Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now commence pre-legislative scrutiny of the sea-fisheries (amendment) Bill. I welcome the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with responsibility for fisheries, Ms Josephine Kelly, principal officer, sea fisheries policy and management division, and Mr. John Kinsella, principal officer, legal services division. The officials join us remotely from a witness room in Kildare House. They are all very welcome to the meeting.

We have received the Minister's opening statement and briefing material, copies of which have been circulated to members. As we are limited on time due to Covid-19 safety restrictions, the committee has agreed that the opening statement may be taken as read and the full session will be used for questions and answers. All opening statements are published on the Oireachtas website and are publicly available.

Before we begin, I have an important notice regarding parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Participants in the meeting from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether, or the extent to which, their participation is covered by absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

The legislative proposal we are discussing is a hugely important issue for the fisheries sector. Before I invite questions from members, I ask the Minister to comment briefly on how he sees the situation for the sector at this time and the necessity for this legislation.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and members for their very prompt response to our request for pre-legislative scrutiny of the sea-fisheries (amendment) Bill. I brought the heads of the Bill to Cabinet last week and sought approval for the scrutiny process and to proceed to general drafting. I look forward to the engagement with the committee and to members' feedback and comprehensive teasing out of the various aspects of the Bill, both in pre-legislative scrutiny and as it moves through the various Stages in the Dáil and Seanad.

These proposals follow on from the penalty points system that was introduced for licence holders, which was established by statutory instrument last August. Since 2012, there has been on obligation on us, as an EU member state and in accordance with the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, to introduce a penalty points control system for both licence holders and masters. We are the only remaining member state that has not yet introduced both penalty points systems. While we were able to introduce the licence holder penalty points arrangements by way of statutory instrument, as there was a legislative basis at European level to do so, we require primary legislation to put in place a system to deal with masters. It is on this basis that I have brought forward these heads of Bill. I look forward to the committee's full engagement with, and communication on, the provisions as we go forward.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. Deputy Mac Lochlainn has indicated that he has questions.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister knows, we sought to annul SI 318 of 2020, which he introduced. We debated the proposal in the Dáil and I have to accept that it was voted through. I remind the Minister that when he was Fianna Fáil spokesperson on agriculture, food and the marine, he had a very different view on this matter. His colleague and former Deputy, Pat the Cope Gallagher, when he was spokesperson on the marine, introduced an annulment motion.

There are a number of points I want to reintroduce today in regard to the heads of this Bill. Specifically, I want to raise again the four key and reasonable bones of contention the industry has with these proposals. I have read the Minister's opening statement and, remarkably, what is missing in his assessment is an acknowledgment that the draft penalty points have been challenged in the courts and the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter previously. Everybody recognises that the European Commission is demanding that Ireland introduce a scheme. It is agreed that there needs to be a penalty points system, and oversight of that system, and that we must ensure our fisheries are operated sustainably. Unfortunately, the schemes that have been introduced on a number of occasions have not been fair and just. I will go through the correspondence that was issued to the Minister by the various fishing organisations in September 2020.

Point 9 in the draft general scheme, which is on page 10 of the document, shows that the Minister has not addressed the four main areas of concern for the industry, and I am sure that will continue through the scheme. The four major producer organisations in the State, namely, the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, the Irish Fish Producers Organisation, the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation and the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, have written to the Minister to raise the four key issues. The first of these concerns the decision to be made by the determination panel on the balance of probabilities. This is very serious stuff because we are talking about potentially taking away somebody's livelihood.

The threshold for conviction for all Irish citizens and, indeed, European citizens is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the threshold a director of public prosecutions and a jury looks at - beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the accepted threshold yet we are going with a threshold of "on the balance of probabilities", which I think is very dangerous. I reiterate that this type of approach has been rejected by the courts and it is the reason that it has taken so long for us to bring in legislation. With all due respect to the senior officials in the Department, they keep getting things wrong when drafting this legislation and, unfortunately, they have been turned around in the courts, which is what has delayed this process.

Having spoken to people across the industry I want to take this opportunity to say the following. There is an attempt to present the fishing industry as some kind of a mass illegality or an industry that does not like to follow laws, is up to skullduggery and so on. We only have to see that the funding and number of staff for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority have multiplied tenfold since it was brought into place so one has an organisation or regulator that has been seriously resourced. Any fisherman with whom I have spoken talked about how determined these officials are in terms of doing their job so I do not think anybody doubts the determination of the SFPA to implement the law. If some mass illegality did take place then how come we have not had a mass number of people convicted in the courts? It is very dangerous for the State to allow a narrative to go out that mass illegality is happening in the fishing industry.

