Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I certainly hope not too. What is being proposed probably makes sense in that no one officer can make the decision. It has to go up the line for a second opinion. Am I right in understanding the amendment to mean that a second officer would have to agree with the initial report or recommendation from the primary officer? If that it is correct, it would at least give some level of comfort.

I am also concerned about the level of fines being imposed. This Bill is very similar to road traffic legislation whereby an administrative penalty of up to €1,000 can be imposed. Constitutionally, that is the position. I have worked in conjunction with Senator O'Donovan on other legislation, which I hope the Minister will see fit to support when it comes before the House, on the decriminalisation of fisheries offences, for which we are proposing administrative sanctions. I would not be averse to supporting administrative sanctions in this instance. They constitute a slap across the wrist and mean that the individual farmer or herd owner will not end up in court, facing prosecution and a criminal conviction. It makes sense but I understand the level of the fines will be fixed by way of regulation. In that context, it would make sense that the cap would be placed at a level that is not excessive. Perhaps there should be a lower cap for a first offence with a gradual increase for any subsequent offences. The purpose of administrative sanctions or penalties is to discourage certain practices. The idea is to disincentivise the practice that is occurring, and if that is the rationale behind this, I will support it. I am glad to see the imposition of sanctions will not be at the whim of one inspector or officer. Any such decision will have to go up the line, which I welcome.