Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Nov 1933

Vol. 50 No. 5

In Committee on Finance. - Sea Fisheries Protection (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Committee.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section the court shall, in addition to any other penalty, order any fishing gear used or attempted to be used in contravention of the by-law, the contravention of which constituted such offence, to be forfeited.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment 1:—

In sub-section (3), page 4, to delete all words after the word "order," line 9, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "all fishing gear found on board the sea-fishing boat from which the offence was committed, to be forfeited.

This amendment is in substitution of the words "any fishing gear used or attempted to be used in contravention of the by-law, the contravention of which constituted such offence, to be forfeited." I feel that these words would make it rather difficult for the prosecution when a case would come before the court to prove the actual use or the attempt to use any particular gear. The substituted amendment of mine is undoubtedly drastic to this extent that these trawling boats carry a big supply of extra gear in their holds to provide against accidents to their trawls. At the same time if you leave the section as it stands I imagine it would be very difficult for the prosecution to establish the fact that a particular gear had been used or was going to be used. However, since the Bill is intended to be drastic in its penalties I think the Minister might well consider accepting the amendment.

Dr. Ryan

The Bill as it stands follows a general principle, I believe, of these Acts with regard to punishment and penalties. As a general principle only the gear in use has been forfeited. For instance it is thought that it would be a great severity on a boat to take the warps that might not be used at the time, because the boat would have to limp back to its own port of origin and be re-geared before doing any fishing at all. It is a matter for consideration. But we ought not to depart from the usual procedure in fishing laws in this matter.

Mr. Lynch

I am not pressing the amendment. I had in mind what the Minister said, that it was objectionable, but it used to be said in the past that after a boat had been fined £100 or so it went back and while still within our limits threw out its nets and recouped itself. From my experience that is grossly exaggerated. Fish are not entirely so plentiful in our waters that in one haul when departing from our waters they could recoup themselves to such an extent. I am not pressing the amendment if the Minister objects.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Section 4, the prohibition of certain methods of trawling, the Minister may remember that I suggested some time ago that he would make prevention effective by getting some sort of agreement that would make charges in our court effective in Great Britain and France. I draw his attention to this, that there may be some difficulty in issuing summonses or whatever papers may be necessary to support legal procedure outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát court if the offence is a summary offence.

The Minister will observe that in line 37 it is provided "such boat shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof." If the Minister thinks this is not the time when he will be able to get the reciprocal arrangement that I suggested to him, then I think it would be well to put into the sub-section, when the Bill goes to the Seanad, a provision expressly giving the Minister power in the case of fishery offences to issue a summons outside the jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the offence is one punishable on summary conviction. It is a matter that I think the Minister might look into with the Attorney-General.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7
(g) if he suspects that there has been a contravention by any person on board such boat of the provisions of this Act he may take such boat and all persons on board such boat to the nearest or most convenient port and, pending the taking by him of the steps required by the next following section, detain such boat and such person.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment 2:—

In sub-section (1) (g), line 47, after the word "may" to insert the words "without summons, warrant, or other process."

The words proposed to be inserted are used in the Sea Fisheries Act of 1883, but somehow they were omitted in this particular Bill. It is necessary to have those powers. Otherwise, some question might be raised with regard to the warrant or right to search when a boat is boarded by our sea-fisheries protection officers.

Mr. Lynch

I agree. Provision, I think, ought to be made in the Bill for some method by which those officers will be identified when they do board a boat. I think they should carry some identification papers to show their authority when they board one of those vessels. That, however, I take it, will be a matter for administration.

Dr. Ryan

In practice, of course, it will mean that either the Muirchú or some other boat like it will be on this work. I do not know what identification papers would be necessary in that case.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15
References in the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 1909, to the United Kingdom shall be construed as references to Saorstát Eireann and the said Act shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment 3:—

In line 6, after the word "as" to insert the words "being, in addition to any other application those references may have,"

The section, as amended, will then read:

References in the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 1909, to the United Kingdom shall be construed as being, in addition to any other application those references may have, references to Saorstát Eireann and the said Act shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

I may say that I think it would be better if the section were omitted altogether, because the effect of it as it stands is, to my mind, to render this Act of 1909 absolutely useless. I read yesterday the long Title of that Act. It is, "An Act to prohibit the landing and selling in the United Kingdom of fish caught in prohibited areas of the sea adjoining Scotland and Ireland." I pointed out that the Act had some effect as a deterrent when poaching boats had their normal market in Britain, but that if you substitute for the United Kingdom, Saorstát Eireann, you render the Act absolutely useless. One can hardly conceive that boats invading our waters would, in ordinary circumstances, be landing their catches here. It may be that the Minister may think that, as the law stands at the moment, the Act does not apply to the Saorstát. If that is so, then it is to meet that point of view that I put in my amendment: to keep its application to the United Kingdom, and at the same time to make sure that it applies to fish landed in the Saorstát. The time may come when, by some arrangement with the British, it would be desirable to have this Act operative. They may agree, for instance, with us that trawlers caught poaching in our territorial waters and landing fish in Great Britain should be made liable to the penalties prescribed for an infringement of the Act.

Dr. Ryan

The law officers have advised the Fisheries Department that in their opinion the Adaptation of Enactments Act did not make the position clear as to this Act being in force between the Irish Free State and Great Britain. There seems to be some doubt on the point. They say that the Act is no longer in force between the two countries and, therefore, it was thought well to put in this particular section. As Deputy Lynch has said, it is unlikely that any ship, particularly a foreign ship, fishing in the prohibited area, will land fish on our shores. In such a case the Act is not likely to be effective. We have thought it right to put in this section. If it is adopted we can seize the captures of any steam trawler, British or otherwise. While I have no objection to the amendment it does not appear to me to be required. If the Deputy wishes I will undertake to have the draftsman consulted again, and if he thinks that the amendment will strengthen our hands in any way then we can have it inserted in the Seanad.

Mr. Lynch

I am satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 15 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed: That the Final Stages of the Bill be taken now.
Barr
Roinn