Let us remember that the fishing industry is being squeezed out of its rightful access to the fish in our seas. We had 12% of the seas in the European Union yet we only get 4% of the quota across the European Union. We get one third of what should be our natural right so we should stand up for fishermen rather than allow a narrative of criminality and illegality to be placed on our fishing industry. Of course there should be oversight, and people should fish sustainably, not over fish and where over fishing is found to happen then people should be taken to task but there must be due process and it has to be fair. Every citizen is entitled to that fundamental pillar of our democracy and I find it astonishing that we allow legislation to again be presented to us that accepts a ban that removes any reference to "the balance of probabilities" and replaces it with "beyond a reasonable doubt". I appeal to the Minister to do that today and I draw his attention to the language again used in section 9, page 10 of the general scheme.

As the Minister will recall from correspondence he received from the four producer organisations, POs, last September, it states: "Where points remain on a licence even in the event of an appellant being exonerated of any offence." This provision is very objectionable. This is where a person has the right to take his or her case to a court of law if he or she feels that he or she has done no wrong yet, even if successful in that court of law, those penalty points remain on the licence. Can one imagine a situation where a person pulled over by the Garda for speeding is adamant there was no speeding and goes to a court of law where the case is won yet the points remain on the licence? Such a situation would not be tolerated by citizens yet we expect fishermen to find it acceptable.

The third point of contention is that fisherman are only allowed to apply to the High Court on a point of law. Again, the fishing community finds that objectionable.

The final point of contention, and I have no doubt that it is replicated in this legislation, is "where points attached to capacity multiply in the event of that capacity being subdivided". In other words, those points flow throughout even if one sells and subdivides one's capacity.

The Minister must agree that these are four reasonable grounds of concern for the fishing industry. As he knows, with all legislation that is presented to the Oireachtas one would expect that he would consult the stakeholders and invite them to make submissions. I know that he has rejected these grounds. I cannot see how any Minister can stand over the balance of probabilities being a threshold for conviction, having to go to court yet still be unable to remove points and being only able to apply "on a point of law".

Finally, I am pretty sure that every Deputy and Senator on this call today, and every fisherman I know that is worth their salt, understands that there needs to be a penalty points system. We all understand that we must have oversight and laws and that we must protect the precious amenity and natural resources in our seas but there is a plethora of staff in the SFPA, and there is the Naval Service and An Garda Síochána. There is a wide range of people to enforce the law but citizens have a right to due process and to be considered. Most important, a citizen has the right under law to be considered innocent until proven guilty. In my opinion, one must prove one's innocence as one is presumed guilty under too many of these processes. I put all of that to the Minister and look forward to his engagement.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have previously discussed this matter with the committee in terms of the licence penalty points statutory instrument and licence holders. Also, I met and discussed the matter in great depth with fishermen's representatives.

A number of proposals or suggested amendments were put forward on the licence holder statutory instrument, which my own party put forward in opposition, that we felt should be considered. The amendments were considered in great detail and some were incorporated such as additional time for the appeals process, etc. For some of them, given the legal advice following a full assessment, it was found that if they were to be accepted it would mean that the statutory instrument and the licence penalty points system would not pass muster or meet the expected thresholds. At that time they were examined in massive detail, given exceptional hearing and fully examined as to the capacity for them to be absorbed and incorporated into the statutory instrument.

The masters penalty points system requires legislation. The same approach and the learnings from all of that full examination and assessment is followed through in the approach being taken now with the masters penalty points legislation. It is very similar to and consistent with the approach taken in terms of the licence holders.

As I mentioned at the outset, the regulation requires each member state to have a penalty points system for licence holders and for masters has been in place since 2012. We are very late to the table and are the last member state to put this legislation in place. The initial licence statutory instrument was legally challenged and found not to be appropriate in some regards so a new SI was required. There was a significant examination of the amendments put forward by my own party and a new SI was introduced last August.

Overall, the two penalty points systems must achieve a system that is dissuasive, proportionate and effective, which are the key thresholds.

I will touch on the three points the Deputy raised. On the issue of the standard of proof to be used by the determination panel and the appeals officer, balance of probabilities is the approach that is being taken. The legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is almost entirely confined to criminal trials and is not applicable to proceedings that are civil in nature. For any civil proceedings that end up in court, the standard used is on the balance of probabilities. It is a standard that is used for the licence holders points system and for the masters system we are discussing. Our legal advice is that it is the appropriate legal standard for the penalty points system to ensure we are compliant with our responsibilities as a control authority and as a control member state.

