The purpose of the section is to extend the provisions for the disposal of boats and fishing engines seized on suspicion of being used for illegal fishing. It is a pro forma section.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".
What disposal system is in place?
One which enables fisheries officers to apply to a district judge for the disposal of the boat or fishing engine seized. If the judge finds the boat or fishing engine has been or was about to be used unlawfully or that the fishing engine was prohibited by law he shall order it to be forfeited. I understand the court orders the boat, its gear and catch to be sold by public auction.
Will this section empower fisheries officers to dispose of all vessels confiscated?
Yes, I understand that it does.
Under what legislation is the disposal of such vessels provided for?
Section 302 of the Fisheries Consolidation Act as inserted by section 26 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1962. It enables the fisheries officers to apply to a district judge for the disposal of a boat or fishing engine seized. The purpose of this section is to extend this power to all areas of the 1959 Act.
Does the disposal have to be by way of public sale or auction? Some months ago it was suggested that a seized vessel might be handed over to the trading group organising the sale.
I know the case.
It does not refer to this section.
No. That was the case of drugs found on board a yacht in the Cork area. It was seized by customs officials and it is at present in the custody of the Navy in Haulbowline. I understand a court case resulted and that the boat was forfeited, but in the meantime the defendants may make appeals through the lower courts.
Appeals have not been heard.
The matter is still sub judice. It has been suggested that the yacht could be sold to the Navy and used for training under the Asgard scheme.Asgard II operates at present and it might become Asgard III.
Like The Brine.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that section 13 extends the provisions for the disposal of boats, engines and nets seized on suspicion of being used for illegal fishing. The section proposes amending the Principal Act by the substitution of "Act" for "Part" in each place it occurs. What extension is provided for?
I understand it applied only to one part of the Act and it now extends to all parts. That is its purpose.
When disposing of boats or nets seized, has it been the practice that in many cases the people from whom goods were seized often bought them back? Is that still happening and, if so, what can be done to stop it?
That is difficult to prevent. There is nothing one can do as we live in a free society. The main purpose of the legislation is to punish the wrongdoer and that is what happens, but if the alleged wrongdoer wants to buy back his fishing gear or engines he may do so in a public and transparent manner.
Is it true that frequently the gear is designed to suit the vessel fishing illegally, that the goods on offer at a open auction may not be of interest to many people other than the owner of the vessel seized and that they are often bought back below their cost value?
No, I do not think so, my information is otherwise.
The next section refers to confiscation. The Minister says we live in a free society and that if people want to buy the goods back they can do so. However, they can only buy them back if the legislation allows them to be sold. If the legislation did not allow the goods to be sold but to be confiscated, they would not be up for sale and the person fishing illegally would not have the opportunity to repurchase and to get back into business quickly and cheaply.
Section 14 provides for confiscation on conviction on indictment and there is no question of resale.
In those circumstances there is no opportunity to put the goods up for sale and for the original owner to buy them back?
No.
Section 13 applies where there is a summary conviction only.
That is correct.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 11, 14 and 15 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 9, before section 15, to insert the following new section:
"15.—Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or of any other enactment, where the owner of a foreign sea-fishing ship has a concealed or hidden hold and undersized fishing nets on board that ship that person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable in the case of a first offence to a fine of £100,000 and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to forfeiture of the sea-fishing ship.".
We will have to insist that this amendment is inserted in the Bill. It is most important that we stop the ravaging of the sea fishing stocks in Irish waters, particularly in the former Irish box. It is well known that there is a lucrative market on the continent for small, undersized fish. In respect of those Spanish fishing trawlers who have illegal fishing holds installed in their vessels not alone should they be seized by the Irish authorities but they should be banned by their own Government. When caught, they should be immediately struck off from the tonnage in their State under European Union regulations. It is alarming that undersized fishing can be allowed continue off our coast without hindrance. No Government department in any European country is so na�ve as to believe that those hidden holds are installed in fishing vessels of the member states tolerating this type of conduct. That is not done without the knowledge of the respective Departments of Fisheries in those member states. I take a grave view of the fact that they are allowed to get away with it by the respective Departments of Fisheries in the relevant member states. The only way we can tackle this problem is to ensure that we inflict a heavy penalty — perhaps the sum of £100,000 is not enough, maybe I should be suggesting a sum of £250,000 — and, in the case of a second and subsequent offence, the forfeiture of the sea fishing vessel involved. If we do not take those steps, our fishing stock in the Atlantic Ocean will be be completely wiped out. Indeed the people who will succeed us in this forum will not have much to talk about because our fishing stocks will have been completely wiped out in the North Atlantic if this indiscriminate fishing is allowed continue. I do not know whether I can raise the figure of £100,000 to £250,000. If I can, I will readily do so and suggest that in the case of a subsequent offence, the forfeiture of the sea fishing vessel. If this amendment needs to be strengthened by the Minister to implement the relevant rules and regulations I would gladly support him in that respect .
