Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Jun 1978

Vol. 307 No. 11

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

: There is a ministerial amendment, which will be distributed now, on section 2.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

: I move amendment No. 1:

"In page 3, subsection (5) (b), line 48, after "Part" to insert "and references in sections 316 and 317 of the Principal Act to a District Justice and the District Court shall, in the case of a conviction by a court other than the District Court, be construed as references to that other court"."

The purpose of this amendment—the only amendment I have down and which arose since the printing of the Bill—is to make it clear that any forfeitures arising out of a conviction in any court other than the district court—that is, in the Supreme Court or the High Court—will apply. We discovered that there was a certain lacuna in that the principal Act referred to the District Court and the district justice and did not refer to the courts we are now proposing should handle indictable offences and we are, therefore, transmitting the District Court reference in the parent Act into the new indictment machinery we are adopting here.

: This amendment is necessary in view of the change?

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

: There are just a few points I would like to raise. My purpose in raising them is not to be obstructive but rather to ensure that we have a good Bill. I am concerned that what is a rather complex measure should not go through without being carefully scrutinised. Section 2 contains not alone five subsections but also three Tables.

Can the Minister tell the House on what grounds the Attorney General might be expected to consent to summary jurisdiction? Would it be a case of the Naval Service or the police submitting a file. On what general grounds would he be expected to issue a consent to summary jurisdiction under subsection (2)?

In subsection (3) the word "person" is used. I am anxious to clarify who this person is. From my reading of the Principal Act I take it to be the master.

: It is the master, yes.

: This is of some relevance in regard to the forfeiture of the boat under section 4 but I would have hoped, if we had the time, for consideration to be given to a simple prosecution against the owner of the vessel. I appreciate that this could cause technical difficulties because the owner might be outside the jurisdiction. Under the provisions of the Bill the owner is not really involved. It is the skipper.

: The skipper or master.

: In the short time available we cannot really give consideration to extending the prosecution to the owner, but that is something which should be considered for the future.

This brings me to the question of these very heavy fines. Is the Minister satisfied as to the enforcement procedure for the collection of these fines? In the past the fine was £100 with forfeiture of the gear. We now have fines up to £200,000 against the master. He may not be worth tuppence, and I am wondering whether we have ensured that the fine against the master is actually recoverable by holding on to the vessel? This goes back to the original point that the person prosecuted is the skipper or master and not the owner. In normal circumstances the skipper would not have any equity in the vessel and the vessel could not be seized. This may or may not be so, but I am very concerned that because of the very high level of fines we should have a proper enforcement procedure. Fines of this nature will be of no use unless we can collect them, and the only way to collect them is by ensuring that the vessel is not allowed to leave until the fine is paid or a bond provided in a sum greater than the £100,000, plus the value of the fish and gear which could be used to collect the fine. The same would apply in relation to the lesser fines of £10,000 and so on.

No matter what the level, once we are running into any substantial sum I want to be assured that it can be collected. In the past, the penalty in the District Court was a small fine plus forfeiture of fishing gear. There was no problem. The fishing gear was there and we took it. There are similar provisions now. The fine will be of substance, but can we collect it? Is the Minister happy that this provision can be enforced in view of the fact that it is the master who is prosecuted?

: Deputy O'Keeffe raised a number of interesting points. The first relates to the consent of the Attorney General in regard to a case coming within the jurisdiction of a district justice. The purpose of bringing in the Attorney General is germane to the whole question of the international and diplomatic complications that can arise in cases of this kind. It is important that the Attorney General should be in on the actual prosecution because he sits with the Government and is aware of the current situation vis-à-vis countries illegally fishing in our waters.

An enormous variety of offences arise under the umbrella of offences set out in section 2. For instance, there could be a country involved with whom we had very good relations and through a technicality they may have breached one of the offences mentioned here. Obviously, although we would have grounds for an indictment, if it was a technical offence and we were satisfied there was no serious intent, no Irish Government would wish to offend the country with whom we had strong relations. In that case we would proceed by way of summary procedure.

Another view would be taken if the Government knew that the ship of an habitual offending country was involved. A much stronger view would be taken in that case and the full weight of the indictment procedure would proceed against that country. The Attorney General is included in this Bill to give weight to the diplomatic and international importance which attaches to fishery offences. These offences are not like ordinary offences in our jurisdiction; they involve our relations with other countries.

Deputy O'Keeffe's second point referred to the master—section 232 of the Fisheries Consolidation Act, 1959. The master is prosecuted and liable under the governing section to which section 2 relates. He raised the point about the firm or owner not being prosecuted. There are practicalities against prosecuting a firm or owner having regard to the nature of international law, different jurisdictions and so on. The only practical way to nail a prosecution down is to proceed against the master. The master and the firm can settle their business later. We do not have to spend months and years pursuing a firm or an owner in a foreign country. We have the master and his boat and we proceed against him. This is the only way to do it.

Deputy O'Keeffe asked about collecting the fine of £100,000. That is also related to the points I have already made. The only person from whom we can get the money is the master. We have the master, the boat, the equipment and the fish in our jurisdiction. Under section 12 of this Bill the boat can be detained for 48 hours, under section 13 the boat and persons charged can be detained pending prosecution, and under section 14 they can be detained pending the determination of an appeal, and there are also provisions by way of bond which may be imposed under those sections as security. Under sections 12, 13 and 14 we have a full procedure which enables detention of the defendant and whatever security is required to be discharged by him.

: In regard to the question of the summary trials, I am a little concerned about the Minister's response. The question about diplomatic, international and political considerations is one that worries me and I think it will worry the Irish fishing organisations. What they are really concerned about is that the summary trial will be over-used and that these fines in the District Court which are so low may be the fines which may be imposed and they may not have the deterrent effect we want.

: It will be the reverse —it will be the procedure that is under-used, and that is why the Attorney General is written into this Bill.

: I appreciate that the Attorney General is involved, but the point I raised earlier was in relation to the factors which the Attorney General will bear in mind in giving his consent to summary trial, and the poacher being fined a maximum of £500. The Minister indicated that the type of factors which would affect the Attorney General were of an international, diplomatic and political nature. This is what concerns me.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share