Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This year and last year the raw value of quota that was negotiated for Ireland surpassed the €200 million mark. We have never reached that level before. We face challenges in the seafood and fisheries sector but we are doing very positive things at present. The greatest frustration for fishermen is relative stability and who gets a percentage of available quota in waters that Ireland has the responsibility for. Of course we want to take some quota from Spanish, French, Dutch and British interests, and others. Everybody who understands the system knows that relative stability is not going to change anytime soon unless we can get a majority of countries and Ministers in the European Union to support change. Sadly, that is not likely to happen. Therefore, we must focus on what we can change for the fishing industry and we are doing that in a number of areas. Let me give the example of a new quota species. Ireland has two thirds of Europe's quota in boarfish which I hope will be dramatically increased in December. We secured a significant portion of the quota and are working to add to its significant value.

Our quota currently is about 60,000 tonnes. In the past, all of that boarfish would have either been dumped over the side or gone into fishmeal, at a value of €70 or €80 a tonne. We are now developing markets that can secure €400, €500 and €600 a tonne for that product. There are exciting and interesting things happening in fishing.

We have also invested heavily in terms of adding value. The reason for the increased value for seafood exports in Ireland is because we are adding more value to fish that are caught in waters here in Ireland through grading, processing, packaging and so on before we export. The processing sector is where significant numbers of jobs have been created in towns like Killybegs and others.

We are also encouraging more foreign landings into Ireland, which I know is a frustration for some fishermen, to allow us grade and process those fish here. The blue whiting story, for example, off the north west coast has hugely exciting potential which is delivering much capital investment in terms of processing facilities for blue whiting. That is very valuable to our fishing industry. Obviously, I would like to see Irish boats catching more fish within the rules and in a sustainable way but the second best option, if we cannot catch the fish, is that boats that are catching fish that are not under Irish flags would land it into Irish ports where we will process and grade their fish for them, and create employment doing that. That is happening in an exciting way.

There are positive developments in this sector. There is a future, and what is probably the most radical Common Fisheries Policy that we have seen in 30 years has been negotiated and agreed under the Irish Presidency. Finally, we have a plan to rid ourselves of the scourge of the discarding of fish. About 1.2 million tonnes of fish is caught in Irish waters and landed to market. There is probably another 400,000 tonnes of fish caught in Irish waters and dumped over the side dead. We will end that. We are changing the quota system now from a landed catch quota to a catch quota and there will be an obligation to land everything one catches, with some flexibilities and exceptions that can allow management systems deliver that on board fishing trawlers.

There is a good deal happening in seafood, processing, adding value, packaging and grading. We are doing everything we can to help the fishing industry, in terms of the catch industry, to secure as much fish as they can within sustainable rules. If I have credible science that suggests we have to ease off on a stock or we will lose that stock, it would be irresponsible of me to ignore that, and I will not ignore it even if we have to make unpopular decisions in the short term to build up stocks in the medium and long term.

In the past two years with help from the Marine Institute, BIM and the rest of the team that negotiates on behalf of the industry we have done a good job in terms of quota allocation on the basis of science. We got a much better outcome than many people predicted going into those negotiations. This year, however, the science is very negative particularly around the whitefish and demersal sector. There are very worrying recommendations in terms of reductions in stocks such as haddock in the Celtic Sea and prawns in the Irish Sea. We have to compile a scientific argument if we are to change those recommendations. I will do everything I can to try to do that.

On a more personal note, since the day I was elected to the Dáil I have wanted to be a Minister for the marine because of my background and how I have grown up. The idea that I am somehow disconnected from the fishing industry is something I hope is not the case. If fishermen feel that way, certainly I regret that is the case. I speak to my colleagues in the European Union about this on a fairly regular basis. I do not know any other senior Minister who sits around the Cabinet table in the European Union that gives the kind of access I give here to the fishing industry and fishing organisations who meet me and contact me by telephone on a regular basis. In fact, on the way here I got a text from the head of one of the fishing organisations updating me on mackerel and relationships with Norway, the European Commission and so on. If there is truth in what Senator Denis O'Donovan has said I regret that and will try to change it, but I hope that is not the case.

In terms of the Bill, I appreciate the work of Senator Denis O'Donovan and Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill in drafting this legislation and accept that it was done with a view to introducing an improved regime for the appropriate control of fishing activity. I believe that all in this House want to see a strong and vibrant fishing industry that supports employment in our fishing fleet, fish processing and ancillary activities in our coastal communities. I also consider that there is general support in the House for the introduction of a simplified system of fines to deal with minor fishery offences. When in opposition, Fine Gael brought forward its own draft of such a Bill and today we have a Bill brought forward by Fianna Fáil.

