Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 Feb 1983

Vol. 100 No. 1

Foyle Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1981: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I have no objection to this section but I would like it to go on the record of the House that subsection (3) of section 2 provides:

Any reference to summary conviction in section 35 or section 49 of the Principal Act shall be construed as including a reference to conviction on indictment.

Section 35, as I understand it, deals with buying, selling, exposing for sale or having possession of salmon or trout unlawfully captured. In this section we are extending that to include the possibility of conviction on indictment, and later on under the next section the scale of penalties is laid down. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the penalties for buying or exposing these fish for sale — not being involved in actually procuring them — merits the possibility of a £2,000 fine and/or two years in prison. If it does, it represents a considerable change in the attitude of the people of Ireland to such a matter. I have no objection to it, as I am not going to buy or sell any of these fish. The average man in the street — and we must pass legislation which is in some way relevant to him — would only laugh at you if you told him that the possibility of imprisonment for two years would arise in respect of a conviction on indictment as a result of the buying of an illegally caught salmon or trout.

There is no point in having legislation unless it is to be implemented and unless there is an intention to implement it. The previous penalty in this regard involved a minor fine of £25, and some additional fine in respect of each additional salmon or trout. There was no question of imprisonment, not to mind a question of indictment. To pass legislation which will not be implemented only brings the legislation into disrepute. I doubt that this will ever be implemented, and that is what is worrying me.

Of course, I recognise what the Minister says. I took careful note of his Second Stage speech and what he said about this being the last place in western Europe with a potential for a large scale salmon industry. It is very important for us to preserve it. Do we have the determination to do this? Or are we merely putting something on the Statute Book which we have no intention of prosecuting, no intention of ever implementing on indictment, and no intention of indicating to the judiciary that they should impose two years' imprisonment for this offence? If you told the plain people of Ireland that there was a potential for them to spend two years in jail for having bought a salmon which was caught illegally they would not believe you. Public opinion may not yet have been educated to such an extent that it would make this a rational or reasonable step. I understand it may be in the Fisheries Act, 1980, but I was not here in 1980 and I am not responsible for that.

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. P. O'Toole)

Having listened to the Senator, if I were caught under the Act I would immediately take on my colleague to defend me. He would make a very good job of it. We are talking here about maximum fines and terms of imprisonment. I assume the discretion of the courts would come into play when discussing the particular penalties involved in the form of fine or imprisonment. We are talking maxima and, as the Senator well knows — better than I do, indeed — discretion is used in these matters. While the plain people of Ireland would be flabbergasted, possibly, at the thought of having to spend two years in jail in these circumstances, it may very well be a very chastening exercise to do that, at least on one occasion. That depends on the courts. As Minister all I can do is lay down the top line, not the bottom line, which is a matter for the courts to decide within the limits laid down. That is the maximum fine. As the Senator said, it is already in the 1980 Fisheries Act. I will not enter the disclaimer entered by the Senator. We must live with the Act as it is now, and live with the maximum penalties laid down in the Act.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister is right in saying that the main purpose of the legislation was to increase the penalties. There is a significant change in the legislation, the reason for which I do not understand. I am seeking information from the Minister rather than anything else. The Principal Act contained a provision whereby the proceedings could be taken by the equivalent of the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time: "A commission or other persons authorised by the commission." I think that is the way it was put. That is being extended in one regard. An officer of the commission is specifically mentioned. A member of the Garda Síochána is specifically mentioned and "not by any other person". In other words, the power to bring a prosecution is being taken from the general body of people. This might be as well if people are to go to prison for two years as a result of a conviction. Could the Minister indicate why this legislation is being changed to limit from the general public the right to take a prosecution under this Act, that right at the time being subject to the approval of the commission but nevertheless being there?

Section 73 of the Foyle Fisheries Act provides that offences against the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952, may be heard and determined by a District Court upon the complaint "of the Commission, or an officer of the Commission or a member of the Garda Síochána but not of any other person, except with the consent of the Commission".

The Attorney General has advised that it is necessary to include that provision in the Bill to make it clear that section 73 does not preclude the bringing of prosecutions in the District Court by the general prosecuting authority, that is, the DPP. The deletion of the right contained at present in section 73 of the Foyle Fisheries Act of any other person with the consent of the commission to bring proceedings in the District Court in respect of an alleged offence against the Foyle Fisheries Act is being made on the advice of the Attorney General, who has stated that the bringing of proceedings under that Act by persons not named in section 73 is unnecessary and impracticable. In other words, it has come about through the advice of the Attorney General, and, while there is a change, it is more of a tidying up exercise than anything else.

Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without ammendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Barr
Roinn