Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Yesterday in Galway Circuit Court a fisherman was charged with fishing over the quota to the value of €2,000. He was duly fined €5,000, but the penalty did not stop there because that offence attracts an automatic confiscation of the catch and gear. That is where the real penalty arose. His catch and gear were valued at €19,000. On paper, that fisherman was fined, quite properly, a sum of €5,000 but the hidden kick or penalty was the automatic confiscation of his catch and gear.

I am not complaining about the decision of the judge. He had no discretion because automatic confiscation is written into the law, a law we are copperfastening in this Bill. To make matters worse, the ridiculous anomaly is that if that fisherman had not been Irish, the automatic confiscation would not have happened. Does it make any sense for us to retain such a ridiculous anomaly in a Bill which is totally discriminatory vis-a-vis Irish fishermen? I know of nobody in this House who will stand up and support the retention of that ridiculous anomaly. Why is it in the Bill? I want an absolute commitment that the ridiculous anomaly will be removed.

I want to move on to other, more serious aspects of this Bill. Examination of the relevant figures shows that under Irish legislation fishermen are fined amounts by the courts that are ten times those payable on conviction by their continental counterparts. That approach is continued in this Bill but who wants it? Nobody stands up on either the Government or Opposition side to support it. It is there because we have not decriminalised minor offences as has happened on the Continent. I, the Fine Gael Party, the Opposition and, I venture, virtually all Members of Fianna Fáil except the Cabinet Minister want a change in the system to provide for graded administrative sanctions for minor offences. Everybody wants sustainable fisheries and we must have sanctions for breaches of the law but let us not put our fishermen to the wall and sink them beneath the waves because we are not prepared to change a system which is totally out of sync with the needs of the industry.

I suggest the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, brings a message to the Government that we will support any reasonable regime for sea fisheries but will oppose from the trenches a move to continue such discrimination and ridiculous penalties against fishermen. I believe the Minister of State will be happy to do so because his presentation of the Bill did not laud the continuation of those anomalies.

The only person who is in favour is the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey. I have not seen him in the House and I challenge him to come in to defend these ridiculous anomalies. He might say there would be legal problems in making such changes but Article 29 of the Constitution enables those problems to be overcome. Precedents exist in other areas where administrative sanctions are applied. The Minister may say they can only be applied with the consent of the defendant. I accept that but let us give the defendant the option to have it dealt with at administrative level and pay his fine like his counterpart on the Continent without incurring the enormous expenses of engaging solicitors or barristers to go to the Circuit Court, and without facing the automatic confiscation of his catching gear.

Let us have a reasonable system. How often do we have to drum this message home? Withdraw the Bill and recast it to provide for administrative and graded sanctions so that the punishment fits the offence and it will have the support of the Opposition. If not it will have to go through in the teeth of opposition from this side of the House and, I venture, with a silent mutiny of Members on the Government side. Any such Members I have spoken to trenchantly oppose these provisions. I appreciate their difficulties with Government Whips and I do not challenge them on that issue but 90% of Members of this House want the Bill to be changed and the House is meant to represent the will of the people. It is the Parliament not just of the Irish fisherman but of the Irish people. Give the representatives of the Irish people a chance to bring about a situation where this important Bill, representing an important part of our economy, is one of which we can all be happy and proud. This is the one chance to do that.

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, must ask who is in favour of this Bill apart from himself. There have already been interventions from the Fianna Fáil chairman of the relevant committee. Clearly the members of that committee, of all parties, do not support these provisions. In that situation does Parliament count for anything? The pigheaded Minister, who does not have much fisheries expertise in his constituency over and above a few good rivers, supports the provisions while the rest of Parliament wants them changed. Let the voice of Parliament and the people prevail so we end up with a satisfactory Bill the terms of which fishermen will be prepared to operate fully, fairly and effectively. If we can achieve that we will have done a good day's work.

Mr. O’Donovan

Regrettably, the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 poses many problems for me. I do not have difficulty with the thrust of the Bill but there are five areas where change must be made for it to be acceptable.

First, the Bill must provide for administrative and graded sanctions and decriminalise fisheries offences. According to EU records and standards 86% of all EU fisheries offences are now dealt with by way of administrative sanctions. As the chairman of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution I do not see any constitutional impediment to such a change in our laws.

Second, the reference to seafood manager should be deleted in its entirety as it only creates a mechanism for resolving internal management accountability issues and undermines and sidelines the role of the Minister. It also states that a control regulator should be established with an appropriate appeals mechanism but this involves another roll of unnecessary and inappropriate red tape for the fishing industry. I represent Cork South-West, which is on a par with Donegal north west and is the capital of fishing in the south.

Third, the automatic confiscation of catching gear, which only applies to Irish vessels, must be changed to allow it to be decided at the discretion of courts. I will read a letter for the record of the House sent to Deputy O'Flynn, chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. It is from a solicitor and concerns a recent court case he encountered which emphasises the plight of fishermen. The letter reads:

Dear Deputy,

I heard you on the radio last week, in connection with the proposed changes in Fishery legislation, and in particular the suggestion that the penalties would be increased.

I do a lot of work for people in the Marine business around the coast, and I have had a couple of recent cases of representing individuals under the fisheries Acts. In fact this morning, I was in the Circuit Criminal Court [where serious crimes relating to drugs, rape and violent crime against the person are dealt with, and fishermen are brought in there] representing a young fisherman whose offence was that he had not filled in the Log Book [a technical offence]. At the trial, evidence was given of extenuating circumstances — bad weather, mechanical breakdown, and there was no suggestion that he was to profit in any way for his administrative lapse.

Notwithstanding all of that, penalties in the amount of €40,000 were imposed, comprising of a fine of €10,000, forfeiture of the catch and the gear, and in addition the client was at the loss of fishing when his boat was tied up, and also the cost of legal fees...

