Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2017. There is no doubt that the ability to prosecute illegal fishing offences is vitally important for the State in terms of managing fisheries. However, I have some concerns with the Bill itself and how we have arrived at the position of requiring this legislation.

As the Minister of State outlined in his opening contribution, the Inland Fisheries Act of 2010 has been shown to have some errors in it which has necessitated this legislation. This is basically emergency legislation to correct problems with the primary Act. According to the Bill digest, the potential errors with the original Act were identified in 2015 but it is only now, in 2017, that this amending legislation is coming before the House.

My concerns relate specifically to the actual offences and the prosecutions that have been withdrawn. The Minister of State said that 150 cases fall into the category of being affected by the requirement for this legislation. He also said that it should be noted that cases that have already finally been disposed of by the courts are not affected. I ask the Minister to elaborate on that. My understanding, although I am not a legal expert, is that if someone is illegally before the courts and convicted, then that conviction is unsafe.

In my opinion, anybody who has been convicted under the aegis of the 2010 Act since it was passed has an unsound conviction. It is interesting to compare what is being done in this case to what has happened in recent weeks in respect of people who were wrongly brought before the courts for penalty point offences and who received convictions as a result. Gardaí have put their hands up and announced that they intend to contact all the people in question to inform them that their convictions are unsafe and that they will support the quashing of those convictions. Given that the Garda has received a great deal of bad press in recent times, it is interesting to see it being held up in this case as an example of how to do things properly. It seems to me that the Department, or Inland Fisheries Ireland, is remiss in failing to contact those who have been convicted and had fines imposed on them under this Act since 2010 to inform them that their convictions are unsafe. When the Minister of State speaks at the conclusion of Second Stage, I would like him to expand on the rationale for the Department's decision that this should not be done.

I was in court in Dungloe, County Donegal, a number of weeks ago when cases against approximately 30 anglers were withdrawn by Inland Fisheries Ireland on the basis that the 2010 Act did not give it a legal basis to have them before the courts. I assume those cases are among the 150 cases mentioned by the Minister of State. I understand that seven cases which are waiting to be heard before the Circuit Court on appeal will be withdrawn as well. If I am right in what I have said about those cases, why are people who have been prosecuted not being contacted and informed that their convictions are unsafe? This serious matter needs to be addressed as a matter or urgency. It is a criminal offence to be caught fishing illegally. It is possible that people have criminal records even though the State did not have the legal right to bring them before the courts in the first place. This matter needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It cannot be allowed to continue. Officials from the Department or from Inland Fisheries Ireland need to contact the people in question to make them aware of the situation. They need to put their hands up and say they got it wrong. They should come clean about the fact that the convictions of those who were wrongly before the courts are unsafe. They should facilitate such people in having their convictions quashed. That is the only way to proceed properly with this matter in accordance with natural justice.

Unfortunately, Inland Fisheries Ireland has a poor reputation among anglers and people who fish right across the country because of the way it behaves. I would like to cite the case of John Boyle, Peadar Ó Baoill and John Boyle Reilly from the Rosses angling club, who are before the High Court because of the way Inland Fisheries Ireland has behaved regarding the Gweebarra fishery in County Donegal. These men are being prosecuted, even though Inland Fisheries Ireland has no legal right to prosecute people in respect of Gweebarra fishery because it has no legal ownership of and no right to this fishery. The Department should examine this case in the interests of decency. The least it should do is halt the proceedings that are under way. It is not acceptable that the three ordinary individuals I have mentioned are being put under huge pressure and forced to defend themselves through the courts on the basis of something that Inland Fisheries Ireland has no legal right to do. In all decency, these proceedings should be stopped and brought to an end now.

Earlier in the Second Stage debate on this legislation, other Deputies identified severe problems with how Inland Fisheries Ireland goes about its business and deals with those who have to work under its aegis. That is not the way to make sure fishermen and anglers are on board with what needs to be done and are helping to conserve and preserve stocks. My view is that Inland Fisheries Ireland should be working closely with fishermen in communities and local areas to develop catchment management plans, etc., so that entire catchments can be protected and preserved. The inclusion of fishermen in this process would help stocks to regenerate and redevelop. I appreciate that this is not really relevant to the Bill before the House. I emphasise that the people who have already been convicted under the faulty 2010 Act need to be contacted. This matter needs to be addressed by Inland Fisheries Ireland as a matter of urgency.

See this speech in context