Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Táim sásta páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht seo. Tá an t-ábhar seo thar a bheith tábhachtach d'iascairí na tíre. Aontaím le mo chomhghleacaí go bhfuil neamhaird agus dochar déanta don earnáil de réir polasaithe leanúnacha ó na Rialtais éagsúla. I agree with the my colleague's comments about the fishing industry and how Ireland has completely and utterly lost out with the Common Fisheries Policy. I do not have the time to go into that today except to say on the record that I agree with him.

I want to look at what is before us. I have taken the trouble to read the Bill. I will preface my remarks by saying I am no expert in this area but I have done my best to get my head around what is happening here. The Bill has 15 sections. It is very late coming and we are in trouble with the EU again so it is withholding money. The Minister might clarify that. I see a reference to money being withheld. Does that mean that if we are good boys in the class we will get that money back, or is that money lost? The word "withheld" was used. The EU has sent us a reasoned opinion telling us we have no choice but to act and this is the action we have taken. The action is definitely faulty and I will come back to why that is. The Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to Ireland over its failure to fulfil its obligations under the 2009 directive. It states, "Specifically, Ireland has failed to comply with European Union rules on establishing a point system for fisheries-related serious infringements committed by masters and licence holders of vessels flying the flag of Ireland." The Minister might come back to that point about "masters and licence holders". It goes on to say, interestingly, that Ireland has "also failed to put into operation the current national legislation [which is the 2006 Act] implementing the point system for licence holders." Let me try to simplify that for myself. We are bringing in a new points system for skippers parallel to a points system that was brought in in 2006 for licence holders, although it seems that due to a typo or an error in the legislation that system was never implemented. Perhaps the Minister might clarify that for me. I would have thought we would have learned from the existing points system and reviewed it and checked it to see what were the good points and bad points before rolling out another points system. Is the current licence system and the points system for licence holders of boats that was brought in in 2006 in operation, or is my understanding correct?

I thank the Library and Research Service once again for producing a Bills digest under pressure. I think they are great. Most of the amendments are technical ones, according to page 7 of the library's digest. It states, "The most significant proposed amendment relates to Section 28 of the 2006 Act which deals with penalties for certain indictable fishery offences. The amendment is intended to address a typographical error in this Section which effectively means that there is currently no way to prosecute anybody detected fishing without a valid Sea-fishing Boat Licence." I ask the Minister to come back to that. It is not that I want to be a voice for prosecutions but I want to know about that parallel system that has been in place since 2006. It is now 2021 and we are now correcting a typo. We all make errors; I have no difficulty with that. However, I do have a difficulty with the length of time it has taken to correct a typo, and not learning from it or explaining to us today what the consequences of that typo were. Is there a points system in place or is there not? It is unforgivable that that has not been explained to us today. I ask the Minister to please explain it in his wrap-up.

We are introducing a points system for skippers and as well as having a civil side giving them points if there is a serious infringement, there is also a criminal side. I am not sure why we need both. I would appreciate if the Minister could clarify that. What seriously troubles me is that we are going to doubly punish the skipper. We are going to give the skipper points then we are going to prosecute him or her. However, if that prosecution fails and the person is found innocent they are still left with the points. None of that makes sense. If somebody could explain that to me I would be delighted to try to explain it to the fishermen on the ground. That is something I am able to do when I grasp an issue but I cannot grasp this so I cannot explain it except to say it is absolutely contradictory, unfair and unacceptable. That is a major problem for me.

This is a short Bill with 15 sections. However, there is a major role here for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. I took the trouble of looking at the final report, Review of the Organisational Capability of the Sea- Fisheries Protection Authority, from April 2020. It highlights the most serious issues and has six core themes: strategic management; organisational structure and design; internal structures and staffing arrangements; industrial relation working environment and processes; earning and development; and internal and external communications.

The headquarters is in Clonakilty. I am told there is no connection, rapport or communication between Clonakilty and the ports. I am putting this into my own words but there is a clear gap between Clonakilty and the ports. The report, dated April 2020, states, "the SFPA is not working effectively and requires urgent attention" and "Relationships and trust have been impacted". There were long-standing industrial relations issues. which were identified as early as 2009 in a report on the analysis of the employee opinion survey of the SFPA carried out by Joe Wolfe & Associates. The SFPA report states the organisation "needs to be reset and unified with a clear and agreed articulation of its mandate"; "needs to focus ... on its primary functions"; "needs a clear focus on an accepted vision and core mission, with agreed objectives"; and needs "a clear and accepted framework of responsibility, accountability, behaviours and authority in order to drive management effectiveness". There are three more pages and I have three minutes. I will not use my remaining time on it all. The report states "An Oversight Group will be needed to oversee delivery, supported by Portfolio Management Approach" - it includes all these lovely words of the 21st century - and that the SFPA is consistently not meeting targets across fisheries control and seafood safety.

I will be precise and will use the wording straight from the report. It states "the SFPA lacks cohesiveness and there is a fundamental disconnect between the port offices and management in HQ". That is the summary, in my words, of the report which is a damning indictment of the situation in regard to the authority. I lay blame on nobody; I am simply highlighting the report in order to say there is something seriously wrong here. There will now be a penalty point system administered by that authority, while no action has been taken in resolving the problems in that authority.

This Bill was sent to the committee. It wrote to the Minister on 21 June 2021 - many Members have pointed this out already - highlighting four bullet points which were crystal clear, focused and to the point. None of those points have been addressed in the Bill. In highlighting them again, they include a standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. I understand the use of the balance of proof because "beyond reasonable doubt" is used in the courts. I ask that the other systems are explained to me. I would have thought the 2006 system would have been the best one to look at. However, I could not look at it because it seems it never came into operation.

I wish to raise the weighing issue and the debacle over the action taken by the EU. It is the EU's right to do an audit and highlight the problems. However, when the consequences of the sins of the few are visited on the many, it is most unjust. A decision was made to stop the weighing of fish in the manner that was previously allowed whereby it was done in the factory. Weighing must now be done on the quayside, which is extremely difficult throughout Connemara, Ros an Mhíl, and Carna, and where they land fish. The EU was unjust in making that unilateral decision in that manner. It should have been more nuanced.

There were two other points highlighted by the cross-party committee, that was completely ignored, including inconsistencies. It highlighted there should be no inconsistency of penalty points to EU and non-EU vessels, particularly in the context of Brexit and England. The final point, which I have focused on, the joint committee calls on the Minister to support and resource the implementations of the recommendations of the report by the accountants. Having considered all that, I would have expected a Minister - it is difficult not to lose hope sometimes but democracy is difficulty and we have a duty to make it work - to explain the problems with the 2006 Act. Why was it not operational? Was there a points system? Was this parallel with it? Where are we going with it? We should not build an arbitrariness into this Bill or an unjust system that we cannot stand over.

See this speech in context