Legal fees for the defence amounted to €40,000 for a technical offence. If that happened in Europe there would be an administrative fine which would be dealt with at little cost to the State. On top of that €40,000, it does not indicate what it cost taxpayers through State expenditure to bring the man to court, the arresting of the boat, the gardaí involved and the time in the Circuit Court. This would probably double the cost, which indicates the severe problems that exist. I will continue to read into the record the letter, which is interesting. It represents a typical case which could take place in Castletownbere, Killybegs, the west or Dunmore East:

It is interesting that in the course of the case, the Judge said he was mindful that the Oireachtas took these matters very seriously, because of severity of the proposed penalties. [In other words, the judge was saying he must impose the large fines because the Oireachtas takes the matter seriously, yet the Bill is proposing in some instances to increase by 800% the penalties that already exist, which are draconian and unfair.] If these penalties are increased further, it will mean that Judges will think that the imposition of a fine of even €50,000 would be light...

That is what the Oireachtas wants, and it is the message we will send out if we adopt the Bill in its entirety. The letter goes on:

Furthermore, the Fisheries Acts do not differentiate in terms of penalties between a vessel such as my client had this morning, with a crew of four, and a very large vessel which could be at sea for weeks on end. [In other words, we are dealing here with a relatively small trawler.]

I hope my letter to you is not regarded as being impertinent, but I think that the Oireachtas should be made aware that ordinary fishermen doing the best they can under very difficult circumstances, would be faced with absolutely draconian fines and penalties, for what would be regarded in other areas of activity, as only minor transgressions.

This is the content of this important letter. Deputy O'Keeffe referred to a case yesterday in Galway involving a fishermen I know well. He was dragged into a similar case. It was his first offence in approximately 50 years.

I have already indicated three areas with which I have serious concerns. The fines and penalties detailed in the Bill lack proportionality and must be reduced and changed. The underlining principle must be that just serious fisheries transgressions attract serious penalties.

In this regard, I do not advocate that we should go out there and deplete our stocks and rape our waters. I am aware that a small minority of fishermen transgress the law and should be brought to heel. I have no problem with the conservation of stocks. However, while we represent 1.86% of the EU fishing fleet, we appear to be saying that we are the best boys in Europe, we will put our fishermen below the waterline and sink them by way of these impossible fines with which the industry will find it difficult to cope.

Finally, the provision to use firearms against fishing vessels must be deleted from the Bill. I was pleased the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, recently indicated his desire to amend this provision. The above points require to be changed if we are to have a fisheries amendment Bill which is progressive and which will be acceptable to the stakeholders involved. There are other smaller amendments which I do not wish to discuss at this stage.

We must examine the whole concept of the Irish fishing industry. Regrettably, when we joined the EEC in 1973, to use a west Cork term, the Irish fishing industry was "left sucking the hind tit" for which there were a number of reasons. We got a very bad deal at the time. Up to the enlargement of Europe a couple of years ago, as an island nation, Ireland had almost 25% of the entire EU waters, yet it had approximately 4% of the fishing quota. When one realises that we have less than 2% of the EU fishing fleet, we are already at a severe disadvantage as regards the Spanish, French and the other bigger nations in Europe. We got figures in Brussels the week before last when some of us met the Chef de Cabinet to the Commissioner and many MEPs. The most up-to-date penalty records indicate that of the 14 nations surveyed, Ireland came ninth while its transgression record was quite small compared to some of the major players in the industry.

It puzzles me that the average fine in Spain for fishing without a licence — the Spanish are the masters of fishing in Europe and were treated very well in the 1970s when Ireland got a raw deal — is €1,463, which is documented and accepted in Europe, while in Ireland it is €21,400, and increasing. This is obvious from the letter to me from the solicitor on behalf of a fisherman who had to go before the Central Criminal Court in Dublin, which was a disgrace. The message being sent out from the Dáil and Seanad is that not only do we want the penalties to be enforced but we want them to be increased. In some instances it will put fishermen out of business.

The average penalty for logbook offences in Denmark is €393, while in Ireland it is €8,500. The instance I quoted earlier was a logbook offence. The unfortunate fisherman whose boat had broken down and who got caught in adverse weather conditions was penalised to the tune of €40,000 the week before last in an Irish court. The average fine for fishing for species subject to prohibition in the UK is €2,328 while it is €23,125 in Ireland.

I have had many dealings with Irish fishermen over the years. People may say I am wrong, but if the Irish south and west fishing organisations and the other Irish fish producing organisations were up and running and had the same capacity, ability and expertise they now have — a number of these organisations are doing a wonderful job throughout Ireland for the fishing industry — we would have got a much better deal in 1973. At the time our negotiators were unaware of the potential of our waters. Having said that, as a member of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, I have met these organisations. In the past two or three years, representatives of the fishing industry have been travelling to Europe and batting as hard as they can, together with the Irish Ministers, to obtain a fair deal for Ireland on quotas and so on. Very often they work hand-in-hand with the Minister and his officials and, by and large, they come back with a fair result, albeit with some trepidation. Over the years, including when I was in the Seanad, these people have been asking me to do something to try to bring them into line with Europe. There is an idea that we are not in line with Europe but, in fact, we are streets ahead. They talk about endangered species but, as things stand, the most endangered species is fishermen, who are becoming scarce. Recently, when the Minister announced a substantial package for decommissioning, two trawler men who had boats of less than the required 18 metres came to me. They are crying out to get out fishing. They see all sorts of problems ahead, with difficulty getting crews, rising fuel prices and their families not wanting to get involved in the industry.

We must be fair to the fishermen and the industry. It is a fledgling industry and we should be trying to nurture and protect it, not criminalising it with bureaucracy and red tape. Most of the fishermen I know, be they trawlermen, inshore fishermen or those involved in fish farming are hard working, decent men who face many obstacles. We always hear of at least one tragedy every year.

I commend the Government since 1997. In 1997, a substantial package was put in place for the fishermen, particularly in the south west, to upgrade and provide new boats in the white fish fleet and that was a success. I also commend the fishing industry for waking up to the fact that we must have the highest safety standards at sea and I thank the Minister and his predecessors for putting grants to achieve that in place.

