There have been calls from various parties in the past few weeks for the Bill to be withdrawn and the process to be started again. That was never my view. Based on what Deputy O'Keeffe has been saying, there are many aspects to the Bill that are essential and it is important that they are included. I have spoken to fishing industry representatives at length and they recognise that there are many issues which must be dealt with urgently. We must not lose sight of this. It is important, however, for me to offer my deeply felt views on the issue of the proposed penalties and so on.
The Cabinet has taken advice from the Attorney General on the issues of penalties, the constitutionality of the Bill and so on. It appears clear that under existing law there is no constitutional impediment to administrative penalties. However, independent advice has been sought on the matter, which is unusual. Most members of the committee realise that where there are serious breaches, the penalty must fit the crime. The Minister has acknowledged this. However, I have a major problem when it comes to dealing with relatively minor breaches and fishermen are dragged through the Circuit Court — there is no other option at this stage — where there are mandatory penalties such as the confiscation of catch and gear. I am aware of three cases in the recent past where fishermen were successful in their defence in the Circuit Court. What happens to the gear confiscated? In particular, what happens to the catch? In most instances it will not last more than ten or 12 hours. There was a case recently in the Dingle area where a boat had been arrested and the catch comprised pilchards, a non-quota species. There was a question as to whether a prosecution would be brought. The boat was held in port and the hours passed. Apparently, after 12 hours the catch was useless and could not be sold. Pilchards are not very valuable, but that is just an example.
I am concerned about the message we are sending to the Judiciary. On Second Stage I outlined a recent case where a particular fisherman in difficult circumstances had ended up in the Circuit Court for a log book offence. Both the defence and prosecution lawyers acknowledged that it was a relatively minor offence and there were extenuating circumstances. The committee has received correspondence on the matter from the solicitors involved. In summing up the judge said his hands were bound and indicated there were mandatory penalties he had to impose such as confiscation of catch and gear. The entire episode cost the man concerned about €50,000, more than his net income for the previous year. In other words, his whole year's work was wiped out. The judge was saying, in effect, that it amounted to a mere technical breach by a hard working fisherman in extenuating circumstances. There was nothing wrong with the catch as regards the fisherman being over quota or the fish being undersized. It was a log book offence and it cost him a substantial fine. It also cost the State in having to go to the Circuit Court with barristers and solicitors on both sides. In some instances, it means bringing people from west Cork to Killybegs, Galway or Dublin and so on.
I am concerned that we are moving away from the Common Fisheries Policy. In the case of 98.4% of offences in the European Union, such matters are dealt with along the lines of the European module favoured by Commission Borg, namely, an administrative fine. The other 1.6% applies to Britain and Ireland.
About one year ago the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, appointed a special commission to review the entire fishing industry. It was to conduct a root and branch examination. One of the tasks the top level commission initiated by the Prime minister was charged to complete was an examination of administrative fines imposed under the common law system which Ireland inherited after 1922. If it can be done in the United Kingdom, it leaves Ireland as the exception to the rule among the 25 EU member states, which is unfair. We have heard ad nauseam that there is no choice, that Ireland must comply with EU regulations, directives and so on. My plea concerns the man or woman who makes a genuine mistake. As the Minister may be aware, there was a case where a boat had been arrested off the Donegal coast for a log book offence. Instead of putting the date down as “the 12th”, for example, it was written as “the 13th”. It was accepted as a genuine error. However, an over-zealous fishery officer could have dragged the man concerned through the courts, although there was nothing else wrong, which could have involved substantial costs.
I have met various fishery groups from all over the country. It is a source of great concern that the Department is hitting the fishing industry with a sledgehammer, when a little tap of a shoemaker's hammer might be sufficient. The industry accepts that the bad boys must be dealt with severely.
What about the many genuine fishermen? Fishing is a tough game. If a fisherman is out in a heavy swell and a gale warning issues and he tries to head for home, like someone in any other walk of life, he may make mistakes. Fishermen who intentionally alter log books or land in undesignated ports in order to get away with valuable catches of fish must be dealt with severely. However, where there is no premeditation or mens rea, it should not be a mind-boggling exercise to develop a system for codifying relatively minor offences and dealing with them administratively by way of imposing fines. If that cannot be done, there is no constitutional reason they could not be dealt with in the District Court. District Courts in Castletownbere, Schull and other places throughout the country operate a more expeditious system that is less costly both to the State and to fishermen.
I thank the Minister for moving on some of the issues I raised in October and November. They have been reasonably dealt with, although, perhaps, not entirely to my liking.
There is one aspect I find it almost impossible to accept. Why can we not come into line with Europe in regard to minor offences? If it is not possible to do so, can we not do something similar to what the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, did in the past 12 months and carry out a top level root and branch examination of our fishery policies to decide where we are going and set up a strategy for the future? At present, there is no strategy in place. Even at this stage, the Minister could guarantee that within six or nine months an independent report on the question of administrative fines versus criminal penalties would be produced. We could revisit this issue, which is not going to go away, at that point.
I explained my concerns to the Minister and I do not believe I am going over the top. As a solicitor, I dealt with fishermen in the courts in Schull, Baltimore and Cork. It is morally, legally and constitutionally wrong that someone who has been guilty of no more than a misdemeanour should be treated the same as a person who premeditatedly lands a catch of €2 million worth of fish. This is a major issue for fishermen, the vast majority of whom, and their families, have tough lives. I recently spoke to a fisherman in Schull and he informed me that he had told his son not to become involved in fishing because of the problems the industry faces. If we continue down that road, we might as well hand over our fishing industry to the Spanish or somebody else who will manage it in their way.
The issue of sanctions is the kernel of the matter. It is the res judicata of the Bill. The rest is the obiter dicta. If we can deal with this issue successfully and if the Minister can, in some way, reach out to fishermen, we will have an opportunity to arrive at a comprise.
The Minister deserves credit for much of what has transpired since the Bill was initiated in November. He was presented with a fait accompli. He was given a Bill and told to run with it. We represent a fishing community and we have an obligation to argue our point. Mine is clear and succinct. Nearly everybody here is ad idem that this aspect of the Bill is most important. Perhaps a whip will be lashed across my back but, if so, I will grin and bear it. I am very concerned. I do not want to jump ship from a political perspective. However, I will speak up loudly and clearly. If we could resolve this outstanding issue, the Bill will quickly flow into peaceful waters.
