Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 21 October 2004
4 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the way in which his Department first had its attention drawn to alleged commercial fishing irregularities at Killybegs or other locations; the action or actions taken on foot of the information; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25930/04]
View answerThe matter referred to was first brought to the attention of the Department by an individual who first wrote to the Department on 26 July 2004, stating that illegal fishing was taking place. The Department received that letter on 28 July and responded on 29 July seeking documentation and offering to meet the complainant.
Meetings were held with the complainant on 2 September and 9 September by departmental officials. The officials examined the matter and the issues arising and brought it to my attention on 1 October 2004. The complainant sent a letter to the Department dated 4 October, which was received on 11 October and which indicated that the complainant had also written on the matter to 12 European fisheries Ministers, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice in early October. The allegations made were considered to be very serious. I agreed with the Secretary General of the Department that he raise the issues with the Garda Síochána and he wrote to it advising it of the matter and requesting it to investigate it. He also offered to make all information on the matter in the Department's possession available to the Garda Síochána. The European Commission has also been formally advised of the matter and of the action taken.
I assure the Deputy that I take matters relating to illegal activity of any kind very seriously. The allegations in the letter are regarded as very serious concerning the responsibilities of fishermen regarding fisheries law, the Department regarding fisheries control and the legal obligations of Ireland regarding control under the EU Common Fisheries Policy. I understand the Garda Síochána is investigating the matter and the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to give further details of the complaint for fear that it might prejudice any investigation taking place.
Perhaps the Minister might provide further clarification. In his reply he said that the Department was contacted on 26 July and again on 4 October. With whom in the Department was contact made on 26 July, what discussion or debate took place and what action was taken following that debate? Did the subsequent letter on 4 October contain a reference to the fact that little or no action had taken place since 26 July?
I do not have the letters with me. However, from memory and from having looked at the file, the answer is "No". I believe the letter of 4 October appeared in one of the newspapers. To my recollection, it did not make any reference to the fact that no action had been taken. The gentleman concerned wrote the letter on 26 July. It arrived in the Department on 28 July.
To whom was it addressed?
It was addressed to the Department and replied to by Mr. Kinneen, the sea fisheries control manager in the Department. The response on 29 July stated that the Department would view the allegations extremely seriously and that, whatever way the complainant wanted to — I presume that I may use the gentleman's name, since it has appeared in the newspapers?
If it has appeared in the newspapers, that is all right.
It is Mr. Cannon. The Department replied saying that it viewed the allegations very seriously and offered to meet him or make some arrangement whereby he might send information to it by post. At the end of that letter of 29 July, it was stated that Mr. Kinneen would be going on holiday and that, if a letter arrived in the meantime, it would be dealt with immediately upon his return. The next document in the file, for 2 September, is a note of a meeting between Mr. Cannon and the Department, contact having obviously been made some time in August. A further meeting was arranged on 9 September. That meeting finished on the understanding that the Department needed documentary evidence and that, as soon as that was available, it would act.
The next contact was on 4 October, stating that a letter had already gone to the various Ministries in Europe and to the Commission. There was nothing after the meeting of 9 September. No further information was provided to the Department — no files, copies or anything else. Mr.Cannon refused to hand over the file. Although he allowed some information to be noted from it at the meetings, he would not allow any photocopies to be made. He wanted to hold onto it and said that it was his bargaining chip and that he would not hand it over. The Department had no documentary evidence of the allegations other than Mr. Cannon's word up until 4 October, when he said that he was sending the information to Europe.
We all appreciate the need to preserve the good name and integrity of the fishing industry. That naturally entails early investigation of any complaint that might do anything to damage it. Is the Minister aware that it is alleged that, when Mr. Cannon first made his complaints to the Department, little or nothing was done and that it was in frustration that he subsequently made his complaints to another office, namely, the European Commission? Perhaps the Minister might also confirm whether, immediately after receiving the complaint, officials from his Department or anyone representing his office went to meet the complainant given the serious nature of the allegations being made. If not, why not? In the meantime, has the Minister, an official or anyone representing his Department made contact with the bodies, agencies or individuals involved? If so, to what extent?
It is exactly as I described to the Deputy. The gentleman contacted the Department by letter on 26 July. The letter was received by the Department on 28 July. A letter dated 29 July was immediately dispatched to Mr. Cannon. At no stage have I received a letter, nor am I aware of anyone except Mr. Cannon contacting anyone in the Department to say that the letter of 1 October would be sent to the Commission because the Department had not done anything for him. That is the first that I have heard of that allegation. If the Deputy has anything to back that up, I will certainly investigate it, but that was not the complaint made. Meetings were held with Mr. Cannon on 2 September. He wanted to raise other personal matters. This was the second reason he gave for raising the matter with officials in the Department. A further meeting was arranged for 9 September and that meeting finished on the basis that the Department needed some documentary evidence to investigate this. It was left open to Mr. Cannon to return to the Department but he did not do so. He wrote directly to the Commission.
Did the Minister or his Department seek corroborative evidence when the Minister first became aware of the allegations?
I became aware of the allegations on 1 October in a written report made to me. I put a note on it to say that I presumed the matter was being followed up. On 11 October we got the word that the file was gone to Brussels. In the absence of documentary evidence it was very difficult to start an investigation. That was part of the difficulty.