Representing the fishermen of south-west Cork, in Castletownbere, Schull, Baltimore, Union Hall and Kinsale, I would be doing a disservice to them and their families if I was to say I was happy with aspects of this Bill. I am not. If this Bill is to be passed in its current form, I would find it difficult to vote for it. I know there will be a whip but to show the strength of my indignation, I have tabled a motion signed by seven other members for the meeting of the parliamentary party. It could not be taken this week because the Minister was in Brussels. I have never in my 12 years in the Oireachtas filibustered Government legislation but in this instance I have grave concerns.

This is why five members of the Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources travelled to Brussels at short notice. We met 12 MEPs, two of whom were from Scotland and one from Spain, a former fisheries Minister in the last Spanish Government, and they are bemused as to why we are going ahead with this draconian legislation. There was an indication that if we did not introduce this Bill, there would be serious implications for Ireland. We heard, however, that is not the case. The EU Commissioner, who is from an island nation, visited Ireland two weeks ago. I met him in Kenmare along with a group of representatives from the fishing industry. He made it clear that as far as he was concerned Ireland was responsible for its own actions. The fishermen accept that there must be laws and regulations but it is up to us to set the bar at a certain height.

There was an article recently in The Sunday Tribune which criticised those Deputies, including me, who support the fishing industry. It was almost libellous, suggesting that we are on the take from fishermen. The article was scathing and inaccurate in many respects. Whoever wrote the article knows nothing of the fishing industry. If he did, the article would not have been written. There is an obligation on Oireachtas Members and on the media to portray the true problems fishermen face. Fishing is a perilous occupation. We saw very little media coverage of the fact that the increases in oil prices internationally have caused great difficulties for the fishermen. The cost of fuel was rising on a weekly basis.

We must have a fair approach to the fishing industry, there must be rules and regulations, but we must also acknowledge that the fishing industry in Ireland is under threat and we are obliged to represent and support our constituents. That is why I am lending my voice in opposition to aspects of this Bill.

Mr. McGinley

Tá lúcháir orm deis a bheith agam cúpla focal a rá ní amháin fán Bhille ach fá thionscal na hiascaireachta go ginearálta sa tír, go speisialta i dTír Chonaill. It is not often we speak on the difficulties and the potential of the fishing industry in Ireland and for that reason I welcome the opportunity to comment on how I see the industry, particularly in my county, and to speak on the Bill.

I have been here for a long time and have seen many Bills introduced. It is a long time, however, since I have witnessed any legislation receiving such a frosty reception, and that is putting it mildly. Even before the Bill was published, the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources made its views known in no uncertain terms; it was opposed to it from beginning to end.

The committee members went to the trouble of going to Europe and meeting the authorities there. The response was that they did not understand the thinking, rationale or philosophy behind the introduction of the Bill. It is significant that all our MEPs bar one and a number from Northern Ireland stated they did not understand why this Bill was being introduced at a time the fishing industry is in deep crisis.

Like the Minister of State, I was born near a fishing port. My maiden speech in the House was on the fishing industry and the former Minister, Pádraig Flynn, was in the ministerial seat. I was allowed to speak for an hour. Most of my contribution was in Irish and the Minister understood about half of it. Since I entered the House, I have witnessed many changes in the fishing industry in my county and nationwide. I am familiar with ports.

Long before I entered the House, Bunbeg was a vibrant, thriving fishing port which had capacity for between 30 and 40 half deckers. Each boat had three or four crew members and, therefore, 120 families in that part of Gweedore made a living from fishing every year. This time of the year, they would have fished for herring. When I went to school, the chat between us was about how many crates each boat caught. If a boat had between 20 and 35 crates, it was doing well. During the summer, the boats fished for salmon and they fished for whatever was available at other times of the year. However, Bunbeg kept families in the area. They built their houses and educated and reared their children. Fishing provided a viable economy in that little region. The same applied to the islands off Donegal.

The next port along the coast is Burtonport. The great difficulty in this port 15 or 20 years ago was the availability of berths for trawlers and half deckers. The port provided many jobs onshore with all the industries associated with fishing represented. However, nowadays, do even two or three boats fish out of Burtonport? That is an indication of what is happening to the fishing industry.

Our pride and joy in Donegal is Killybegs, the premier fishing port in Ireland. When one drives through the town to the port, one cannot fail but to be impressed by it. It is a state-of-the-art port with the finest pier in the State. It is well deserved because the men and women of Killybegs have put a great deal into the fishing industry for generations. There is seldom a week I do not travel through the town but it has completely changed in recent years. Previously, between 1,000 and 1,500 people from Glencolumbkille, Donegal town, the Rosses and the Finn Valley, were employed in various processing plants at this time of year. It was the most significant industry in that part of Donegal. However, Killybegs is a dead town. I hope fortunes will improve and the town will return to its former glory. Despite the provision of a state-of-the-art pier, not enough fish are being landed to underpin jobs in the town.

The Government is presiding over the demise of the fishing industry. It has responded by introducing a draconian Bill and I cannot understand the rationale and philosophy behind it. A day does not go by without a fishing crisis. Honest fisherman going about their business and earning a livelihood are being towed into Rathmullan, Killybegs and other ports. The significance of this is that most of them are Irish. I seldom hear reports about the arrest of fishermen from other member states. Yesterday, the Catherine R, an Irish boat, was towed into port.

Crab fishermen are also in a predicament. They only have five or six boats but they have been tied up for the past week and a half. The fishermen are not permitted to engage in what they have invested in heavily over recent years. They have invested millions of euro in their boats but they are all tied up in port with 70 or 80 jobs in jeopardy. The largest crab processing factory in Europe at Meenaneary, Carrick, County Donegal, is under threat because the supply of fish has been interrupted. The dispute has serious implications for employment at the factory. According to the latest bulletins, the Minister of State is trying to break the impasse so that the fishermen can return to sea. However, he should redouble his efforts to end the scandal of having these boats tied up during their peak season. The highest prices will be achieved for crab between now and Christmas because of the demand in the markets the fishermen have steadily built up over the years. If they cannot meet the demand, fishermen from other countries will do so. They must be permitted to provide continuity of supply.

