Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the Deputies for their contributions to the legislation and on this initial amendment. Given we had dealt with this on Committee Stage previously, I do not propose to accept the amendment. I have given in great detail my rationale and logic as to why that is the case. It has been subject to very significant interrogation and assessment going back to when it was in the Dáil previously and when the previous statutory instrument was annulled. At that stage, a number of amendments were put forward by my party and they were comprehensively assessed afterwards. A comprehensive process has been gone through in terms of looking at each of those amendments and assessing whether they stack up to scrutiny in regard to actually being able to introduce a statutory instrument which will bring us into compliance with our obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy. Some of those amendments were assessed and incorporated into the new statutory instrument. Others were assessed and not incorporated because to incorporate them would have seen the statutory instrument not fulfil its duty in regard to bringing us into compliance under the Common Fisheries Policy.

As it stands, we are the last member state that has ocean and catches fish to actually come into compliance and introduce the penalty points system - the last. We often hear it said that we are the best boys in the class and we are dancing a jig to this and dancing a jig to that. That is not the reality. The reality is that we are the very last, so much so that the EU has taken enforcement proceedings against us, it has taken a reasoned opinion against us at European level and it has actually stopped our funding. That is where we are coming from. We have to introduce a statutory instrument that meets the criteria. If we do not, we will be introducing a statutory instrument that would not fulfil that and we still would not be compliant.

All of the amendments that have been suggested have been fully assessed and fully teased out. I have had numerous engagements on this issue with fishermen, fisherwomen and fisher representatives, both in terms of their leaders nationally and at each pier side right across the country. It has been well thrashed out, as it has been comprehensively thrashed out with the Members present over the last period of time.

As Deputy Michael Collins said, the key point is in regard to “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which he wants to be the threshold. Again, this is an administrative system. In an administrative structure, “on the balance of probabilities” is the standard threshold. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is what is used in criminal proceedings and “on the balance of probabilities” is what is used in administrative structures. It is a requirement on us to introduce it in a penalty points system. This is not a criminal conviction. If somebody gets penalty points, it is an administrative system similar to the road traffic system, where if somebody gets penalty points on their driving licence, it is not a criminal conviction. If it is a very serious misdemeanour, criminal proceedings can proceed in parallel to that, which would then go through the courts. However, the penalty points system is not criminal; it is administrative, which is a key point. That is the reason that threshold is being used.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn spoke about the culture in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the culture in the SFPA, and he had a real go and personalised it in terms of Department officials. He then tried to tie that around to it actually being me who was saying that, and that somehow what he is saying equates with what I would say. I am happy for the Deputy to read back on anything I said in the debate on the initial statutory instrument - by all means, please do. I can assure him that if he does, he will see that, as with everything I ever say, it is measured and considered, and I always hold people to account. It is not personalised. As has become Deputy Mac Lochlainn’s form in all of these debates at committee level or in the Dáil, very much contrary to other contributions that we have heard in the Dáil tonight, he tends to personalise it to officials and have a go at them, rather than dealing with the facts. That should be beneath Deputy Mac Lochlainn. It is not the way to approach this. We need to deal with the facts, assess it, deal with the logic, deal with the reason, but not have a go and personalise it. If the Deputy looks at leaders in the fishing sector, he will not find them using the language he uses or having a go personally. If he looks at his colleagues in the Dáil tonight, he will not find them having a go personally, but it his standard approach. It should not be the way he goes about it and it is not the way to do business.

He should not be saying that what I am bringing forward is because a briefing note has been put in front of me. He should know me well enough at this stage to know I look at things and assess them in great detail. I bring them forward because I stand over them. That is the way it should be; it is the way it should be for any Minister who comes into the Dáil. That is the way Deputy Mac Lochlainn should accept it to be as well, and not try to bypass that and have a go at officials personally. Again, I do not believe that is the way to do business.

Deputy Cairns asked whether penalty points will still apply if a person is found innocent in court. As I said, penalty points are an administrative approach. If it is a very serious offence, it can lead to a separate criminal line as well, but that is very much separate.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae said that one would be presumed guilty rather than innocent. I do not agree with that. That is not the case. The starting point here is not that anyone is presumed guilty. The starting point is that, if something is brought, people have a chance to defend themselves. It is only if it crosses the threshold of the balance of balance of probabilities that penalty points would apply. If it is a court case, then the threshold that is used is whether it is beyond reasonable doubt.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae said that we are telling people not to fish. That is not what we are doing. We want to maximise the fishing resources that we have in our seas and oceans. We want to empower fishermen to fish as they can and we want to ensure that it is done in a way that ensures that fish are there for many years to come, by fishing at a sustainable level. I have worked at European level at all times to try to maximise the quotas that we get and to fight every battle in that vein.

I thank Deputy Mythen for his contribution. Deputy Pringle made the point about then and now. I have outlined the significant process of assessing all of the proposed amendments, detail, and consultation. That is how we have got to where we are. We are the last member state to bring in this process. There has been great attention to detail.

See this speech in context