Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for sharing time with me. I represent west Cork, home to Castletownbere port, which is Ireland's premier whitefish port. Out the outset, it is important for me to say that I am not happy with elements of this statutory instrument. It would, however, be misleading for me to say that I felt there was a realistic possibility of a replacement statutory instrument at this stage.

I will take this opportunity in the Chamber to outline some of the problems and issues I have with this statutory instrument. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, and Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, will listen to my concerns, the concerns of the fishing industry and the concerns of the Opposition, which have been pretty well made. They represent concerns made to them by the fishing industry. This is an opportunity because there is a host of massive challenges facing Ireland's fishing industry, an industry that sustains so many coastal communities. These challenges include Brexit, which is coming down the tracks at a rate of knots. This will impact Ireland with European vessels coming into Irish waters. There are so many challenges and I urge the Minister and the Minister of State to listen to my concerns and those of the fishing industry.

I will send more detailed submissions to the Minister on the issues I have with this statutory instrument but I take this opportunity to highlight three or four elements. Number one is the need for sufficient separation between the policing authority and the determination panel. The fact that the determination panel is selected by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, is insufficient separation. This needs to be addressed. The determination panel could be selected by the Attorney General or by the Minister.

I now turn to my second issue. I have great difficulty, as has the industry, with the fact that where a court of law deems an infringement has not taken place, or where the court of law acquits the licenceholder, the penalty points remain with the licence or the vessel. This is very hard for me and for the industry to understand and could be reversed.

My third concern is that where fishing capacity is transferred, the penalty points would transfer with each section of capacity transferred. Again, this is not consistent with what happens in other jurisdictions in Europe. This needs to be re-examined. It devalues the vessel, the licence and the capacity. It does not happen in other jurisdictions.

Finally, my point number four, which has been raised by other Deputies today, is the burden of proof. The burden of proof is heavily in favour of the policing authority and I do not feel this is the way the statutory instrument should be drafted. The points are to be assigned to a licence on the balance of probability as opposed to a higher burden of proof, such as beyond reasonable doubt. This needs to be re-examined.

Those are the four main issues, but there are other issues. I appreciate that at my invitation the Minister of State met and consulted with members of the producing organisations but there needs to be more consultation. We need to keep that communication avenue open with the producing organisations and other representatives of the fishing industry. As I said earlier, I will not vote against the Government on this motion, and it would be misleading of me to send a message to the fishing industry that somehow there will be a replacement statutory instrument that better represents their concerns. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State to take my concerns and those of the Opposition on board, to open up the dialogue and communication, and try to come up with a better proposal. The challenges facing our fishing industry are humongous. We need strength it and we need to be able to liaise with it and listen to its concerns.

See this speech in context