Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

I acknowledge that the issue of controlling the activity of fishing vessels is of great interest and importance to Deputies. I also appreciate the work of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe in drafting the Bill, with the support of his colleague, Deputy Creed, and fully accept that it was done with a view to introducing a strengthened regime for the control of fishing activity. However, for the reasons I will set out, I am not convinced the Bill would have a positive impact on the management and control of fishing activity in Ireland's 200-mile exclusive fisheries zone. Rather, it would risk having a significant adverse impact on the state of fish stocks in our zone, on which our fishing industry is totally dependent, and could introduce a new tier of minor bureaucratic offences. I will address some of the issues raised in the debate with a view to improving the understanding of the Government's concern about the impact of the Bill and also answer some specific questions raised.

The legal position on administrative fines was set out clearly by the Minister of State, Deputy Connick. He explained that the Government, on the basis of its legal advice, could not implement the Bill in the way intended by Fine Gael and that if it were implemented in any other way, it would have adverse effects. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has stressed that the Fine Gael Bill does not seek to introduce a system of administrative penalties but involves on-the-spot fines. In reality, such fines are criminal, not administrative sanctions. To make the case that the introduction of on-the-spot fines would decriminalise fishery offences is not correct. Where these fines apply, an offender has the option of denying the charge and fighting it in court. Under Irish law such fines are used for minor offences where a fixed penalty can be applied.

In the context of fishery infringements, penalties must be proportionate and, therefore, variable. It is not practical or suitable to provide for fixed penalties other than for the most minor offences. Such minor offences are subject to warnings by the Naval Service or the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. My understanding of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's view is that the current warnings would remain in place and that these on-the-spot fines would apply to medium offences. The latter usually involve actions involving illegal fishing that confers financial benefit. The level of financial benefit for fishery offences is often significant and a value of much more than €1,000 would be easily achieved. If a vessel owner is prepared to risk illegal fishing, he or she is surely seeking a reasonable financial benefit.

Article 90 of the relevant EU regulation specifies the list of serious offences which includes not fulfilling the obligation to record and report catch or catch-related data. The provision covers a range of activities, including logbook reporting, reporting of sales and tampering with vessel monitoring systems. These are the types of offences usually prosecuted and I do not see that there is scope to redefine such offences as minor in nature, particularly taking account of the European Union legislation. As advised, it is clear that administrative penalties or fixed penalty notices are not appropriate for offences where a significant financial reward may accrue to the offender, potentially in excess of the penalty imposed. Such offences must under the Constitution come before the courts. Therefore, the only legally acceptable approach would involve applying the provisions of the Fine Gael Bill to minor offences which currently are not prosecuted or are dealt with by means of a warning. In effect, accepting the Bill would require a new tier of offences which are currently not prosecuted to be created. This would have the effect of increasing the bureaucratic burden on the industry and diverting limited resources from the detection of serious offences to the administration of minor infringements.

The focus of the debate has not surprisingly been on the possible impact of the Bill on the fishing industry. However, any such scheme must apply to all vessels operating in Ireland's 200-mile exclusive fisheries zone. These waters are some of the richest fishing grounds in the European Union and fished by vessels from a range of member states and also third countries, particularly Norway. As has been discussed during the debate, any regime put in place for on-the-spot fines must be equally applicable to all fishing activity engaged in by all countries and must be applied and be seen to be applied by the State authorities in an even-handed manner. The control and enforcement of fisheries rules inside Ireland's exclusive fisheries zone present a substantial challenge for the State, even more so in today's world where resources are limited. These limited resources must be used to deliver the maximum return in terms of effectiveness. I am concerned that the introduction of an on-the-spot fines system for minor offences which is all that could be permitted would substantially divert the resources of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. I am strongly committed to delivering strengthened and more effective controls across the European Union and, in particular, the promotion of a level playing field in control across member states. Ireland has, following hard work by successive Ministers with responsibility for fisheries, made substantial advances in delivering a level playing field in control. The new European Union electronic logbook will be introduced for all large fishing vessels operating in our waters in the coming weeks.

During the debate claims that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority was unfairly targeting Irish vessels for controls were raised by several Deputies. Deputy Tom Sheahan set down the statistics for boardings and inspections in order to make the point. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is an independent body in respect of its operational activities. However, in order to assist the debate I have asked it for information on certain of the issues raised. Some Deputies made reference to an unspecified case in which a file was purported to have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in regard to the under-declaration of fish in the amount of 4 kg. This sounded strange and the authority has advised that it is not aware of any such case. Moreover, it assures me that it would not take a case in respect of such a small non-compliance issue, unless there were a number of other significant infringements arising in the same case and the over-fishing was relevant in proving these other suspected infringements.

Deputy Tom Sheahan suggested last night that there were fewer inspections carried out on Irish vessels than on foreign vessels. In 2009 there were 18,552 landings by Irish vessels, of which 11% were inspected in port by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. Of the 1,600 landings by foreign vessels, 46% were inspected in port.

See this speech in context