: I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The main objectives of this Bill are: (1) to substantially increase penalty levels for offences under the parts of the Fisheries Acts which deal specifically with sea-fishing and in particular breaches of the exclusive fishery limits of the State by foreign sea-fishing vessels; and (2) to provide for confiscation of all gear and catch on conviction on indictment; for confiscation, where appropriate, of unlawful gear and catch and lawful gear unlawfully used on summary conviction, and for possible confiscation of the actual vessel in the case of a second indictable offence.
Consequential amendments have been made in the provisions for trial of a defendant and for detention pending trial or appeal and for release on lodgement of adequate security.
I have availed of this opportunity of the need for amending legislation to make provision in the Bill for the following: the detention of any suspect fishing vessels in port for up to 48 hours for examination prior to the institution of legal proceedings; the complete separation of the offences of illegal entry and illegal fishing; some textual amendment of section 35 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1962; the extension of my powers to restrict the use of certain types of gear in prescribed areas; the taking of powers to regulate sea-fishing operations in accordance with an International Convention on Conduct of Fishery operations in the North Atlantic which was drawn up in London in 1967, and, finally, for the re-definition of the words "fish" and "net" in the Acts.
As Deputies are aware, that part of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 (Section 221) which provides for forfeiture of fish and fishing gear in cases of unlawful entry of foreign sea-fishing boats within the exclusive fishery limits was recently declared to be unconstitutional in the High Court. The basis of this judgment was that forfeiture of fish and fishing gear in such cases constituted a penalty so great that the offence cannot be a minor offence within the meaning assigned under Article 38 of the Constitution. In effect, the severity of the punishment placed the matter beyond the competence of the District Court. While the judgment applied only to section 221 of the Act, it must be assumed that the courts would take a similar view of any other section of the Act where provision for forfeiture arises. While notice of appeal has been served by the Attorney General against the High Court ruling, I am advised that no advantage is likely to be gained by pursuing the appeal. Even if the forfeiture provision had remained, however, the penalties were still inadequate in my view bearing in mind the importance of safeguarding fish stocks at present.
There has been criticism of me because of a delay in initiating this Bill. I was well aware of the possibility of our losing the case in the High Court but no responsible Minister would endeavour to remedy possible defects in legislation while an appeal was pending; doing so would obviously prejudice the result of the appeal. The final ruling of the court was not received by me until March and because of the constitutional and international issues involved great care has had to be taken in drafting the Bill.
I am sure Deputies will agree that although the Bill is short it is nevertheless a complex piece of legislation.
I am confident that the increase in fine levels for offences committed by foreign fishing boats, which range from £500 on summary conviction on a charge of illegal entry to £10,000 on conviction on indictment on a similar charge to £100,000 on conviction on indictment on a charge of illegal fishing, will, in addition to the various confiscation and forfeiture provisions, provide the necessary deterrent and protection against would-be offenders. These fines and forfeitures are set out in Tables I, II and III to section 2.
Deputies will observe that in some cases of summary conviction provision has been made for automatic forfeiture as a consequence of conviction of fish unlawfully caught, unlawful gear or lawful gear unlawfully used. The Attorney General considers that such provisions are not in conflict with the High Court ruling because in this decision the "forfeiture" provisions of section 221 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 which contain no distinction whatever on the basis of the lawfulness or otherwise of the catch or gear or the use of the gear, but provide for a simple forfeiture of all catch and gear found on a boat in respect of which a conviction had been obtained, were held to be unconstitutional.
Fines for some other sea fishery offences which would affect local as well as foreign skippers have also been increased to a more realistic level.
Preventing crime is better than detecting it. I have no doubt but that the penalties now proposed together with our improved fishery protection services will convince would-be poachers that illegal fishing in our waters would not be worth while. Further improvement in our protection services including the acquisition of an additional spotter plane are contemplated with substantial EEC aid towards the cost. These planes are a great asset in fishery protection in helping to locate intruding vessels and while unable to effect an arrest can lead a protection vessel to the offending vessel. They can help also to provide supplementary evidence in court if this is necessary. No change in legislation is required to enable sea fishery protection officers on board planes to give evidence in court, but of course they must be in a position to give satisfactory evidence as to the identity and exact location of the offending vessel.
One secondary but very important provision to which I should like to refer is that providing for detention for up to 48 hours of vessels suspected of having committed an offence. At present a vessel may not be detained unless charges are being brought against the skipper. With the larger vessels now in use and the complex conservation regulations such as minimum mesh sizes and maximum bycatches in operation it is virtually im-possible for a sea fisheries protection officer to confirm at sea that an offence has in fact been committed. The new provision will make enforcement of all sea fishery legislation much easier.
The other amendments proposed are mainly designed to remove deficiencies in existing legislation.
I commend this Bill to the House.