The Deputy asked about cases where there is no guilty verdict in criminal proceedings. Where the master or owner is found not guilty in criminal proceedings, this proposal would involve both systems being interlinked. They would not stand alone from each other if the proposal the Deputy is making were to be adopted. They are separate systems involving separate standards of proof between the points and a criminal prosecution. It would lead to confusion and conflation of evidence, and render elements inadmissible. In addition, the legal advice is clear that points under the EU regulation are intended as additional to criminal prosecution. I will repeat that. The legal advice is that points under EU regulation are intended as additional to criminal prosecution. Accordingly, it could not be argued that Ireland has both criminal and points systems as required under EU regulation if we operated this system in a manner whereby criminal proceedings completely eclipsed the points system.

That is the legal advice we have on the matter. The overarching point I would make is that it is my objective to introduce a system which is as balanced and proportionate to all of our responsibilities and, indeed, to the fishing sector as it possibly can be while meeting our legal obligations to comply with European regulation. There is no point in any of us going through this process and introducing a system that then falls flat on it face and does not meet our legal obligations. That adds no value. We need to deal with the facts and deal with the issue.

We certainly should tease out the details as we are doing today and over the next period but, ultimately, what we introduce must ensure that, as a member state, we are compliant with our obligations under the 2012 EU regulation. At the moment, Ireland is the only member state that is not compliant. We would all be wasting our time if we fool ourselves by introducing a system that does not bring us into compliance with our European obligations as a control member state authority. That is ultimately where we need to be at the end of this process, having introduced this legislation.

Regarding a licence holder having a full right to the rehearing of a case before the High Court, the legal advice 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 advice is that it would be highly anomalous, if not unprecedented, to provide such a full High Court rehearing of a matter first governed in procedures set down in the previous statutory instrument or, indeed, in this legislation. In addition, it would delay the application of points which would run up against the timelines stipulated in the EU regulation that points apply for three years from the commencement date following detection. To that extent then it would hinder the effective implementation of this EU law and would not meet Ireland's obligations to implement these EU provisions.

Similar challenges would have been teased out regarding the licence holder penalty points system. They were given great examination at that time when amendments were considered and ultimately decided upon. The same considerations apply to this masters penalty points system which is very much based on the licence holder one.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. On the balance of probabilities, I do not think the Minister will find anybody who disagrees that everybody is entitled to due process and to have themselves tried beyond reasonable doubt. That has been a major concern for years when it comes to this Bill. I do not know if the Minister has tried to do anything about it. Is there anywhere in the audit to which he can point to show us he has taken on board the suggestions and concerns of the fishing sector?

The licence holder gets ten days to appeal and 20 days from the date of notification. Why is there such a short timeframe for making submissions or appeals? We all know how slow that process is and to have boats or fishermen tied down to such a short timescale is unreasonable, in my view.

There is an article in the Irish Examinerthis morning about the derogation being withdrawn, which states that there are factories which are not fit for purpose for the weighing system. There are 33 suspected fraud cases and a figure has been thrown out of 40,000 tonnes----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are only allegations in the media this morning. I-----

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am only asking the Minister for his opinion.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am under strict instructions. We will stick to the legislation before us, if that is okay.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Go raibh maith agat.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I have taken on board and engaged in great detail with the industry, following my appointment, on the statutory instrument, and previous to that on their proposals and concerns around the SI that had been annulled by the Dáil. There were amendments that were given great consideration coming out of that as to whether they could be incorporated while ensuring that the SI being introduced met our obligations. They were teased out and examined in detail, taking on board legal advice. Coming out of that, some amendments were incorporated. The majority were not but that is not to say there was not tremendous examination given to that. Likewise, I have looked in detail at the appropriate approach here and taken significant legal advice because I want to ensure the system we introduce is not only fair to everyone, balanced and proportionate but that it works as well and meets our obligations as a member state, which we have to take seriously and which other member states have adopted. The EU Commission, because we do not have both systems in place - one is and the other is not - has imposed fines on us. It is important to ensure we have these systems in place. There has been strong consideration given to all aspects of this and that informs the approach being taken in this Bill.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for allowing me to deputise for him at this meeting. I thank the Minister for his comments so far on the Bill. I will not rehash answers he has given. He outlined that we are the last member state to implement these conditions and rules in respect of this aspect of the penalty points system. How many member states have both the penalty points system and the system alongside? Has the Minister looked at that and compared us to other member states? Are we the same? The Department is very quick to point out we are dealing with EU waters rather than Irish waters. How are we in compliance with EU regulations across that or are we an outlier?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. Other member states have an administrative law system alongside their civil system. We are the only member state that has a criminal law system. Regarding the approach required for us to meet our obligations under the regulation, it is appropriate to our legal system.

