Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions. One of the key things that came through in two or three of the contributions was the issue of beyond reasonable doubt. I will touch on that matter first. The standard of proof used in the determination of an appeals officer is the balance of probability. It is a matter that has been raised throughout the progress of this Bill. It has not only been raised here today; it was also raised in the Dáil and in committee. I reiterate that the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is almost entirely confined to criminal trials and is not applicable to proceedings of a civil nature, where the standard used is the balance of probabilities. The legal position is that the balance of probabilities is the appropriate legal standard for the masters points system. The standard of proof is ordinarily and overwhelmingly on the balance of probabilities in civil cases. A higher standard of proof is required in criminal cases, that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In considering previous statutory instruments, the Supreme Court did not in either the Crayden or O'Sullivan cases make a single reference to beyond a reasonable doubt throughout the two judgments. The Supreme Court did not take issue with the balance of probabilities standard of proof in any of the statutory instruments it considered. Thus there is no support in the Supreme Court judgments for the proposition that the standard of proof on the basis of the balance of probabilities should be raised to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

I thank Senator O'Donovan for his contribution. There is an obligation on all member states. The Senator made the point that it is important these rules are applied consistently across all member states of the EU and asked what assurances can there be that other member states are enforcing them. The first challenge is that we are the very last member state to put a system in place. We are ten years later doing so than the legal obligation required. There has been much engagement and many chapters to this over that period of time. There is an obligation on all member states to have a penalty points system in place and then to enforce it. The overall competent authority for overseeing that is the European Commission, as well as the European Fisheries Control Agency. I nodded when I was being asked whether a boat could be fished with a different master in the event that one master has received a penalty. That will not impact on the capacity of the boat to be fished as long as the second master has a valid licence and authorisation.

Senator O’Donovan went on to make a point in respect of ports where fishing happens less now. Boats tend to be larger now than they were ten, 20 or 30 years ago. Since the Common Fisheries Policy and the principle of relative stability were established in the early 1980s, quota share among various member states has remained stable, Brexit notwithstanding. Obviously, Brexit has had a sideways impact on the overall relative stability among other member states, but since the early 1980s, despite many Common Fisheries Policy reviews, the percentage allocated to each member state has remained stable.

Following Brexit, member states' national quotas were impacted to varying extents. Our national quota will decrease by 15% between now and the end of 2026. The same is true of Germany, while the figure is somewhat lower for France, at 8% of its national quota. This is something we have been forthright about and I have fought the battle at European level in that context, but it is very much a result of the Brexit negotiation, in which fisheries was one of the key battle points for the British Government. One third of the fish we were catching was in British waters and, in the event of a no-deal scenario, we would not have had access to those waters to catch one third of the total fishing catch on which our fleet depends.

Another issue that has restricted fisheries somewhat over the years relates to the move to fishing according to maximum sustainable yield so as to ensure we do not overfish in a way that leads to the stock becoming depleted and endangered, which would have the side effect that the stock would not be available to be fished in the years ahead. A number of stocks that were under pressure, having been overfished in years past, have been closed in order that they will be given time to recover. In the case of the stocks we fish, we do so in a careful way, in accordance with science, to ensure we do not take any more fish than the stock can provide for. Overall, what this means for fishing activity at ports is that the capacity of boats now tends to be larger and we have to manage the fish stock sustainably, within an individual percentage allocation for each member state. Obviously, we have always fought, and will continue to fight, the battle to increase our allocation and percentage but that is always difficult to achieve.

Senator Lombard asked whether the system will apply to all vessels and, in particular, to UK trawlers or masters. It is a European Common Fisheries Policy, so it applies to EU member states. Ideally, it would apply outside of that as well, but that will be subject to negotiation with third countries. When the UK was a member of the Common Fisheries Policy, it had its own point system, which worked in sync with the other EU point systems, but it is outside of that now. Every year post Brexit, there have been challenges in respect of negotiating quotas with the UK and, likewise, issues such as this are subject to negotiation. As we all can see, that engagement can be a difficult process. As a starting point, in any event, it will apply to all EU member states and I fully accept we should engage with other countries outside of that in order that everyone takes a responsible approach, with systems that talk to one another, to try to ensure that uniform rules will apply, with commonality in respect of how they are monitored and implemented.

Senator Hoey asked about the threshold of proof, which I have dealt with, and about the capacity of the SFPA and the Naval Service to oversee and enforce the regulations. I have increased significantly the resources to the SFPA over recent times and it is important that we have an enforcement authority that can carry out that role well. Likewise, in respect of the Naval Service, the recent review of the Defence Forces will be important in informing of us about that. It is important that all boats be held to the same threshold and that standards be enforced for all boats that fish in our waters, regardless of their positioning within our 200 mile zone.

I think that covers most of the questions. I thank Senators for their engagement on Second Stage and look forward to further engagement as the Bill is brought through the House.