I do not know how the Minister of State will solve this problem. Swapping quotas with other countries has been mentioned as well as bringing forward next year's allocation to take advantage of high prices. While a solution must be achieved, the manner in which the fishing industry is organised is wrong. We are careering daily from one crisis to another. Why is a fair share not allocated at the end of the year so that fishermen can make it last the following year? Given the Minister of State's experience and the goodwill of all those involved, a solution surely can be found to rectify these problems and give fishermen hope. If they continue to be treated like this, they will leave the industry. The same happened in farming. Ireland will end up with half a dozen major fishing concerns and between 10,000 and 20,000 farmers in 20 years. Ireland has better fishing grounds than every other member state and that would be a disaster. It would border on criminal if we let the industry go.

The fishing industry is in a serious downward spiral. It is more important in my county than in others because it is a barometer of economic activity, development and well-being. If the fishing industry is doing well, we are all happy, but if it is depressed, we are all depressed. It is more important than ever when one realises that Donegal has already lost 7,000 industrial jobs throughout the county in the last seven or eight years. What did we have to replace these jobs if we could not depend on, develop and gain the full potential of a natural asset such as fishing? Farming has its own difficulties but fishing was there for Donegal. We were near the sea, we had the expertise and the tradition, and we seem to be simply letting it slip through our fingers. I do not say that lightly. I say it today because we do not get very many opportunities of raising these issues in Dáil Éireann.

I support the sentiments expressed in the Dáil last week by Deputy Perry, our party spokesman on the marine, by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and by Deputy Donovan, standing behind the Minister of State this morning. I support their attitudes to this Bill, which as a Deputy representing the most significant sea fishing area in the country in Donegal, I condemn in the strongest terms.

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister for State, Deputy Gallagher, who was here last week and is here today, are presenting us with a classic pig in a poke. A Bill which they say merely consolidates existing legislation and rectifies deficiencies arising from some Supreme Court cases has been hijacked and turned into a lethal instrument directed at an already beleaguered fishing industry.

We need hardly be surprised at this development. This Government is comprised of Members who have been too long in office and have lost touch with the needs of ordinary people, and of the fishing communities. They have long since ceded their authority to their ever-willing civil servants who are content to rule from afar. The Minister has been flying short-lived kites on a variety of subjects in recent years but this Bill is the proof that he is unfit to hold his particular office. His self-righteousness regarding this Bill, bolstered by his new friends in the shadows, the senior civil servants, is an advertisement for a change in Government.

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is an esteemed constituency colleague of mine and as a man who worked in the fishing industry for many years, I can scarcely believe he is content to put his name to this Bill which, if enacted, would represent a scandalous attack on his constituents and mine. I do not know what amendments will be put forward but if the Bill passes as now proposed it will have serious implications.

This Bill is founded on principles of coercion, criminalisation and disproportionality. Among other things it is an attack on civil liberties and fair play. It smacks of an Administration which has lost its way and views the fishing industry as an implacable enemy rather than a valuable and vital part of the economies and communities of the coasts.

One might say that in dealing principally with offenders against fisheries laws, this Bill should be of no concern to the law-abiding majority. Why should we be so bothered about law-breakers? We must of course have severe penalties for offenders who by their behaviour threaten our precious fish stocks. However, fishery offences differ vastly in terms of seriousness. By all means, severe penalties must be available for the most severe and particularly repeated offences, but many of the transgressions involved in fisheries cases are technical offences, where a fisherman is outside the framework of legislation by a very small margin. The ever-increasing complexity of the regulatory framework also means the vast majority of fishermen would find it difficult to remain aware and abreast of every detail of the thousands of pages of Irish and EU regulations generated in seeking to deal with the problem of managing fisheries.

I see no evidence whatsoever that this Bill makes any distinction between the seriousness of many of the categories or indeed scale of offences involved. It holds no water to say that these are only maximum penalties and the courts can decide the level of the fines, possibly well within the maximum. In an area so arcane and complex, it behoves us as legislators, with the assistance of our experts in the Department, to devise a comprehensive table of on-the-spot fines outside the criminal system, graded upwards to reach into the criminal system for serious offences only.

It is a very disturbing aspect of this Bill that minor offences will be criminalised. That will have serious implications for anyone caught, because acquiring a criminal record for such a minor infringement will probably interfere with one's civil liberties. If one wants to visit relations in the United States, where many Irish people have sons and daughters, what does one do if one acquires a criminal record? One will probably not be allowed into the United States. There will be very serious implications if every infringement is to be treated as a criminal act. The Minister and his officials must look at this issue and ensure there will be a scale of offences, otherwise every fisherman who infringes the regulations even in the most minor way will be categorised as a criminal.

Instead of addressing the real issues surrounding fisheries issues, this Bill takes a classic law and order, throw-the-book-at-them approach, all brawn and no brains. There is no reflection in the Bill of the concern to keep Irish legislation in line with EU norms and standards, to have a truly level playing field. There is no hint anywhere in this Bill that what we may be instituting here is a set of extreme measures to cover up the fact that the Common Fisheries Policy is deeply and fundamentally flawed and needs not merely patching up but root and branch reform. There is no hint in any of the thinking in this Bill that the Government or the Department is willing in any meaningful sense to highlight that the basis for many of the EU regulations we are proposing to uphold at such cost is unworkable, unfair, counterproductive and widely discredited.

This legislation gives legal immunities to people everywhere and reduces the reasonable right of redress available. I know that in at least one recent case, had this Bill been in force, the immunity from legal action and the very deficient conditions for notifying skippers or owners of matters relating to authorisations would have led to a serious miscarriage of justice. The Minister is aware of this case.

The Bill is very negative. I fully agree with the stand taken by our party spokesperson on the marine that if the Bill goes through, it will be a priority of his to have it repealed or amended in Government. My view reflects those of all the fishermen I am familiar with in my constituency and the views of other organisations from different parts of the country who have been in touch with me, as I am sure they have been with other Members of this House and of the Government, and with backbenchers on the Government side of the House. Listening to those backbenchers who have spoken, I will be surprised if the Bill goes through in its current form. For the sake of what is left of the Irish fishing industry, let us hope it does not.

