to forfeiture of gear, equipment, nets, to forfeiture of fish. It is a situation in which there is a wide range of flexible charges open to the State, depending on the particular case, to proceed in the District Court, to proceed at one level in the Circuit Court or at a higher level in the Circuit Court backed up by the confiscation of the boat itself on the second offence, and by the other procedures such as detention of the boat for 48 hours after apprehension. This Bill introduces a new dimension to fisheries protection. It will provide the necessary statutory back-up to the excellent work—and I want to pay tribute to them—being done by the protection service, by the Navy and the Air Corps.

I am hopeful that a Community fisheries policy will be evolved over the next 12 months. Candidly, I am not hopeful before the British general election. I am on record as having said that and events in the past two days have shown that I was right, that there is no possibility of any movement towards settlement while the British are looking at their home electoral scene rather than at the evolution and conclusion of a common fisheries policy. But hopefully, if within the 12 months it reaches fulfilment, I would emphasise that only then can we properly plan the future development of the sea fisheries industry, and we can do so provided only that the very complex plans and regulations that will have to be introduced to, above all else, maintain conservation of the species and their management, are backed-up by the necessary statutory measures. This Bill will serve as that statutory instrument to show that we are in earnest about enforcing our plans and regulations, that as far as our Government are concerned we can ensure that whatever plans on fishery developments are agreed between ourselves and our other Community partners can be implemented effectively. There is not much point in having plans and a policy agreed on a Community basis unless we as a nation have the necessary law and capacity to implement them to their fullest extent. In that way we as a nation can derive the benefit we sought from whatever negotiations are concluded, by having laws available to us and having them fully and effectively enforced. That is the real background to whatever agreement is arrived at ultimately between ourselves and our Community partners.

: There are a few points on which I should like clarification. I was delighted to hear the Minister compliment the Naval and Air Corps, but we are very disappointed that the £8 million about which he has spoken has not yet come back to this country.

: The Deputy can raise this on Committee Stage. The Deputy may ask a brief question now.

: In order that the Naval and Air Corps may make proper plans we would need to get these £8 million straightaway. The £30 million that has been talked about has gone on now for the best part of a year.

The Minister spoke about the 48 hours detention of a vessel in port. A trawler can be held for up to 48 hours in port. Does that mean that our fisheries protection vessel that brings in the poaching boat must remain in the port also for 48 hours?

: These are Committee Stage points which could be teased out very fully then.

: Very briefly, that is the purpose of the Bill, that during that 48-hour period they come in under Garda protection.

: The fisheries protection vessel can go straight out again. Is that correct?

: Yes, the fisheries protection vessel can depart.

: The Minister mentioned evidence from officers. That does not mean necessarily that the captain must give evidence?

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Committee Stage today.
Top
Share