Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Boylan. The effect of these amendments, if they were taken together, would appear to be to expand the scope of the penalty points system for masters provided for under the Bill currently to encompass masters who are citizens of another member state as distinct from Irish citizens. The amendments would require in effect that the Minister would have to set up a register to cover all masters from all EU member states and then that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, would have to assign points to masters who are citizens of other member states.

In this regard it should be noted that the Bill provides that points assigned to a master who is a national of another member state should be notified to the competent authority of that member state. The notification to that competent authority in another member state should include the identity of the sea fishing boat to which the infringement concerned relates; the name, address and any other identifying details available relating to the master of the sea fishing boat; the particulars of the serious infringement that has happened; and the number of points applicable for that infringement.The obligation, therefore, is on Ireland's SFPA to notify its corresponding bodies in the other member states of the offence that has taken place under the Common Fisheries Policy.

It should also be noted that, under the Bill, the same determination procedure applies regardless of whether the master concerned is an Irish citizen or a national of another member state. In each case the independent determination panel and independent appeals officer, where relevant, determine whether a serious infringement has occurred for which points should be applied. In each case the master concerned may apply to the High Court on a point of law, as I mentioned in my response to the previous amendment, in respect of a decision of any appeals officer. It is only when this determination procedure has concluded that differing procedural requirements apply in respect of the assignment of points, depending on whether the master concerned is an Irish citizen or a national of another member state.

I should also point out that a similar approach to that which I have just outlined is taken in the context of the separate points system for licenceholders as provided for under the European Union common fisheries regulations. That licenceholder system has been operational since January of last year. Senators will recall from the debate on Second Stage that, more generally, the scheme for points for masters now proposed in the Bill follows inasmuch as possible the provisions of that existing and separate licenceholder system in respect of the list of serious infringements, the number of points assigned and the suspension thresholds as provided for under EU regulations.

The relevant procedures in the Bill, as I have just summarised, are the most appropriate means of ensuring the effectiveness of the masters points system. Were these amendments acceded to, I believe that the result would be seen as contrary to the intent of the EU objective. Masters who are nationals of other member states could have points assigned to their licences by the Irish authorities but could shortly thereafter potentially have points assigned to their licences by the competent authorities of other member states. A master could therefore conceivably accumulate points in multiple member states, each operating separately, without ever reaching the relevant thresholds for suspension or disqualification. The EU points system for masters would not be able to function in an effective, proportionate or dissuasive way if multiple member states were to assign points in respect of masters who are nationals of other member states. That is the clear implication of these amendments, and such an outcome would undermine, in my view, the effectiveness of the system at both national level here and EU level.

The Bill follows the approach set down in the EU control regulation in respect of licenceholders by providing for each member state to assign points in respect of its licenceholders and for masters who are its citizens. In that regard the Bill requires the Minister of the day to establish and to maintain a register of masters who are Irish citizens by providing for the necessary notification requirements to competent authorities of other member states, as I have set out and where required.

For those reasons I cannot accede to these amendments. There is a system in place that is European and common across the EU. For Ireland to set up our own separate and independent system simply would not be feasible, practical or compliant with our obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy. Such a system would be separate from the requirements on Ireland and other member states and would not have any coherence or organisation. Were we to take a different approach from the one into which we are feeding now, for it to work and to have any practical effect, it would have to be introduced at European level and the same system would have to be applied to every member state because everybody has to work from the same system. If an Irish skipper or master were found to have committed an infringement in other waters, we would be notified and we would keep the points record in that instance, and vice versa. If, however, there were multiple people keeping multiple records and they did not all join together, it simply would not work or be practical. A proposal such as Senator Boylan proposes, therefore, would have to involve going back to the drawing board at European level and changing the structure.