Mr. M. Brady

I would like to express my sympathy with the families in Deputy Howlin's Wexford constituency whose members died as a result of the tragic accident involving the Pisces. Can the Minister say if there any plans to introduce new regulations or legislation with regard to the destruction of such unseaworthy boats? The Minister might address that issue at the conclusion of his reply.

As many Members present will be aware, I represent the Dublin North-East constituency, which includes the port of Howth. In my lifetime, the fishing community members there, though sadly depleted in numbers, especially in recent years, were looked up to and admired as decent, hardworking and upright people. They earned their living the hard way and eked out a livelihood from the sea. They are a tough, proud and honourable people and I am proud to represent them.

There were references here to Ministers being out of touch. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is not out of touch. Any time I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to meet the fishermen in Howth he was always available and always on top of his brief. He was out there recently and launched a decommissioning in Howth. While I do not want to pester him with questions I make the point that when one decommissions a boat there is a crew involved that one cannot throw to the wind and forget about. Are there plans afoot to put some package together for crews on the trawlers?

I am saddened at the thrust of the provisions contained in Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill, which is directed at the people I know and respect in the fishing industry. When I read of regimes for fines of up to €200,000 for some offences, provision for the confiscation of vessels, increased powers and, as Deputy McGinley has rightly said, legal immunity for various officials and provision for the firing of live rounds of ammunition into fishing vessels, I ask what are we about. I find it hard to square that with the conditions faced by the fishing community that I know and represent.

I and everybody else appreciate that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has a difficult job. Nobody would dispute that, we are well aware it has a difficult job to do. The Naval Service likewise has a very difficult task. It is vital that proper controls be put in place to conserve fish stocks and it is equally vital to have penalties for wrongdoers. Nobody would argue with that. I also fully appreciate that this legislation has to cater for vessels other than Irish vessels operating in the fishing waters around our coast, which account for the vast bulk of the fish caught in our waters.

That various fishing stocks around our coast are severely depleted is a fact, confirmed by fisheries scientists in Ireland and the international scientific body which advises the European Union. We must have regard to the urgent need to conserve these stocks for the future — which is commonsense — for our fishermen and for the health of our marine environment. It is vital that we all agree we are all facing the threats that diminished fish stocks bring in economic, social and environmental terms. The Department, fishermen, scientists and all in this House have a responsibility to ensure that sustainable harvesting of our fish resources is the keystone of all our concerns.

We have had some notable progressive steps in this regard in the lifetime of this Government. The re-establishment of the reduced Irish Box was achieved by a strong consensus by all concerned and concerted action by this Government and industry representatives working together.

I am conscious of the enormous difficulties faced by the fishing industry. The vast increases in fuel prices, about which I get complaints on a regular basis from the fishermen in Howth, which are a critical determinant of viability for fuel-hungry fishing vessels, have made survival in business a difficult task during the past 18 months to two years. The introduction of days at sea limits has particularly affected vessels operating from Howth where 15 vessels have been tied up for the past couple of years. The harbour master had a meeting with me a couple of weeks ago on the issue of how to dispose of these boats. That gives some indication of the way the industry is going. The days at sea limits have caused severe hardship and have been largely counterproductive. There is no other business where that type of regulation — where they can only open so many days a year or so many hours per day — would be inflicted on people.

The major increases in harbour charges in State-owned fishery harbours such as Howth have added considerably to the overheads of fishing vessels. Ever more complex regulations as regards the fishing effort, completion of days at sea books, technical measures, boat standards, recording of catches, logbook requirements, advance notice of landing requirements, closed areas and more have made life extremely difficult if not impossible for fishermen. Some of the fishermen tell me they would need an accountant with them at sea on a continuous basis.

We are advised that the rationale behind the Bill is to correct deficiencies in the existing law due to a number of Supreme Court cases. That is a reasonable objective. We are further advised that this Bill is to consolidate the various legislation which has been enacted since 1959 in respect of fisheries. Were these objectives what the thrust of the Bill contained, I would have no criticism of it whatsoever. I must confess to being deeply disturbed by many of the provisions in the Bill. I will not accept that my concerns are those of the uninformed. I have carefully considered and taken advice on many of the measures with which I have a problem. Deputy O'Donovan who spoke earlier met with a group of backbenchers and we signed the motion to which he referred. He has a good overall knowledge of the industry and I thank him for his efforts and the valuable advice we obtained from him.

I cannot accept that we cannot have a table of graded offences related to the extent of the various transgressions catered for in the Bill. I do not accept the logic that says we are only setting maximum fines of up to €200,000 per offence and leave it to the wisdom of the Judiciary not to impose this level of fine, much as I have regard for the judicial branch. It is unfair to fishermen and judges to put them in that position. I cannot accept it is beyond the ingenuity of those drafting the Bill to come up with a prescribed set of sanctions to deal with the severity of the offence involved, including administrative on-the-spot fines of an appropriate level. Repeated transgressions or very serious offences must be dealt with severely but this Bill is a bridge too far.

I am deeply worried by the extent to which the Bill grants immunity from legal action to whole sets of public servants. That does not happen in any other area of which I am aware. I fully accept that these people are decent, hardworking and honest but they can make mistakes, as we all can, and it would be unwise in the extreme not to give aggrieved citizens the right to proper redress. That is democracy and that is how democracy should work. That lorry drivers and buyers who cannot be expected to know if any particular consignment of fish is totally legal in all respects are left liable under this legislation to prosecution and fines of up to €5,000 seems crazy and daft. I am not happy at the diminution in the powers of oversight of the Minister which is contained in the Bill regarding the position of fisheries control manager and that person's reporting to the Secretary General of the Department. I cannot contemplate the inclusion of a clause in the Bill which would allow the firing of guns into fishing vessels. No legislation is in place to follow up and investigate whether such action was appropriate.