Since my appointment as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine I have sought to develop a good understanding of the issues and constraints that have impacted on setting fines for fishery offences. I have held detailed discussions with the Attorney General on how a system that gives the option of avoiding a court hearing may be put in place for minor fishery offences. I am now working with the Attorney General on legal issues to enable the preparation of a Bill amending the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 to introduce a system of fixed penalty notices for minor fishery offences. This proposal follows the commitment in the programme for Government that criminal sanctions for minor fisheries offences would be replaced with an administrative sanction scheme. Following advice from the Office of the Attorney General to the effect that an administrative sanction scheme would not be appropriate, I am now working to introduce a system of fixed penalty notices in respect of minor fisheries offences which, in fairness, is what the Fianna Fáil Bill is seeking. The Attorney General has given her support for this approach and is the first to do that for some time. I am awaiting legal advices on the technical content of such legislation. The intention is that fishermen who have committed minor fisheries offences will have the option of avoiding a criminal conviction.

The scheme I am working to develop is broadly similar to the approach set out in the Bill before the House. However, the complications with the Bill under discussion today, and indeed with the previous Fine Gael Bill, relate to ensuring that any new regime does not undermine effective enforcement of fisheries law, is compliant with the provisions of the EU control regulation and does not breach the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 38 and Article 40.3.2°.

It is important to understand that any action the State can take is constrained by the obligation to act within the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Constitution. The Common Fisheries Policy is applicable across all member states and determines that sanctions must be set at a deterrent level which must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is, in any case, in the interests of our own fishing industry that effective controls are in place. To do otherwise would see the waters under Irish control become a soft target for inappropriate fishing.

I am not in a position to support the draft Bill being introduced here today for the reasons I will outline. I want to make clear, however, that I do intend to bring forward new legislative proposals that introduce the option of a fixed penalty notice for minor fishery offences and, hopefully, we can do that before Easter.

In terms of this Bill, there are significant problems with the approach proposed that undermine the option of accepting it here today with a view to introducing amendments as it progresses. The main issues of concern are the following. Section 3 of the Bill proposes the introduction of a fixed penalty notices for a "relevant offence".The offences are not specified and it is for the Minister to identify and prescribe those offences in a table. There is a fixed penalty notice of €400 for a first offence or €800 for a second offence, both are maximum, to be paid within 28 days from the date of the notice. A third or subsequent offence "shall"be dealt with by way of prosecution under sections 38 and 39 of the 2006 Act. Section 39 of the 2006 Act deals with prosecutions by the DPP, in other words, indictable offences.

Section 38 deals with summary prosecutions by the Minister of offences other than those specified in a table. This suggests indictable offences are intended to be dealt with in the first instance by way of a fixed penalty notice for a first and-or second offence. Further, as these offences are to be prescribed in a table, they cannot be dealt with under section 38 which is confined to offences in a section of the Bill other than those specified in a table. Section 3(6)(c) clearly envisages the issuing of a fixed penalty notice "for multiple fisheries offences"arising from the same incident. This approach has a high risk to fall foul of the requirements of EU law.

The appeal system is set out in detail. The Bill provides for the appointment of an appeals committee in line with procedures adopted by the Minister after consultation with various semi-State bodies and industry, including the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, the Irish South and West Fishermen's Organisation and the Inshore Fishermen's Organisation. When an appeal is determined by the appeals committee, that determination is to be sent to the Minister with its reasons. If the appeals committee finds in favour of the appellant, it shall make a recommendation to the Minister as to the action to be taken in relation to the notice. The Minister can accept or reject the recommendation and while the Minister's decision is final, the Minister may consult various bodies, including the fish producer organisations to assist with his or her deliberations.

The approach taken in the Bill is that fishery offences are criminal offences, but these are dealt with through an administrative procedure. This approach would not conform to the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 38and Article 40.3.2^o. The reason for this is that the provisions in the Bill exclude the courts from dealing with these offences. The Minister is the prosecutor and judge. Further, the appeals system is not through a court of law but a committee. The system envisaged is purely an administrative one in which the Minister is the prosecutor, judge and jury.

In terms of the Bill, it is proposed to introduce an amendment to remove the forfeiture of gear as a consequence of conviction. The amendment also removes the forfeiture provision in respect of fish found in any other place other than the fishing boat. In simple terms, if illegally caught fish are found in a cold store on land or being transported in a truck, they could not be subject to forfeiture. The analogy is that a criminal involved in a bank robbery could only have the money stolen confiscated when the money is found in his or her car. The Irish courts have determined that the requirement for forfeiture is a proportionate response to Ireland's obligations under EU law in the enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy. The rules of the Common Fisheries Policy require that the penalties be effective and dissuasive, in addition to being proportionate. The removal of the requirement for the forfeiture of fishing gear and restricting forfeiture of fish to those on board a vessel would significantly reduce the penalties imposed for a conviction for a serious fishery offence. That is not the direction in which we need to go.

