Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to discuss this matter. There are four key issues I want to raise with him. I am relying heavily on the report from the Library and Research Service. It is a resource available to us and I do not think the members of the service ever get thanked enough for the informative work they do. Their digest of this Bill is particularly helpful because it encapsulates many of the concerns that have been brought to the attention of many people.

The first issue relates to the questionable fairness of the allocating points system. The standard of proof required threshold is based upon balance of probabilities rather than culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. In its pre-legislative scrutiny, the joint committee identified the potentially problematic nature of a determination panel concluding on the balance of probabilities as evidenced by the report of the authority, rather than a threshold for proof required. All alleged serious infringements are made by means of a written report by the authority. Section 6 of the Bill provides that a determination panel will be established "for the purpose of determining ... whether a serious infringement has occurred and whether a person was, at the time, the master of the sea-fishing boat". In addressing an appeals process, an appeals officer will be assigned at the authority. A period of 30 days is available in which to submit an appeal to the appeals officer. The appeal must be in writing from the master and is subject to a fee which is yet to be determined. The issue raised during pre-legislative scrutiny was that the Bill does not address concerns regarding the balance of probabilities providing the required threshold of proof, nor how existing reports and-or points may or may not be considered in the authority’s assessment of further alleged infringements. That is the first issue that came up in comparing what came up in pre-legislative scrutiny with what is now in the Bill.

The second issue is the weighing of fishery products in-factory. The committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report, according to the digest of the Bill, states the Bill as published does not cover or address this issue.

The third issue relates to the application of penalty points to EU and non-EU vessels. There was particular concern that UK vessels in Irish waters were going to be advantaged. Senator Lombard already raised this matter. The Bill does not provide for assigning penalty points to or having a register of points assigned to foreign nationals. Instead, a provision in the new section 15 being inserted into the 2006 Act via section 6 states that points assigned to a foreign master will be notified in writing to the authorities in the relevant member state. The UK is not specified. Thus the Bill does not provide for the authority dealing with serious infringements by UK fishing masters in Irish territorial waters in the same way as provided for other EU member states. I am happy to be corrected on that if I have misinterpreted the legislation.

The fourth issue is fair administration and SFPA capacity and resourcing with regard to the register of penalty points. At the pre-legislative scrutiny stage, the committee stated the Bill did not have provisions for organisational capacity or resourcing for the SFPA.

Those are just four issues. I know other issues have been raised. The Bill digest encapsulates some of the key issues exercising certain communities throughout the country. I hope the Minister is in possession of information to articulate how some of these issues are to be dealt with. There is no doubt but that we must protect our fishing reserves and there needs to be sustainability in the sector. There is, alas, no doubt that jobs in the sector are threatened. There are no two ways about that. It is important that we ensure support for the jobs and a just transition and we want to make sure the Bill does that. There has been talk of this being a fair and appropriate scheme, that there has been weighting of it in the Bill and that it is not too onerous on fishermen, particularly those who are sticking to the rules and not taking the Mick, if you will. Those are the points I wanted to make.