On a procedural matter, what the Deputy is suggesting is an amendment to the amendment. We need that in writing if we are to formally put it to the Committee for the purpose of the record.
The fact that Deputy Sheehan is raising his original figure demonstrates that he was once an auctioneer. I strongly support the arguments put forward by him. Indeed, in the course of the Second Stage debate most members spoke on similar lines. At that time the Minister had just returned from the Fisheries Council meeting at which it became fairly clear that we would encounter major difficulties in the future in dealing with the Spanish fleet. All Members suggested that every possible legislative provision should be put in place to protect the future of our fishing industry. Indeed, the level of fine suggested by Deputy Sheehan, and the possible seizure of such fishing vessels, would constitute a major step in that direction. What is now obvious is that we need to adopt a very heavy-handed approach to deal with the problem of illegal fishing by foreign vessels, in particular, vessels fishing eel from one particular country. Unfortunately, to date, these vessels have been able to play a game of cat and mouse with our laws. Sometimes when one particular foreign vessels is detained in port other foreign vessels fish illegally knowing that they are unlikely to be caught. Therefore, provision will have to be made for the most severe financial penalties, along with the possible forfeiture of the boats involved. The figure first suggested by Deputy Sheehan, now increased by him, to a mandatory fine of £250,000 would cause the offenders to reflect before they come to fish illegally off our shores. Fines of that magnitude accompanied by the written threat of the seizure of their boats would deter such illegal activities by those who engaged in them so effectively for so long. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment to the amendment.
Unless we take all possible steps to abolish this type of illegal fishing, there can be no future for our fishing industry. As we come under threat resulting from changed regulations at EU level, we must do everything possible, within the framework of those regulations to secure and safeguard our fleet and fishing stocks to the maximum possible extent. Sadly, we have to travel the road of implementing a very heavy legislative response to illegal fishing. I hope the Minister will concede that the type of scenario outlined by Deputy Sheehan does not constitute simply the last resort but rather represents our only recourse to securing the future of our fishing industry.
I support the amendment and the amendment to the amendment suggesting increasing the fine from £100,000 to £250,000. As we know the Irish sea fishing industry will face an enormous threat from 1996 when the new arrangements come into being in regard to the access for Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets. Already we have evidence that, of every two Spanish vessels that have been boarded by the Irish Naval Service, they have found that one has been in breach of the regulations. Here we have a member state of the EU with access to Irish waters breaking the regulations in one out of every two cases of boats boarded. That is an extraordinary situation and poses a huge threat to the viability of our sea fishing industry, requiring very stiff measures by the Irish Government and the European Union to deal with it. Today we are dealing with Irish legislation so it is incumbent on us to ensure that stiff provisions are written into this Bill to provide a major deterrent to those transgressors. Any nation with a fishing fleet of the size of the Spanish are, who know, because of the evidence, that the fishing vessels are being designed surreptitiously to have hidden holds in order to stow away undersized illegally caught fish, illegal nets and all the other ways in which they want to hide the fact that they are breaking the regulations and any fishery owner, any company that would deliberately set out to do that, when caught, should be dealt with in the most severe fashion.
It is not right to criticise the decisions of our courts but the fishing industry needs greater support. There is a feeling, even within the Department, that a tougher line could be taken by judges in dealing with these cases. The judges point to the existing legislation and it is up to the Members of the Oireachtas to provide the courts with legislation which will enable them to deal severely with blatant cases. Any fishery operator whose boat is specially designed or altered to contain hidden holds that conceal illegal activities should be dealt with in the toughest possible fashion. A fine of £0.25 million pounds for a fishery owner — the boat is probably worth more than that — is necessary.