Instead of effectively addressing illegal fishing, the Bill risks promoting a culture of non-compliance where those detected would be confident that penalties imposed would be lower than the economic benefit from the illegal fish caught during the fishing trip. In its current form, the Bill would remove the current deterrent arrangements in place that protect against illegal fishing and risk promoting increased illegal landings and other unacceptable fishing practices by fishing vessels from all member states and third countries and any such Irish vessel operating in the rich fishing grounds inside Ireland's 200 mile zone. I do not believe that this would be in the interests of the vast majority of law-abiding fishermen, both Irish and foreign, and it would make illegal fishing a more attractive option for operators around our coast, many of whom have no association or links with our fishing communities. I am confident that it is also not the intention of the Senators who have proposed the Bill to achieve such an outcome. I believe our ambition - that of those proposing the Bill and that of those in my Department who are going to bring forward a new Bill - is similar. My objective is to give fishermen who are responsible for a minor fishery offence the option to pay a reasonable fine, proportionate to the offence, and in that way avoid a criminal conviction. Any such system may only legally be applied to minor fishery offences and should only be considered for such offences if we are serious about protecting the rich fishing grounds in our 200 mile zone which we control. Most importantly, strong dissuasive sanctions should be applied to operators responsible for serious fishery offences, otherwise we are at nothing. If we do not protect the stock into the future, we will continue to see a shrinking fishing fleet and fewer people will enter the industry.

The law is and has to be applied equally to the thousands of vessels which operate in our waters, irrespective of the flag member state of the vessel. The existing legalisation provides for graduated maximum penalties based on vessel size and the forfeiture of catch and gear. These sanctions apply equally to Irish, Spanish, French, Dutch, British or any other operator found to have infringed the rules in Irish waters. They must and will remain for serious offences.

Much work has been carried out in recent years at EU level in the area of control and enforcement of fisheries. Last year Ireland implemented the provisions of Council Regulation 1224/2009 - the control instrument which provides for an effective system of control, inspection and enforcement to ensure compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. In line with Ireland's priorities, these new regulations promote a level playing field in controls across the European Union. There was a view in the past and there is a view to a certain extent today among many in the Irish fishing fleet that the controls are not applied evenly, but I can assure Members that we are doing everything we can - I believe this is shown by the data - to provide a level playing field in enforcing the rules, irrespective of whether the operator is Spanish, Dutch, British or Irish. This has led to the introduction of the electronic reporting system, as well as legislating for the weighing of fishery products, certification and verification of engine power, landing declarations, rules for sales notes and so on. The EU regulations require financial sanctions to be at least five times the value of the fisheries products obtained in the committing of a serious infringement and at least eight times the value in the case of repeated serious infringements. This proportionality requirement means that a fixed penalty notice would not meet EU requirements for serious infringements unless we were proposing to enforce massive fines, which clearly I do not believe is on the table.

The EU control regulation requires member states to implement a points system for serious offences. The number of points that must be applied to the licence holder of a fishing vessel for each serious offence is set down and when the accumulated points reach a certain level, the licence for the fishing vessel is suspended or may potentially be permanently revoked. I am finalising the arrangements for the introduction of the EU requirement for licence holders and have discussed them with the fishing industry. The EU control regulation requires that a similar system be introduced in each member state for skippers of fishing vessels. The regulation leaves it to member states to devise the scheme for skippers and, accordingly, I intend to bring forward legislation to implement this requirement. I plan to combine legislation to deliver on this EU requirement with legislation to implement an on-the-spot fine system for minor fishery offences.

The proposed legislation involving on-the-spot fines will apply only to minor fishery offences. I hope we can secure support for such a system across party lines in the House because it is the right thing to do. I would also like to secure industry support for this form of penalty for minor offences. I have advised the industry, in general terms, of my intentions and so far have received a positive response. I have asked my Department, in working with the Office of the Attorney General, to expedite the preparation of draft legislation to deliver on this approach. It is my intention that the Bill will be prepared as soon as possible and following the receipt of detailed advice from the Attorney General. I expect that the Bill will identify a finite range of fishery offences to which penalty notices for on-the-spot fines can be applied, having regard to such criteria as the benefit to the offender and repetition of the offence.

I hope that, in the interest of trying to progress this issue politically, Fianna Fáil Members will withdraw their Bill knowing that a Bill will be introduced within the next few months, which they will be able to scrutinise. I have explained, probably in too much detail, why I cannot support the current legislation. It is not legally sound, although I support the sentiment behind it. We are working with the Attorney General to come up with legislation that is legally sound and that can ensure fishermen are not turned into criminals for minor fisheries offences while, at the same time, ensuring we have appropriate penalties for crimes in order that we have a level playing field and fishermen respect the rules under the new Common Fisheries Policy. If we do not have that, we will have a free for all and nobody in the fishing industry wants that because as happened to cod in the Irish Sea, we will overfish it and spend decades trying to replenish stocks.

We have a good Common Fisheries Policy now which will be a challenge to implement but which will produce exciting results for the industry. We will introduce, as we have committed to in the programme for Government, a system of fixed penalty notices for minor offences and I hope to introduce that legislation before Easter but certainly before the summer. It is my intention to do so before Easter if I can.