We are the only member state that has a criminal system in operation.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we are the only member state that has a common law system. The UK and Ireland were the only two member states that had this type of common law system. The other EU member states have an administrative system, which is how they apply their criminal law. Our legal system is based on common law.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are the only member state in the EU where a person can get a criminal conviction for breaching these regulations.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other member states have a different law system but a person can still get a criminal conviction.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is a serious issue and it has been a very interesting debate so far. I ask the Minister about the criminal versus civil law issue. It is my understanding that even where a criminal prosecution fails, a person could still end up with penalty points. That is an issue. Where else in the Department does that approach apply? I have not come across it before in legislation. Does this happen in agriculture appeals or in other parts of the system? Will the Minister give examples of where it happens in the Department?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The obligation on us is set by the EU regulation. It is specific to that and applies to all EU member states. It requires a penalty points system to operate alongside a criminal system. That is the obligation on us under the regulation.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question I was trying to ask is whether this approach applies in any other part of the Department, either agriculture appeals or other sections. My knowledge of fishing is not as good as my knowledge of agriculture but I have never come across this previously.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the basic payment scheme and other schemes, farmers get particular penalties and must sometimes leave a scheme altogether. Those schemes are administered within the Department. It is not a criminal system and it is not directly comparable to this. This approach is unique in that it is an EU regulation and we have a legal obligation to have a civil penalty points system in place operating alongside a separate criminal system. It is not necessarily that both systems would always conclude but certainly the penalty points would be a stand-alone system.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Pringle asked about the approach in other EU member states. The European Parliament published a report last year which examined the penalty points systems in all EU member states and how they applied. Has the Minister read that report?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not read it in detail but my officials have. It has informed our approach.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill will go through the Dáil and Seanad. The Minister's senior officials are on this call. Are they advising him that this legislation is in line with legislation in place in other member states, in other words, is the threshold for conviction similar to the thresholds in place in other EU member states? Is that the advice to the Minister?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been advised, not just by my officials but also in the legal advice I have taken , is that the approach taken here, which is very much based on the approach taken on the penalty points system for licence holders, is required in order for us to meet our responsibilities as an EU member state and member state control authority. We are required to put in place a system which is effective, dissuasive and proportionate. The whole approach and the terms and conditions around it are structured to ensure we meet those thresholds and that what emerges from this process brings us into compliance. We are the only member that is not in compliance. This legislation is designed to achieve that and it is the minimum required to ensure we do that.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the record, the report I referred to is titled, Implementation of the current EU fisheries control system by Member States (2014-19). The study was carried out by the European Parliament’s development committee. I will ask the question again. Is this legislation, as presented to us, and the onerous threshold that it sets for our fisherman based on the normal practice and the normal threshold throughout the European Union, as reported in the study I have referred to?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The committee will consider and deliberate on this legislation and report back to me as Minister. If there are any valid or reasonable points in the report or any other report that the Deputy wishes to have considered, the option is available to him to put them on the table. There has been a great deal of legal examination and consideration given to this penalty points system and the previous one. The previous system received close examination, as we have just discussed, through engagement with the committee and the many amendments that were proposed and considered in detail and great depth. This approach, with the masters penalty points system, follows on from that. It is framed in this way because it is what is required to ensure we introduce a system that is compliant. The option is available to Deputy Mac Lochlainn to bring any specific suggestions he wishes into the mix and have them examined. Much consideration has been given in advance of this Bill to ensuring that it introduces a system that brings us into compliance.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason I asked the question is, as the Minister has acknowledged, that the Department's previous drafts of what would be a scheme were, unfortunately, rejected in our courts. We would expect, therefore, that senior Department officials would find out what is the acceptable European Union norm for this type of scheme. There is an important question to be asked. I appreciate that the Minister has a wide range of responsibilities with a brief covering agriculture, food and the marine and that he cannot be expected to read every single report from the European Union. I am not going to be unreasonable. It is, however, the responsibility of his senior officials to have read the report, Implementation of the current EU fisheries control system by Member States (2014-19). From the Minister's response, it is not clear if his officials have read the report. It is absolutely critical that they do so. Have they read this report? Is the legislation they have drafted for the Minister based on normal practice in the European Union? This is to meet the responsibilities under the EU directive.

