Margaret Murphy O'Mahony (Cork South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On a beautiful day like today, it is a joy to watch fishing trawlers travelling in and out of harbours along the west Cork coastline. However, aside from and as well as this picturesque, ideal vision, it must be remembered that this industry was worth €645 million in exports in 2017. We all agree that regulations need to be in place and that infringements must be addressed. Therefore, a penalty points system is necessary. As my colleagues have already pointed out, however, such a system needs to be fair and respectful of fishermen's rights. As matters stand, under this statutory instrument, the fisherman or licence holder will be guilty until proven innocent. A burden of proof based on the balance of probabilities is totally inadequate. How can a system such as this be conclusive?

The proposed penalty points system makes no sense. Logic would suggest that points would arrive on the basis of a haul in its entirety. However, here we have a system whereby if a haul was to be sold in separate lots, penalty points would affix to each lot. This is unfair in the extreme. I know that many fishermen have expressed concern on the independence of the SFPA. It appears that this is justified in some cases. For example, I am advised that there were approximately 1,400 Spanish landings at Castletownbere and that the vessels involved were not exposed to a fraction of scrutiny that was levelled at Irish vessels making landings in the same harbour. By all accounts, the difference is glaringly obvious. Surely consistency is of paramount importance in order to be in compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy. Aside from this, the statutory instrument provides that the SFPA will assign penalty points. Then the authority will assign a three-person determination panel to assess whether an infringement has occurred. This panel will decide whether an oral hearing may be conducted. I cannot see any impartiality here. If it exists, perhaps the Minister will point it out to me.

Then there is the appeals process, which also creates huge problems.

5 o’clock

Ten days are allowed to request an oral hearing or to forward a written submission. In general, an appeals process would allow a window of up to 30 days, and this is even more important in circumstances where fishermen are regularly at sea. Constraints like these are not helpful.

All in all, this statutory instrument is ill-thought out and not fit for purpose. As my colleague, Deputy Gallagher, has pointed out, it has already been challenged successfully in the courts. If further challenges are to be avoided, it is time for reasonable and sensible amendments. This has gone on for far too long.

See this speech in context