Perhaps I might respond to Senator Kenneally regarding retrospection. If this Bill is enacted as a result of an earlier signature by the President, we will revert to the position we were in for approximately 70 years. The advice of the Attorney General is that we are restoring the status quo. It confirms people who hold licences or leases in their secure occupation of the areas concerned and ensures this can now be regularised. I was first formally told of this on 16 June, and I was immediately extremely concerned and met the officials, who advised me. It was fortuitous that this Bill was going through the House and I was able to use it as a vehicle to address this matter. We would not have had as many amendments otherwise. Several amendments are typographical, but the majority result from the proposed insertion of new sections to deal with fishing vessels under 24m. and the foreshore. Part 6 specifically provides that the validation of foreshore licences and leases does not affect anyone’s constitutional rights.
Regarding Senator Daly's question on private property, the Bill will not change the position at all. If one has private property on the shoreline, it does not confer a right to bring in a bulldozer and take as much sand as one wishes. There is a responsibility for coastal protection. However, it does not change whatever rights are there, which will remain. I do not have any concerns in this area. It was sufficient for me to get this through and regularise what was there without having any concerns on other issues that might arise.
Regarding the increases in fines for owners of vessels or those responsible for their going to sea, it was welcomed in both Houses that we should increase them substantially. That has happened throughout the Bill and I hope that, if not this year, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, will introduce the fines Bill next year, which would ensure that fines could be increased in line with the CPI or some other index on an annual basis rather than become totally out of date. Senator McHugh referred to smaller vessels with one or two crew members. He would be thinking in particular of the new potting licences introduced last year; I am not sure how many have been issued. However, quite a few smaller fisherman were offered licences as a result of an application to us through BIM.
There will be a code of practice. I agree that we do not want red tape. We are talking about safety. Following my appointment to the Department, I met officials from BIM, the marine survey office and the Registrar General of Fishing Vessels. We issued cards indicating very clearly what we felt would be required to ensure such boats were made safe. Owing to the pressure on the surveyors in the marine survey office, we also have a list of private surveyors; I understand small boat owners have worked very closely with them.
In addition, because of our concerns for the safety of the smaller boats, we are providing grant aid of 40% for the purchase of safety equipment. I appreciate what the Senator said about red tape. As I said, we cannot compromise on safety, but we are also realists. I hope during the course of this year to have all those licences processed. The Senator might ask why we bother licensing them, since it is unnecessary. However, it means that, when they are licensed and registered, we can provide them with funding for safety equipment. If schemes are administered by BIM, people can avail themselves of funding for the notching of lobsters or whatever. It might be somewhat cumbersome and difficult for them at the moment, but it is short-term pain for long-term gain.