We have received very contradictory advice as to the urgency of passing this Bill. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, told us that it is imperative to allow Ireland to comply with EU law. However, as Deputy O'Donovan stated earlier, information from the European Commission and MEPs not just from this country suggests that this is not the case. However, we must also appreciate that there must be equity between control regimes operating in all EU countries. We must also be constructively critical and say that little in the present operation of the Common Fisheries Policy commends itself and reform of that policy is urgently needed. We need a sense of partnership and mutual respect among stakeholders, which is not evident in this Bill as presented. I strongly urge the Minister of State and the Department to promote a sense of partnership and shared interest among all parties which would obviate the need for many of the most excessive provisions of this Bill.

I note that the development of regional advisory councils in which Irish fishing organisations play a leading part is a positive first step towards a partnership approach to fisheries management if it is allowed to develop. I welcome the fact that our good friend, Lorcan Ó Cinnéide of the IFPO, is chairman of the Irish Sea working group of the RAC relevant to us on the east coast. The fishermen are very fortunate to have such fine representatives. Some members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources visited Castletownbere Harbour and various operations in that area. I would be proud to have those people represent any organisation.

As for the capacity to enforce fisheries law, I note the prosecution and fining two weeks ago of the owner of a Howth-based vessel, the Fragrant Cloud, in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and the detention of another vessel in that port. I also note the deep cross-party concerns over this Bill expressed by members of the Oireachtas joint committee in recent weeks and I commend that committee on its independent scrutiny of the Bill. I commend the committee’s Chairman, who is very diligent. He is from Cork and also visited those ports in Cork. I thank him for his work. I am disappointed that this Bill has appeared before us unchanged from the version which was before the committee. I believe that the Department has engaged in seriously misleading scare tactics to ensure that this is so.

This Bill needs to be fundamentally reappraised in many respects and will meet further scrutiny from Members of this House, the elected legislators. I strongly urge that we take sufficient time and care to reconstruct this Bill in a considered and appropriate manner and we should be given the space to do so. I take some solace from a letter sent by the Taoiseach to the Oireachtas joint committee a few weeks ago indicating that significant amendments to the Bill would be accepted in the course of its further passage through these Houses and it is only on that basis that I very reluctantly will support its proceeding to a further stage. As Deputy O'Donovan said, this is about fair play and people's livelihoods. The least people can expect is a fair crack of the whip. We are not in the business of beating them into the ground or putting them out of business.

Mr. Howlin

I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak on an issue that affects the marine sector. We debate very many issues in this House and, to borrow a phrase from a well known broadcaster, this island nation does not deal with marine issues too frequently and it is often regarded as the Cinderella sector particularly when compared with the way we have treated agriculture since we joined the European Union, or Common Market as it was then, in 1973. The history of the issues we are discussing goes back to the early 1970s when the negotiating regime under which Ireland became a member of the Common Market basically short-changed fishermen here. In the following decades, successive Governments of all political hues have contributed to downgrade and prevent the proper development of the marine sector and the fishing industry.

In the early 1970s the fishing industry was very underdeveloped and the agriculture sector was much more economically important. To get a good deal for Ireland we ceded many fundamental rights to the other member states. We did not take the opportunity in further negotiations when very large maritime countries, like Spain and Portugal, were conducting their accession talks, to reopen the Irish issue. Over the three decades that have passed while the fishing sector has grown and developed, this has always been in a half-spancelled way and never to the full potential that an island with such rich fishing grounds in its hinterland would have expected.

The lack of regard for the marine sector in general and for fisheries in particular has remained a feature of the present Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Government. A distinguished former leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, Mr. Charles Haughey, wanted the marine sector raised to Cabinet rank. On the coming to office of the current Administration, it has been subsumed into a hydra-like Department with many heads. The marine sector is very much the poor relation in that broad-ranging Department headed by the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey. That the word "marine" was not included in the Department's title at its outset and needed to be grafted on when this was pointed out gave an indication of the worth placed on the marine and the fishing industry by the current Administration.

It is unarguable that the lead Minister in that Department, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has really abandoned this sector and views his job as dealing with the other broad areas of natural resources, energy, communications and the various semi-State bodies under his remit. He has not taken a hands-on or direct interest other than a destructive interest in the marine sector. While I do not say this simply because he is sitting before me — I had intended saying it in any event — the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is extremely knowledgeable on the sector. My constituency dealings with him have shown him to be incisive and caring. The truth, however, is that he has been shafted on this Bill. He may say what he likes when he stands up in the House, but I know his heart is not in it and that he does not want the Bill before the House in its current shape and form. He was given a poisoned chalice the moment he walked into the Department, being the recipient of positions negotiated in advance of coming into it and having to sort out difficulties not of his making, without the benefit of a seat at Cabinet to give him the leverage to tackle the jobs foisted on him. It is important to say that.

The Bill is surrounded by grand farce which continues. I listened to Government Members' contributions today and one after another they said they disagreed with the contents of the Bill. Having said that they do a little public wrestling with their conscience and a little sabre rattling, or rather penknife rattling, and suggest that if it is not changed in Committee they might vote against it. That is as likely to happen as lightning is likely to strike the dome of this building within the next two minutes.

It is farcical to have a Bill before the House that clearly does not command the support of the significant majority of Deputies. Dare I say it, since he cannot say it, I do not believe it has the support of the Minister of State. He must say what he must, but I know, even from his comments on Second Stage, that his heart is not in the proposals. The penknife rattling — Fianna Fáil version of sabre rattling — has been proven fatuous as the Members on the Government side of the House have already voted twice to introduce the legislation on 17 November.

I have the greatest respect for Deputies O'Donovan, Martin Brady and others, whom I believe know this Bill is so flawed it should not be before us. I have some sympathy with them that they were whipped through the lobbies on 17 November to support it because that is how the whipping system works. However, they should spare us the public wrestling of conscience on this matter and stand firm on their principles and ensure that what is flawed and wrong legislation is not introduced into the House to take up the time of the House inappropriately. I agree with colleagues on the Government side who spoke with regard to the urgency attached and attributed to the Bill by the Department. The view from Brussels and our Members of the European Parliament is that there is no such urgency. Why then must we deal with what is by common acceptance flawed legislation?