I recall when the animal remedies Bill was being discussed in the House the fine for the use of clenbuterol, angel dust, and illegal substances for growth promotion in animals, was increased to £0.25 million as a result of acceptance of an amendment from the Opposition. I hope the Minister for the Marine will take the same view as that taken by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in the Dáil on the seriousness of these offences and the need to protect this valuable industry. There is need for very tough fines in this area. I compliment Deputy Sheehan on putting down this amendment and I am delighted to be associated with the amendment to it to increase the fine to £0.25 million. I urge the Minister to give careful consideration to its proposal.
The Naval Service is charged with an impossible task to police the vast area of fishery waters for which it is responsible. It does not have sufficient personnel or vessels and does not get enough financial support from the European Union to adequately patrol these waters. It is disgraceful that the lives of our fishermen are continuously put under threat, particularly from Spanish fishery skippers — these incidents have been documented on numerous occasions. I remember receiving a telephone call from a skipper's wife telling me that her husband who was fishing less than 50 miles off the west coast had his trawls cut by foreign trawler owners and his gear taken aboard the other vessel. He followed the vessels and called for assistance from the naval Service but as assistance did not come he followed the vessel. He then came under threat from ten or 15 trawlers that tried to sink him.
I called that skipper by telephone — I was able to make contact with him by way of his communication system — and on contacting the Naval Service, got a satisfactory response. I was not Minister at the time; I rang as a Deputy and I was very grateful for the instant response to my request. The Naval Service came to the skipper's aid.
This was only one incident but I understand there are numerous such incidents in Irish fishing waters. The existence of secret holds is well known and it is appropriate in legislation of this kind to introduce the highest level of fines. I think that a sum equating to the value of some of these boat — some are very old — would be adequate.
Did the Minister see the investigative programme on ITV seven or eight months ago which graphically illustrated——
"The Cook Report".
——the illegal activities of the Spaniards, secret holds and intimidation of fishery officers in Spain? This is criminal activity of the gravest nature and action should be taken on the basis of that report. The Spanish Minister and the Spanish Ambassador to Ireland should have been called in and asked to explain the Spanish Government's inertia in dealing with these people.
The only people who go to prison in this country for illegal fishing activities are Irish fishermen. Quite a few people in my constituency have gone to prison for catching a few salmon illegally. Apparently the bigger the crime, the better your chances of getting off. Spaniards and French who behave illegally and in a criminal manner should be sent to prison for a term which is in line with the gravity of the offences they commit.
Illegal fishing may be dealt with by forfeiture of the vessel. I heard the Minister say he would be requesting the authorities to forfeit vessels which repeatedly break the law, but I have yet to see it happen. I know provision is made for this, but that has been there for years. A severe penalty needs to be imposed to create an impression on these people. We all know that the owners of Spanish boats club together and pay fines for people apprehended. It is a Mafiosa type operation, and the television programme illustrated that very clearly. A person fined £100,000 or £200,000 is helped by his comrades and he may have to pay little or nothing as a result. The profits are so huge that it pays them to act illegally on a systematic basis. At any given time there are dozens of Spanish trawlers within our territorial waters, our exclusion zone, fishing illegally, without a licence and the gains are so great, they can afford to do so.
The forfeiture of the vessel is the obvious deterrent to people who repeatedly fish illegally or who catch under-size fish. However, there is a more sinister activity, not just of steaming through the nets of Irish fishing boats but of ramming them in an area where the Spanish or French would like to operate. A trawler from my area was rammed two years ago off Baltimore in west Cork and it was the grace of God that the boat was not sunk and the crew were not drowned. Were it not for the fact that the vessel hit the super-structure of the boat at the strongest point, the boat would have gone down, and probably the crew with it. No action was taken against those involved in that incident. The boat which had been manoeuvring for several hours before hand had called for the assistance of another boat and when that boat arrived the Spanish trawler was preparing to make a second run to finish off the Irish trawler — that is well known. Nobody was apprehended for this incident, which was attempted murder.
To my knowledge, no Spanish or French fisherman who has acted illegally or in a criminal manner has gone to prison in this country. However, fishermen in my constituency go to prison regularly for catching a few salmon out of season, at weekends or with a monofilament net. Where is the justice in that? Fishermen are entitled to an explanation. We should introduce laws and penalties to fit the crime because the present penalties are not a deterrent to these people.
