Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

Like other speakers, I am not a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and I welcome the opportunity to speak on Report Stage. I propose not to be too lengthy in my contribution because I made my points on Second Stage. Deputy O'Donovan raised the question of the bigger picture in terms of the future of the fishing industry. There is the question of conservation of fish but also of conservation of fishermen. During the by-election in 1996 in which I was first elected to the Dáil, the greatest complaint from fishermen in my constituency was that the average age of their boats was more than 30 years. At that time, there was very little progress in terms of safety.

Fianna Fáil in Government ensured this spectre changed and as a result we have harbours to visit and decent boats that are seaworthy. That is a positive dimension in as much as grant aid was given to boat owners and significant investment was also made by fishermen. The bigger picture of how we can sustain the industry legally into the future must be grappled with. We cannot put our heads in the sand and be satisfied with imposing penalties on offenders and criminalising them. That is not to say fishermen who intentionally set out to seriously defraud and over-catch at the levels we have heard about should not be dealt with. Serious crime must be dealt with in a serious manner but the sticking point for many people is that, according to statistics, the amount of money and fish involved are, in the main, minor crimes and it is, therefore, unfair to deal with every offender with the same broad stroke.

The Minister indicated on Committee Stage he would examine the procedure for dealing with small, technical breaches. In his response to these amendments he might expand on what he said in this regard on Committee Stage because, ultimately, that is where the solution lies. We are talking about people involved in breaches, the majority of which are minor. When an offender goes to the District Court, the gear is forfeited because that is required by law and the offender faces a penalty. By the time the offender is dealt with, between the loss of gear, the fine and the loss of money he or she spent on the crew, diesel and food and so on, the offender has to pay a huge amount of money for what is a minor crime, statistically, in most cases. Given that the UK has moved to impose administrative fines and away from the criminal route, I ask the Minister to clarify what he said about administrative fines in terms of differentiation. I acknowledge he has examined the level of fines and reduced them significantly.

Another aspect of the legislation is the use of the word "may" and the word "shall" in section 28. If I committed a minor breach of the regulations, had to go to court and my gear was seized, and if the judge imposed only a fine of €1, which is probably not possible because the minimum fine is much higher than that, or the minimum fine, that would not take into account that my gear was seized and that I was out of pocket in the region of between €10,000 to €50,000. I would like an approach similar to the imposition of administrative fines adopted so minor offences could be dealt with in a different way from criminal sanction for major offences.

I am not a legal expert and I might be wrong in the way I put things but my thoughts are that the minor offences are dealt with in the District Court and the more serious offences commence in the District Court and are referred to the Circuit Court. If an offence is of a level that it is dealt with in the District Court should we propose that such an offence is different and that one's gear may be forfeited if the offence is of a certain nature? If one has a repeat offence or a case is referred to a higher court as a result of it involving more money and the offence being more serious, we should propose that the boat owner shall forfeit his or her gear.

I want to differentiate between a large-scale and a small-scale breach. I often meet people whose overall catch has been lifted because a small segment of their catches was illegal. I would differentiate between a first offence and a repeat offence. Based on whether a case is dealt with in the District Court or the Circuit Court, or at a cut-off point based on the money and level of over-fishing involved, the Minister should set a marker that if an offence extends beyond a small average, the offender "shall" forfeit his or her gear but if it is a minor offence, one "may" have to forfeit one's gear.

I accept the point made by Deputy O'Donovan on this matter. Some judges follow the letter of the law and to them the word "shall" means shall, but sometimes the word "may" is under-used and does not mean "shall". The problem with the use of "shall" in dealing with minor offences is that, in every respect, it ties the hands of the judge. If an offence is minor, it should be dealt with in a minor manner.

I ask the Minister to give clarification regarding the imposition of administrative fines. If they are imposed for small, technical breaches, I take it that minor offences will be differentiated from criminal offences. I ask the Minister also to differentiate between the use of the words "may" and "shall" in terms of the forfeiture of gear, depending on the level of the breach of quota or criminal breach. The bigger picture must be addressed by the Minister and the Department and they must talk to those involved in the industry who have many good ideas as to what could and should happen and how matters could be dealt with in a different way. That would not necessarily involve a greater level of fishing. There are other ways of enhancing catch values. There are opportunities to be developed. I am one of the few people who believes our marine sector has massive potential.

I thank the Minister for the recent announcement of the start of works on Greencastle Harbour. That is the type of investment that signals there is a future in fishing. People in my area want a future in fishing but they do not want to be criminalised for minor breaches.

See this speech in context