There is a range of examples within the European Union with regard to the implementation of a penalty points system. This proposition has been rejected a number of times. One would imagine they would now want to find a system that is acceptable, that is the same as that in place in other member states and that seeks to do what is right. If the Minister does not have an answer to that question, I would appreciate it if the senior officials of his Department who correspond with the committee would follow up with the committee after this meeting confirming that they have read the report and also setting out how this legislation is in line with that report and with other European member state examples.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Indepth legal advice has been sought and obtained on this. The threshold that is being used is the appropriate threshold based on the legal advice we have received. If there are specific points the Deputy would like to raise today in regard to the report, he should by all means do so. The Deputy referenced the report, not specific points from it. If there are any points he would like bring into the mix today, he should do so. I can assure him that the matter has been examined in great detail. The thresholds set out in the Bill are the appropriate thresholds based on the legal advice to Government.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Michael Collins.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies for coming back in again, but can I ask that the senior officials of the Department would confirm that they have read the report and set out how this legislation is aligned to the recommendations of that committee?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To which recommendations in particular is the Deputy referring?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a range of recommendations from the committee at the end of the report. Perhaps the officials could respond to all of them.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any recommendation in particular on which the Deputy would like a response?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like a response on all of the recommendations included in the report. As I said, the report includes a range of recommendations and a comprehensive study of how this system is applied across all member states. It includes case studies, of which Ireland is one. I am asking that in respect of all of the recommendations at the end of the report - which I have in front of me but I do not propose to read all of it now - the Minister's senior officials would correspond with the committee outlining how this legislation is aligned to those recommendations.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is an EU regulation which obliges us to introduce this system. This legislation has to be compliant with that regulation. We have examined the regulation in detail in the context of putting in place a system which would be effective, dissuasive and proportionate and meet those thresholds. We have to respond to and operate under that regulation. There is tremendous attention on Ireland as a member state from the Commission. in particular, given it is the only member state to have not yet complied with the regulation. As I said, the regulation sets the framework for the legislation and penalty points system to be introduced.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the Chairman's permission, I can read the recommendations into the record.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. We are close to our finishing time on this matter and Deputy Collins has been waiting a while to come in.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a matter for Deputy Collins.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Collins. I refer to the point I made earlier about the requirement for the criminal and civil penalty points systems to be separate. There was a very indepth examination in regard to the licence holder statutory instrument. If we are to have a penalty points system which is implementable and effective then it has to stand separate to any criminal proceedings that might arise. Otherwise, we would not have a system that meets our obligations under the European regulation.

I acknowledge Deputy Mac Lochlainn's earlier comments as well. In Ireland's case, we also have a reasoned opinion taken against us by the European Commission in regard to our non-application of this regulation. That reasoned opinion from the Commission sets out the requirements we must fulfill to become compliant. It is not a consultancy report but the reasoned opinion that threatens enforcement actions against us to force us to comply. It sets the terms with which we must comply if we are to meet the terms of the regulation. It is also the key guidance in regard to the legislation before us as well.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Mac Lochlainn's still want to read the recommendations into the record?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will direct the Minister and his senior officials to pages 185 and 186 of the report and reference one recommendation in particular. It states that the points system should not result in disproportionate and severe sanctions or the permanent suspension of fishing licences. In particular, it is seen by some in the industry as an extreme measure and a double sanctioning on top of the national sanctioning system and due consideration should be given to the effectiveness of the sanctioning system. That is just one of the recommendations. The Minister can read all of them on pages 185 and 186 of the report. I totally accept that we are under pressure and that the process of complying with the regulation has taken far too long in Ireland. The reason for that, in part, is the very strange relationship between the fishing industry and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in relation to these and other matters. We are the outlier in failing to bring in a system that is proportionate and fair. This has been done across all member states of the European Union. The fact that it has not been done here is a reflection of the strange relationship between the industry and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which we have to work on together.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been tremendous engagement and consultation around this issue. I do not believe anyone can argue that this issue has not been examined in great detail. I also do not believe that anyone can argue, by virtue of the fact that we do not have a masters penalty points system in place alongside the licensing penalty points system, that we are not putting ourselves in a very challenging position with the European Commission or in terms of protecting our own taxpayer funds owing to the €24 million not paid thus far. We are at significant risk of losing that if we do not live up to our obligations in terms of compliance with the regulation. As Minister, I am in contact with the sector at all times and I will continue to be. I have no doubt that members will agree with me that it is important that we introduce this system and masters legislation; ultimately, the system we introduce has to pass muster in terms of meeting our legal obligations.

There has been exceptional thought and assessment around the introduction of legislation that will address that issue. As the Bill moves through the Oireachtas and the committee examines it and continues its deliberations, that is the objective we wish to achieve in the best timeframe possible. The legislation I am bringing forward does that.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and his officials for briefing us on this important legislation.