I am not condemning all Spanish fishermen or all French fishermen. I am told that the French fishermen are well behaved and honest, like the Irish and most other fishermen. However, there are elements who are criminal in their activities and, generally speaking, the Spaniards are breaking the law systematically. It is no good increasing the penalties if we do not implement them. I ask the Minister to consult with the Minister for Justice with a view to making the penalties fit the crime, which is not the case at the moment.
Deputy Deasy is right about the fines. The majority of fishing vessels detained for illegal fishing, illegal entry, using under sized nets, retaining undersized nets, log book infringements, incorrect capacity plans etc., are fined, on average, only £23,500, in the Circuit Court, while the average fine in the District Court is £500 to £1,000. I agree with what Deputies have said about the depredation of fishery waters, particularly by Spanish vessels.
The majority of French fishermen are decent fishermen who observe their responsibilities in the context of the fishing operation and they are very welcome to these ports. It is also important to remember that Spain is probably one of the biggest importers of Irish fish and, although we can point to deficiencies in their fleet, of which there is no doubt, we must be careful about blanket condemnation of the Spaniards. In the main, our experience with the Spaniards has not been good. In fact it has been abject. I concur with what the Deputies say in this regard. I respectfully suggest that my amendment No. 14 to section 16 covers Deputy Sheehan's point about forfeiture.
On the question of fines, to inflict a fine of £0.25 million on an alleged wrongdoer would, effectively, be fining him the value of his boat, the average boat being valued at about that amount. I am not certain that would be quite just. If the Deputy had left on the table his original amendment suggesting a fine of £100,000, I would have accepted it. If he will kindly withdraw his amendment I will agree to a fine at that level as an earnest of my intention. This is the first time a Minister for fisheries has introduced this type of draconian legislation. I would have thought that much of what is in this Bill meets the concerns expressed by Deputies. The proposal contained in my amendment is that the maximum fine for having a false hold would be £50,000 and a similar fine for having an undersized net. A combination of both would give the £100,000, but I will not go down that road. I am prepared to accept what might be described as the Sheehan fine amounting to £100,000 if the Deputy will be kind enough to compromise and withdraw his amendment. We have to apply justice in a broadhanded way, and a fine of £0.25 million would be excessive in the circumstances.
The exclusive application of such a provision to a foreign sea-fishing ship would, if it included a member state of the Union, be deemed discriminatory by the European Court in terms of the Treaty. The maximum penalty for offences would be double that proposed for the offences specified in the Bill, but I am prepared to go along that road with the Deputy. Under my amendment the maximum fine for having a false hold would be £50,000; the fine for having undersized nets would also be £50,000, and anyone convicted of both offences would be liable for fines of up to £100,000, which is what the Deputy proposes in his amendment.
Under the existing amendment forfeiture of the vessel can also occur on the first offence if that offence is considered sufficiently grievous. In this regard the amendment serves to weaken rather than strengthen the proposed sanctions and, unwittingly, also reintroduces a loophole regarding ownership by referring indiscriminately to the owner. I go along with the intention behind the Deputy's amendment in its entirety but ask him to withdraw it on the basis that it has a number of drafting weaknesses, while at the same time I am prepared to meet him on the £100,000 fine. On the basis of his new proposal I will make the amendment at the Report Stage.
I want to reiterate the point that I have been making from another angle, based on what I saw on the television programme, "The Cook Report". It is that law and order that does not exist in the ports where the Spanish land in the north of Spain, in Basque country. It was quite clearly illustrated that the Basque terrorist group have an interest in the illegal activities of these fishing boats to such a degree that whenever an attempt is made to implement the law, the lives of fishery officers and government officials are threatened. If we do not implement the law strictly it will not be implemented. Despite what the Spanish Minister and Ambassador may say, they are incapable of implementing the rules so it behoves us to do it. We have to do it in a significant way. In other words we must do their dirty work for them and protect ourselves at the same time.
I could not make any comment about terrorist organisations being involved in Spanish fishing efforts. That is the Deputy's personal opinion.
That was the conclusion of the report.
