Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to the technical details relating to the two amendments. To accede to Deputy Collins's amendment No. 16 and to confer on the Minister the role of final arbiter in the context of the masters' points system would be to risk politicising decision-making in a manner that is in my opinion contrary to good practice.

The determination panel and appeals officer have both been established to deal with serious infringements which attract points. The Bill allows for a master to apply to the High Court regarding a decision of the appeals officer on a point of law only, which the Minister of the day is in no position to determine. It would not be appropriate for the Minister, as opposed to the High Court, to determine a matter after the independent determination panel and appeals officer have already adjudicated on it. This would take the independent evaluation and decision-making back into a political realm and is completely contrary to best practice of having serious infringements determined on an objective and impartial basis overseen from a legal perspective by the courts. I am not in a position to accept the Deputy's amendment for these reasons.

Regarding amendment No. 17 proposed by Deputy Mac Lochlainn, in the context of the licence holder's points system, as provided for under SI 318/2020, it was suggested by the industry that the licence holder should have a right to a full rehearing of the case before the High Court. The legal position is clear that under the Constitution, the High Court has "full original jurisdiction" and can hear all matters of law brought before it. The legal position is that it would be highly anomalous, if not unprecedented, to provide such a full High Court rehearing of a matter first governed by the procedures which were set down in the 2020 statutory instrument. In addition, it would delay the application of points, which would run up against the timeline set down in the EU regulation that points apply for three years with a commencement date of the date of detection. To that extent, it would hinder the effective implementation of this EU law and would not meet Ireland's obligations to implement these provisions. The High Court retains a supervisory and review capacity, which provides for an appeal on a point of law to the High Court, which is entirely in keeping with statutory review and appeal procedures of this nature. Accordingly, the legal position is that while the High Court retains the constitutional authority to enjoy full original jurisdiction over any legal proceedings, this authority has been circumscribed by the specific appeals mechanisms set down in primary and secondary legislation, which overwhelmingly limit just High Court appeals to reviews on a point of law. I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment for those reasons.

To take it in the round, particularly given the points made by the Deputy, as he knows, the introduction of these statutory instruments has been subject to a comprehensive process, including rigorous assessment in the Dáil. As he also said, there was the annulling of the previous statutory instrument and the subsequent tabling amendments for consideration coming out of that. All of those amendments were considered in great detail to see if it was possible for them to be accommodated into the statutory instrument while introducing a statutory instrument that would have us compliant with our obligations as a control authority under the CFP. Any amendments that could be accepted and accommodated were accommodated. Any that were not accommodated were not accommodated because they would have undermined and made the regulations that are being brought into place non-compliant with our obligations.

We are the very final member of the common fisheries control area to introduce a penalty points system for licence holders and masters. It is not that we are the best boys in class. We are the last boys to deal with our obligations in this regard to the extent that enforcement proceedings have been commenced against us by the European Commission for not living up to our obligations under the CFP to have a penalty points system in place, and that our funding European funding has been suspended because we have not dealt with this issue.

The Deputy’s party in opposition followed very much the lead of Fianna Fáil at that time and again followed the lead in the various amendments that were proposed. Those have all been considered in great detail, with some accepted, and those that have not been accepted were not accepted for very good reason. It comes to a stage where decisions have to be made and things have to happen. That is something that is a responsibility of being in government. As the Deputy outlined in his contribution, it follows a comprehensive process, which was much too lengthy really, because it has left us in a position where this has gone on far too long, where we are not compliant and where funding has been suspended, and that must be addressed. We must put in place a fair and equitable penalty points system that meets our obligations as a control authority. That is the approach that was taken. That is the reason the Taoiseach signed the statutory instrument, namely, to reflect the need for a penalty points system for licence holders, and that is why I am now bringing forward the legislation in regard to masters.

It has been extensively considered and teased out, and we are now at the endgame of having to introduce appropriate legislation that does the job. It is open to the Deputy to propose that he would do otherwise. It is open to him to give commitments that he would do something else were he in government. We rarely hear him say that. He criticises many things but never, ever lays his cards on the table as to what he would do and never makes commitments that might bind him. It is open to him today to make a binding commitment as to what it is he would do if he had the opportunity in the future, and then to hold himself to that. It is much harder to do that and to step up to the mark in terms of being responsible, than it is to simply oppose.

All of this has been given very significant and detailed consideration. This is appropriate. It is something I am bringing forward as Minister. It is not appropriate or fair to be blaming anyone else for it or to blame the officials. Again, it is an oft-used mechanism of opposition to blame someone else. Every decision that comes forward from me as Minister is something that has been vetted, considered and put forward by me. That is my responsibility and duty as Minister. Again, as the Deputy outlined, this follows a comprehensive approach taken in regard to where we have got to today. Each of the amendments that has been tabled has been comprehensively considered and the answers today will reflect all of that consideration.