Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009 requires that actions be taken to ensure compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. Clearly, enforcement action is necessitated by our membership of the EU and SI 318 sets out that enforcement action for Ireland. The enforcement is the imposition of penalty points for serious infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy. There are three issues I would like to raise. First, should the implementation of the penalty points system be done by way of primary legislation? It is setting up new competent authorities such as the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the determination panel to deal with the system, and it is delegating serious powers to these bodies.

Second, SI 318 provides that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority will set up a determination panel to investigate infringements and allot penalty points when it determines that a serious infringement has occurred. This determination panel will determine whether a serious infringement has occurred or not on the balance of probabilities. This is a civil standard of the burden of proof whereas, given the penalty being imposed is in the nature of that imposed for a criminal offence, the burden for the determination panel should at least be somewhere between a balance of probabilities test and the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

The third issue is that the determination panel can, in effect, impose what would be considered a major sanction. Other legislation allowing for such sanctions in the case of removal of a licence from those such as auctioneers is primary legislation, and a major sanction such as the removal of a licence must be confirmed by the High Court. If a fishing boat is about to acquire the maximum number of points such that it cannot fish, and taking into account that the sanction follows the ship, this should also require the confirmation of the High Court. There should be nothing less than primary legislation to ensure the rights of fishermen.

I remind the House that fishing is an indigenous coastal and rural activity that employs in excess of 12,000 people in areas otherwise starved of employment, other than in tourism. Rural harbours such as at Killybegs, Howth, Kilmore, the Hook and Duncannon are all in areas were local fishermen contribute greatly to the tourist attractions, and they are areas which have the finest seafood restaurants this country has to offer. It is not by accident that Wexford and many coastal counties have their fair share of award-winning seafood restaurants; it is down to the hard labour of both the fishing and hospitality sectors.

There is good reason that I express these concerns, given this comes from personal experience of a penalty points system being introduced in another sector. In that case also, the imposition of penalty points served as enforcement for serious infringements, something that was welcomed within the sector as it was felt it would serve to implement a standard across the sector for all to abide by. The penalty points regime in that case would, if applied, have seen 12 points close a business for a period of 30 days. That points system had credibility until three points were applied for the non-wearing of a name tag by the receptionist in a business. The case went all the way to the High Court, where it was settled, but that saw the withdrawal of the penalty points provision in that sector.

We must ensure that, as the fishing sector is a rather small cohort, it is never personal between enforcers and fishermen, which is another good reason for requiring that the removal of a licence be affirmed by the High Court. In reality, all that has been requested is fair procedure and due process in the appropriate manner. In this case, that is above "reasonable doubt" and closer to "beyond a reasonable doubt". I ask that the House would consider it in that light. The people who engage in fishing activity do so in all weathers and in often horrendous conditions to put food on our tables. They need nourishment, not punishment. We must support and not discourage them, and unfairness is never a source of encouragement.

See this speech in context