Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Regarding consultation with the industry on the previous statutory instrument, it is clear there has been considerable engagement with the industry on this issue over the past couple of years in particular. As I outlined to Deputy Mac Lochlainn, there was significant engagement with industry on proposed amendments and these were then fully assessed and examined. Those that could be incorporated, while ensuring that we introduced a system that meets our obligation, were incorporated. Those that could not be without meaning that we were bringing in a system which did not meet our obligation were not incorporated. Great examination and consideration were given to that.

After I was appointed as Minister, I met representatives of the industry and engaged with them even further. We examined and discussed all the issues we are discussing here today. I explained that some of the proposed amendments have been incorporated - those that could be incorporated without undermining the capacity to introduce a system that met our obligations. Those that did not allow for that were not incorporated and overall it had tremendous examination. The two statutory instruments - the one that was rejected by the Dáil and the one that was introduced in August - were different in that they incorporated those amendments that were considered to be able to be incorporated without making the statutory instrument one which would mean we still would remain non-compliant with EU obligations for which we have had responsibility since 2012.

I have listened a lot. We might not agree with the outcome and I am open to engaging in detail with the Deputy on the backdrop and the tactical and legal considerations around that and getting into the nitty-gritty of that. It is important we do that. We can talk in headlines or overarching rhetoric, but it is the nitty-gritty and bringing into place a system that brings us into compliance which will count. There is no point going through this process if, at the end of the day, we are no further forward and still have not met our obligations.

The other backdrop to this is that, given we are the only member state without a penalty points system in place, the EU Commission has moved in the past year or so to introduce a reasoned opinion against Ireland for failure to have, previously, a licence holder penalty points system and, now, a masters penalty points system in place. They have applied the pressure and moved through the compliance tools available to them to force us to get into line and bring in this system. The other thing they have done is suspended funding to us. There is €24 million in funding, which the EU has not released to the taxpayer because we have not met our obligations in this regard. That could go up to €37 million. That would be a loss to the taxpayer were we not to ensure we meet our obligations. It is important that we meet our obligations but, were we not to, the taxpayer would be out to the tune of €37 million. There is an obligation on us to tease this out in detail and bring in the most balanced and appropriate system we can, one that is as fair as possible to fisherman and at the same time ensures we are applying the law of the Common Fisheries Policy, as is our obligation and responsibility as a member state.

The Deputy mentioned the burden of proof. I have dealt with that and refer him to the response I gave to Deputy Mac Lochlainn. I have also dealt with the question on not allowing a full appeal to the High Court in my previous response. There is an appeals system within the legislation. One can appeal to the determinations panel. The statutory instrument, SI, that was introduced brought in some amendments around the appeal system, compared to what was in the previous SI. The Deputy asked why the penalty points still stand if a criminal prosecution does not lead to a conviction. As I mentioned to Deputy Mac Lochlainn, it is because there is a requirement on us to have civil and criminal strands to this. The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt; the burden of proof in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities. That applies to other laws in our land as well. Some are civil laws and some are criminal laws. If one was to make a civil law and the application of a civil approach subject to the outcome of a criminal strand, it would nullify the civil strand. I thank that answers all the questions the Deputy raised.