Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)

I did not quote the section concerned in my response to Senator McHugh when he raised this issue yesterday, although doing so may have been helpful. The proposed amendment would have the unintended effect of providing loopholes to people who want to exploit the law. A case recently brought before the courts and which is currently sub judice concerned an attempt to take advantage of a practice put in place to facilitate fishermen when their boats are detained in order to evade charges. I am afraid that some people in the industry have used every available loophole and have run to courts at every opportunity. The Senator's amendment would provide further opportunities for exploitation.

I accept the Senator's bona fides as regards his amendment but it would go further than necessary because section 36 of the Bill already provides for a defence which anyone may use. The section states:

Where an offence under a relevant provision has been committed by any person on board a sea-fishing boat, and where the master or owner of the boat is charged with having committed the offence, it is a defence for him or her to show that—

(a) he or she used due diligence to prevent the commission of the acts alleged to constitute the offence and they were done without his or her consent, connivance or default, or

(b) the acts were necessary to secure the safety of the boat or any other vessel or person in peril on the sea.

The Senator is trying to incorporate that in his amendment but it is already provided for in the Bill. Including it in a different format will only cause confusion, could create a loophole and would probably allow some lawyers to become rich by arguing that section 12 is in conflict with section 36. On that basis, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.