That message did not come across to me although I did see the report. I thought it was a very serious charge against the Spaniards and I accept what Deputy Deasy says in that respect. As far as the fine is concerned, £100,000 is as far as I will go in the circumstances. I would appreicate if the Deputy would see my offer of that amount as an earnest of my continued intention to urge the most rigorous operation of the law as outlined by Deputies Molloy, Deasy and Sheehan. The operation of the Act itself is, of course, a matter for the courts. As Deputy Deasy said, the courts have not been very harsh but each case must be judged on its merits. We are not in the court on a particular day and there may be special circumstances which would give the judge a different perspective than the perspective from which we will view it from here. In fairness to the courts we will have to see it in that light. The £100,000 fine goes a long way to meeting the Deputy's concerns.
While I appreciate the Minister's remarks, the £100,000 fine for undersized nets and illegal holds is still too low. It is only peanuts to Spanish fishermen. The owners of those vessels deliberately install illegal holds in the boats. I wonder if the counterpart of the Department of the Marine in Spain investigate those fishing vessels when issuing licences and, if so, are they so naive as to overlook secret holds? They set out to wipe out our fishing stock in the North Atlantic. For far too long we have been the victims of marauding fishing boats. If we are to preserve the fishing industry for young Irish fishermen, and for future generations of Irish fishermen, we must impose fines to fit the crime. The only way to inhibit the indiscriminate mopping up of our breeding fisheries stock in the North Atlantic Ocean is to impose a fine of a magnitude that will deter people from commiting that crime. Unfortunately I do not agree with the Minister in this matter because the future of our fishing industry is of such paramount importance to our economy that we must do our best to preserve what we have left before it is too late.
The Minister did not refer to the point made by Deputy Deasy concerning the Spanish boat owners who seem to have an arrangement whereby they club together to pay these fines so that they do not bear heavily on any one boat as would happen if an Irish boat was taken in these circumstances because many of the Irish vessels are owned by an individual skipper. In Spain or France the vessels are owned by large companies which operate a system whereby if one vessel is caught fishing illegally the others all club in to pay the fine. They anticipate such a loss and build it in at the start of the year. Our major fishery interests are at stake and are seriously undermined by these illegal activities and we have to take a tough stand. I support Deputy Sheehan's proposal that the fine be increased to £250,000 which equates on average to the value of these boats. If they do this, are caught and that boat or its value is taken out of the system, that might hurt them. I doubt if it would stop them but it would be a major deterrent. The least we can do to protect the future value of our fisheries is to increase these fines.
We have an amendment to Deputy Sheehan's amendment in the names of Deputy P. J. Sheehan and Deputy Robert Molloy.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 11:
To delete the sum of £100,000 and to substitute £250,000.
Amendment to the amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 10.
|
Tá |
|
|
Bradford, Paul. |
Dukes, Alan. |
|
Bruton, Richard. |
Finucane, Michael. |
|
Byrne, Eric. |
Molloy, Bobby. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
Nealon, Ted. |
|
Deasy, Austin. |
O'Malley, Des. |
|
Sheehan, P.J. |
|
Níl. |
|
|
Ahern, Noel. |
Kirk, Séamus. |
|
Andrews, David. |
Moynihan-Cronin, Breda. |
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
O'Sullivan, Toddy. |
|
Coughlan, Mary. |
Smith, Brendan. |
|
Fitzgerald, Brian. |
Upton, Pat. |
Amendment to the amendment declared carried.
I am honoured to join with Deputy Sheehan on this historic occasion.
We voted on the amendment to the amendment to substitute £250,000 in place of £100,000. We are now considering the original amendment, as amended, in the name of Deputy Sheehan. Is the amendment being pressed?
The amendment is being pressed.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are related and it is proposed to discuss them together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 10, subsection (2) (a) , line 3, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£2,500".
In supporting the amendment, will the herrings in the Celtic Sea now be able to die of old age?
Under the amendment the maximum penalty on summary conviction for assaulting an officer will be £2,500 instead of £1,000 as proposed in the Bill. The figure of £1,000 was proposed in the Bill as this is the maximum fine that may be imposed by the District Court.
I accept that explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 10, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following subsection;
"(3) Any person who, contrary to any provision of this Act, obstructs or impedes an officer to whom this section applies in the exercise of any power conferred on that officer by any provision of the Principal Act or refuses or neglects to comply with any requisition or direction lawfully made or given by that officer in pursuance of any such provision shall, in lieu of the punishment applied in respect of that contravention by any such provision, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.