Let me give the House a backdrop to the legislation from the perspective of my home county, one I know the Minister of State is familiar with and to which he is sympathetic. It is a reality that needs to be spelled out. Kilmore Quay and its hinterland is on its knees. That phrase has been repeated to me again and again over past months. Five or six years ago the area had enormous potential to develop and expand. New vessels were being bought and owners wanted to expand the fleet. However, decisions made by Government have struck a range of body blows to the people of Kilmore Quay.

People may be familiar with the scallop fishermen fiasco when the Sea Fisheries (Conservation and Rational Exploitation of Scallop) Regulations 2005, SI 245 of this year, was introduced into the House. It has been a devastating blow to the scallop fishermen of Wexford. The scallop processing industry was established 30 years ago in the south east. It is not a multinational industry in receipt of massive IDA grants and subsidised to bring in jobs, nor is it an industry that moves on somewhere else when it can get cheaper labour. It is an indigenous industry harvesting a natural resource. It provided valuable local employment on ship and on shore in processing. The industry was worth €50 million, a not insignificant sum to a coastal community.

On account of the decision taken in July 2004 in Brussels, an agreement made by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, without consultation with the fishermen or processors involved, we faced a situation earlier this year where people's livelihood was simply taken from them. I will not go into the details of that because the House has heard them from me on the Adjournment debate and elsewhere. In fairness to the Minister of State, he recognised the calamity facing the sector and brought in Padraic White to review the decommissioning process that could be used, because we could not wind back the clock on the calamitous decision made when the scallop fishery was sold out in Brussels. He has negotiated a support package for the boat owners, but we now need a package for the crewmen of those boats who have been left high and dry.

Within my community I deal with the banks that are foreclosing on some of these families and these proud hard-working dedicated men who have never known unemployment. One skipper, with his skipper's ticket, skippered a boat with several crew members and earned a decent living. Now, however, he works part-time in a local firm on a salary slightly above the minimum wage. That is the calamity facing and being endured by scores of families in County Wexford. Their case needs to be heard and addressed.

We deal badly with fishermen in legislation. They are deemed by the Revenue to be share fishermen and, therefore, self-employed. I dealt with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act when it went through the House. Under that Act the same individuals are deemed employees. I asked a parliamentary question of the Minister of Finance asking him to explain why the same individuals should be treated differently for different legislation. The response was that they are deemed to be what they are appropriately deemed to be by any individual legislation. Therefore, they can be relabelled at will. On account of the fact that these men are deemed to be self-employed, they are not entitled to capital allowances. The boat owners can get those allowances, but they cannot. They are not entitled to social welfare and some of them are in deep trouble because of how they are dealt with and treated. The whitefish men and the processors also feel the pinch. This is an economic crisis that is squeezing the life blood out of people who a few short years ago envisaged themselves as economically prosperous and with a great future. We have a responsibility to do something about the situation.

That is the backdrop to this legislation. Talk about adding insult to injury instead of asking how we can assist a community under enormous pressure because we have to make some decisions. I know from my background in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that we must have sustainability and I am as in favour of that principle as anybody. We must protect a resource that cannot be overfished because otherwise it will not be viable in the future. However, we can do this in a rational way. Above all else, we can do it in a way that shares the burden equally. Irish fishermen should carry the same burden as their EU colleagues and friends. They should not have to carry twice the burden because they comply with the various regulations, or because of a psychological attitude that the marine sector is of less value than other sectors. It would be amazing for such an attitude to exist among an island race.

Before I discuss a few aspects of the Bill before the House, I would like to use some of the time available to refer to the issue of safety, which is close to the Minister of State's heart. We need to put in place safety systems which will prevent a recurrence of a crisis and tragedy of the nature that was inflicted on a community in my constituency of Wexford following the sinking of the Pisces. The terrible calamity that was endured by the victims’ families, to whom I extend my absolute sympathy, was revisited this week. In one case, a family was tragically bereaved by the death of people from three generations of it. We cannot do anything to restore those who died in that incident to life, but we can provide to the best of our ability that a regime is in place to ensure such a tragedy does not happen again. This House is accustomed to introducing strong laws in circumstances of this nature, but it also needs to ensure that the laws are enforced so they are complied with. I hope the assurances which were given in this regard by the Minister of State earlier this week can be fulfilled. An adequate inspectorate needs to be established to ensure an awful tragedy like the sinking of the Pisces — I am aware of the depth of pain that continues to be endured by the families directly involved in that case — is not visited on another community.

Given that we do not know what the final shape of the Bill before the House will be, it may be somewhat vacuous to speak about some aspects of it. In his opening speech, the Minister of State resiled from some of the Bill's most contentious principles. Should Deputies refer to the Bill, as published, or would we be better advised to consider the potential amendments to it? I used to think such an approach, which involves introducing a Bill but then altering it substantially on Committee Stage, was the unique preserve of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who seems to graft new sections into legislation on the hoof, as ideas occur to him. I did not think other Ministers shared the level of brilliance of the Minister, Deputy McDowell, which enables him to amend legislation on an hourly basis. I was under the impression that more normal Ministers like to have the completed legislation in reasonable shape before they present it to the House.

Mr. O’Donovan

I think this legislation will be a different kettle of fish.

Mr. Howlin

I hope it will be a different kettle of fish. I hope it will be no kettle of fish at all — I hope it will be a big cauldron of fish for my community. Deputy O'Donovan is right to suggest that the final version of this legislation will be substantially different to the Bill before the House. Why is the House debating a Second Stage Bill that has no meaning? How can I comment in detail on the sections of the Bill if it is likely that they will be removed by the time the legislation is passed? Is it not a farcical way to abuse the scarce time of the House? We are all aware that additional time is needed if many other Bills are to be discussed on the floor of the House. It is not right to expect Members to talk about a Bill that will be changed anyway. The legislation will be amended because it is wrong, as it is currently drafted. The criminalising of working men, as envisaged in this Bill, is wrong.

