To introduce this recent consultation on administrative penalties to Members and explain how the Committee responded

1.1 The consultation paper on administrative offences is provided as a background paper, available from the Clerk on request. The consultation closed officially on 5 May so it is unlikely that further responses will be possible by the date of the Joint Committee on 19 May. The combined ASFC response is attached at Annex A.

1.2 The idea of administrative offences and penalties was proposed in the ‘Net Benefits’ report. It is in line with the present Government’s policy to decriminalise some offences by moving to administrative or fixed penalties so it is likely that a scheme of some sort will be implemented. The scheme is in its early stages so it is important that the Committee gives all possible assistance to Defra to make the scheme as effective and well thought out as possible.

1.3 There are some indications of the way Defra is thinking that will be of immediate interest to Members. It appears that administrative penalties will not apply to offences committed under SFC byelaws. However, other offences detected and enforced by SFC officers such as offences under Statutory Instruments will be included. This would seem to be logical since it would be perverse if an offence detected by an SFC officer went to Court without the option of a fixed penalty while the same offence detected by an MFA Inspector was dealt with administratively. It is not clear if administrative penalties will apply to the leisure fishing sector.

1.4 Indications are that administrative penalties will be on a relatively low tariff compared to the maximum fine of £5000 for byelaw offences. ASFC argue that Administrative Penalties should be on the same scale as Bylaw penalties to avoid anomalies.

1.5 There are a number of issues of immediate concern for SFC. The proposed scheme appears to downplay the importance of SFC bylaws and there is very little detail on the impact which the scheme will have on SFC. There will be an additional framework of legislation which SFC will have to operate which could pose questions of resources and it will be vital that a scheme is implemented that can be jointly operated by MFA and SFC without confusion and interference.

1.6 The scheme could result in an immediate resource issue because the proceeds of the penalties are likely to go to Central Government. Under current byelaw offences for which a successful prosecution is achieved in court, costs may be given which accrue to the SFC. Defra have been made aware of this difficulty.