Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)

All three points are essentially related. The Bill introduces law and in some cases reintroduces law that has been in place since 1959. There was much discussion on Second Stage and in the other House as to how we might ensure that those who commit minor offences could be exempted or facilitated by not being put out of business as a result of relatively minor offences. As I said in the House on Second Stage, the way we tried to accommodate the concerns expressed at that time was to have graded fines based on the size of boats and so on. I introduced amendments in the other House which allowed for offences to be taken at District Court level, where such offences cannot be dealt with at present because of the two cases cited. Late in the Dáil session, I introduced a new provision whereby confiscation would not take place for first offences at District Court level.

I tried to meet the concerns expressed by Deputies and Senators on those matters. I have the same concerns as Senator Kenneally with regard to the difficulties that this amendment would create. I have tried to balance the need to have strong laws and disincentives available to sea-fisheries officers with the need to protect the lives and safety of people at sea.

Senator Kenneally made an eloquent plea on Second Stage, as did other Senators, on the need to provide safety measures for fishermen and the Senator spoke about the hazards fishermen face, which are acknowledged. In respect of this instance and in force majeure instances, section 36 specifically recognises the concerns, expressed by Deputies in the other House and Senators in this House, about the inherent dangers of working at sea by providing a defence against conviction for an offence where actions had to be taken in contravention of sea fisheries law to secure the safety of any person, sea-fishing boat or other vessel in peril at sea.

What Senator McHugh is seeking to achieve in this amendment has been dealt with in section 36. I refer to a case where a person can reasonably prove he or she disobeyed an order to go to a designated port or a particular place, or a direct order by sea-fisheries officers or the Naval Service and can show he or she needed to berth at a place closer to the vessel's location because, for example, a person on board was injured. I assume it is instances such as that, force majeure instances, to which Senators McHugh and Tuffy were referring. Once a person can make a case as a defence, it is up to the court to accept that or to make judgment otherwise. The spirit of Senator McHugh's amendment is accepted and is provided for in a different way in section 36.