I welcome this Bill presented by Fine Gael, which seeks to amend the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. I also thank Deputy Seán Sherlock for sharing his time and allowing me to speak on this issue.
The Bill aims to introduce a system of administrative penalties for non-serious breaches of the original Act. This change would be a welcome development for Irish sea fisheries. In 2006, at the time of the introduction of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act, protests were organised by fishermen across the country. They pointed out that the criminal system for fisheries offences that was implemented by the introduction of the 2006 Act was out of kilter with EU policy. The then Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government maintained it had no choice but to introduce criminal rather than administrative penalties on the advice of the Attorney General.
At present, Ireland is the only maritime jurisdiction in the EU without a system of administrative sanctions for some fishery offences. Instead, even minor breaches of regulations are dealt with by the courts. This is neither an efficient nor a fair way of encouraging compliance. In 2006, the Labour Party highlighted the unfairness of a system that could only resort to the courts. We argued that administrative fines already existed within the Irish legal system. During last night's debate, many examples of this were highlighted, including the Road Traffic Act. In addition, in my own constituency of Wicklow, sanctions can be imposed under legislation for the misuse of quad bikes in the mountains.
As far back as October 2004, the then Labour Party leader, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, wrote to the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, asking him to outline the Government's position on this matter. In his reply in December 2004, the Taoiseach stated: "There is already in our legislative code provision for the imposition of sanctions which arise in administrative proceedings". He went on to cite examples of penalties imposed "by, for instance, the Stock Exchange, the Law Society and the Medical Council". He concluded by stating that "with limited exceptions, our legislative code provides for confirmation, by the High Court, of such sanctions".
The Labour Party is of the firm view that administrative penalties are constitutional. The response from the Taoiseach as far back as 2004 indicates the same belief. This amending Bill has noted that fixed penalty notices are widely used throughout the Statute Book, and their use is particularly appropriate in the context of fisheries. The Bill proposes to introduce an administrative sanction based on monetary fines, with a robust right of appeal to the District Court; this type of system has consistently been held to be within the remit of Article 37.1 of the Constitution.
It is hard to understand how a fixed penalty notice can apply on land but not at sea. There are certainly examples, in my experience, in which administrative sanctions have developed as part of an alternative approach — for example, by the Environmental Protection Agency, or by local authorities under the Planning Acts. It is not as if a new and unusual system is being proposed here.
The second obstacle the Government quoted on this issue was that it was a legal impossibility at EU level to introduce a system of administrative sanctions. This is challenged by the views expressed by the European Commission and the European Parliament which, in November 2009, expressly called for administrative sanctions.
It is clear from the strong protests in 2006 and recent representations from the fishing industry that fishermen want administrative sanctions. Much more significantly, such administrative sanctions would be welcomed by the fishery protection services. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, which is charged with enforcing this law, is in favour of administrative sanctions. I quote Mr. Peter Whelan of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority when he spoke at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last July:
The issue of administrative sanctions was also raised in 2008. As a regulatory authority, the SFPA is tasked with implementation of the legislation on the Statute Book. We recognise the industry position on administrative sanctions and welcome the Commission's draft proposals to reform the main control regulation that includes a scheme of administrative sanctions in the form of penalty points. The SFPA is actively involved in deliberations on this matter in Europe and we have also provided a comprehensive dossier of information to the Department on administrative sanctions, including details of those systems implemented in other EU countries.
This shows exactly how developed the argument is. He went on to state:
We have an enforcement strategy because we are empowered to enforce the legislation. If we had more powers, such as giving warning letters and administrative sanctions, we would start as we do in the area of food safety, by issuing advice, guidance, warning letters, administrative sanctions and prosecutions through the court. The compliance strategy would look at graded steps towards prosecution and the barriers to compliance on the other side of the equation and try to deal with them. That is where we are in terms of enforcement with our compliance strategy. At present we do not have the gift to issue administrative sanctions.
It seems there could be a sophisticated approach in developing a compliance strategy that includes administrative sanctions as a matter of course, if there was the political will to do so.
Ireland stands alone in the EU on this issue and remains the only EU member that does not have such a scheme. In recent years, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales have all introduced administrative sanctions. One can see the argument that it delivers efficiency and reduces costs. It removes uncertainty and ensures there is a further weapon in the armoury of the sea fishery protection services.
While I welcome this Bill and its aim to introduce a mechanism that allows a non-court option for certain breaches, I must consider the question of enforcement. Just as there is an issue with enforcement of traffic-related fines across the Border, there may be an issue with ensuring compliance by foreign vessels. This point was raised yesterday evening by Deputy Sheahan, and it should be considered again on Committee Stage.
The proposal that has been outlined by Fine Gael seems to be a modernising approach which regrettably does not find favour with the Government. This is a pity because it seems there are ways of fleshing out the Bill on Committee Stage if the Government is willing to accept it in principle. Perhaps it is a lack of confidence, or perhaps it just does not want the bother, but there is definitely a resistance towards accepting Private Members' motions and Bills. I can think of a number of Bills that have been produced by the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security which are gathering dust. It is not that there are flaws in the legislation; the problem is within the Government itself. There is not the confidence or assurance to take the best of what is offered by the Opposition, often after a considerable amount of time. In this instance, the Bill has been on the Order Paper since last year, so it is not as if there has not been time to give it full scrutiny.
I welcome the publication of this Bill and I urge cross-party support for its provisions. The decision, obviously, will be taken by way of a vote through which the Government can determine the future of this Bill. However, it seems to me shortsighted that we cannot fully debate and go through all Stages of such a progressive piece of legislation.
