Mr. Patrick Murphy:

I thank the committee for allowing us to come before it again to discuss the serious issues that are affecting our industry. The most recent time we spoke to the committee was to highlight our fears that 20% of our natural resource would be given away. For this issue to arise on top of that is crushing for our industry. It is hard for our coastal communities. I understand the SFPA has a job to do but we do not agree with the way it is being applied. We have pointed out in our submissions that there must be a procedure here. There must be time to lead into this new regime because the sword of Damocles has come across our heads and is being used. It is happening on piers all over the coastline now and has immediate effects.

The SFPA has stated it is consulting the industry, as Deputy Collins said. I do not know what its definition of "consulting" is, or that of the committee. For me, consulting does not mean just being told what is happening and that is it. It should expand to include looking for solutions and sitting down with us. We have spent a good few meetings trying to put that point across to the SFPA.

Our biggest question is why the SFPA accepted this report. This is a damning report and the SFPA accepted it even as it highlighted the SFPA's own incompetence. That is a hard word for me to use, and I know representatives of the SFPA are not here to defend themselves, but that is the reality of the situation. The SFPA accepted this report. It was the SFPA, as Deputy Pringle identified, that put forward a request for revoking what was there in 2012 in the context of fishing scales. The circumstances have not changed. The SFPA is also the competent authority for the quality of fish. I find it incredible that anybody could stand over the taking of fish out of a chilled box, putting them into another box that may not be chilled, looking for ice on piers without the facilities to provide it to re-ice the fish and put them back into boxes.

As Deputy O'Sullivan said, Union Hall is lucky to have a factory a couple of hundred of metres up the road, even though it is not, as Mr. Kinneen said, currently in the roadmap plan for catches to be weighed a couple of hundred metres away. It points to the lunacy of what we are talking about here. This has to be addressed.

Returning to Deputy Mac Lochlainn's questions, we did not object to penalty points being brought in. The industry tried and sought many times to meet the Minister and those who were drafting this legislation to see if it could be introduced in a fair and transparent manner, especially when it was defeated in our courtrooms on the basis that fair procedures were not being followed. There was little or no consultation. We are left scratching our heads and wondering is it possible that we, as a country, are going to allow the balance of probabilities decide somebody's future and right to make a living in this country. If a case goes to the Supreme Court or the High Court and a fisherman is exonerated, he or she may still lose the ability to fish. I am not going to make light of this but I want the situation to be understood. If this was a death penalty and a man was prosecuted and sentenced to death but was thereafter exonerated in a courtroom, he would still be executed under this law. That is what it means. Perhaps that is an imperfect analogy but we must get this point across. It is not following fair procedures. We have requested the same ability to defend our good names in a court of law as any other citizen of the State would be granted. We understand the administrative sanctions and, if they follow a court conviction, surely we should be afforded the same rights as any other citizen in the land.

I do not like using these sorts of analogies but they have to be used to get across the severity of what we are talking about. If a murderer goes into prison, he or she will not be there for life. He or she will eventually come out and be pardoned. However, under this legislation, as Mr. O'Donoghue pointed out, if you lose your rights, you never get them back. Time does not erase it. Nothing you do or change will ever erase it. There is no other avenue to rectify that situation. You are guilty and punished for the rest of your life. It is incredible.

There is so much I would like to say but it would be unfair of me to take the floor for too much longer. I hope I have addressed the issues. I thank the Deputies for their questions during the previous session. I was listening and they are well versed on the issues. Their questions were very pertinent and I would have been happier if clearer answer were given to the simple questions that were asked.