I was responsible some years ago for introducing a Bill that provided for a system of graded penalties. That aspect of the legislation was founded on a simple maxim — the penalty must fit the crime. One cannot put in place a draconian penalty that does not change regardless of the extent to which the legal threshold has been crossed. I do not accept the imposition of a disproportionate sledgehammer approach to the issue of fines. If certain administrative processes are in place in other jurisdictions, we have to ensure they change their processes to mirror our processes, or that we change our processes to mirror their processes. We cannot have one rule for us and a different rule for others. If the owners of Irish vessels are prosecuted in the Circuit Court, their gear and catch will be automatically confiscated under this legislation.

The representatives of the fisheries sector have suggested a reasonable approach to this legislation. I would like to highlight the four points made by the organisations in question. First, they have proposed that the Bill should provide for administrative and graded sanctions, which is reasonable. Second, they have suggested that the section of the Bill providing for the appointment of a seafood control manager needs to be deleted. I would like to hear more details, before this Bill is passed on Second Stage, of the Minister's proposal to establish a new agency. Third, the organisations have argued that the automatic confiscation of gear and catch, which will apply only to Irish vessels, should be made discretionary for all vessels. Fourth, the representatives of the fisheries sector have called for the removal of the provision in the Bill that will allow firearms to be used against fishing vessels, a point that has already been conceded by the Minister of State. The provision in question could not be used because it would be a disaster.

I wish I had more time to debate these issues. I hope I have made a strong and forceful case for the maritime community of Kilmore Quay in my home county of Wexford. Communities like Kilmore Quay need assistance rather than draconian legislation of the kind that is proposed.

Mr. Dennehy

Tá mór-áthas orm cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. Ar dtús báire, ba mhaith liom chomhghairdeas a ghabháil leis an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Ó Gallachóir. I have deliberately congratulated the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, in response to some comments which were made earlier today. He has recognised in this Bill that the consolidation of a great deal of legislation relating to the fisheries sector and marine matters is long overdue. I hope the Minister of State will continue his efforts to consolidate all aspects of the legislation in this area, which is a mess. Deputy Howlin believes the House has not considered such legislation on many occasions, but it seems there is a great deal of it to be consolidated. The Minister of State's great knowledge of and commitment to the fishing industry have been recognised by every speaker. Deputy Howlin claimed Fianna Fáil backbenchers have been rattling their sabres or penknives in this regard. While they have expressed some concerns, my party's Deputies have shown a high level of consistency in their approach to this matter. I question the Labour Party's consistency, however. It is right that Deputy Howlin is terribly concerned about people in County Wexford who are involved in the fisheries sector, but we need to be concerned about all the fishermen in the industry. Almost all the Irish MEPs, including all my party colleagues in the European Parliament, signed a letter expressing their objections to the Bill before the House and the thinking behind it. Given that the only Irish MEP who did not sign the latter was a Labour Party MEP, Proinsias De Rossa, it is legitimate to ask whether the Labour Party is adopting one approach in this House to suit the fishermen in its Deputies' constituencies and a different approach in the European Parliament.

Mr. Howlin

Deputy Dennehy voted for the Bill in this House on First Stage.

Mr. Dennehy

I would appreciate a response to the point I have made.

Mr. Howlin

Why did the Deputy vote for the Bill?

Mr. O’Donovan

He voted to debate the Bill.

Mr. Howlin

He voted to introduce it.

Mr. Dennehy

The Labour Party should consider inviting Proinsias De Rossa MEP to explain himself at a meeting of its parliamentary party. Perhaps this is a sign of the differing opinions of the old and new sides of the Labour Party.

Mr. Howlin

We should be uniting on this matter.

Mr. Dennehy

I have raised a legitimate question that the Labour Party Members should reflect on before they make any further attempt to berate my colleagues for their consistent and honest stand.

I welcome the Bill before the House in so far as it consolidates the existing legislation in this area. I refer particularly to health and safety regulations. I have spoken previously about the difficulties I have encountered in trying to implement the requirements of various Acts which have been amended on many occasions. I have had to examine three or four separate Acts to try to ascertain what is required. The first rule to be followed when passing legislation is to ensure it is clear, unambiguous and capable of being understood by everyone. One should not have to refer to three or four Acts to determine what is required. Deputy Howlin claimed that the House has not considered legislation on this topic very often, but I remind him that since the House passed the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, it has also passed the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1962, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1978, the Fisheries Act 1980, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1983, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1994 and the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003. We have other legislation affecting the marine area including Acts to implement the EU requirements, protocols and conventions referred to earlier, the Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2000, Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003 and the Oil Pollution at Sea (Civil Liabilities and Compensation) (Amendment) Act 2003. In addition, we are affected by many international and EU rules, including the Merchant Shipping Acts. I mention those Acts to illustrate the difficulty facing stakeholders, the fishermen trying to earn their living from fishing and those engaged in maricultural, aquaculture and various related businesses, in operating safely, complying with the law and regulations.

I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, on getting to grips with this and trying to rectify matters. We can considerably simplify matters. I welcome his efforts to that end in this Bill. He is repealing provisions in 14 Fisheries Acts and five other Acts. That sounds ludicrous but it is a fact. It is crazy to still have to refer to the Fisheries (Ireland) Act of 1845. We should get real about this business, move in the modern area and deal with it.

Many people have painted not so much a romantic picture but a picture of bustling quaysides and hundreds of people working in the fishing industry. It can be compared to working on the land. Those days are long gone. With the advent of modern technology, and handling facilities, there is a different way of doing the job and a more professional approach. There is not the same drudgery to the work and we will never go back to the manual input characteristic of this industry, any more than we will do in farming. That must be realised. It is grand to paint that picture of the industry 20 or 30 years ago but those days are gone and we need to move on.

I welcome the expression of the need to avoid unnecessary verbiage. It is mentioned several times in the explanatory memorandum. The dictionary definition of "verbiage", which I checked to be sure, is "the excessive number of words used to express an idea". It appears, and I mentioned this previously, that those working in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel must be paid by the word in drafting legislation or there must be some incentive for them to use 20 words where one would suffice. We get very complicated material here. The Bill is complex in many ways, probably because of the effort at consolidation but that must be dealt with.

I confessed to the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher that my preference is trout fishing in the lake at the head of the Black Valley or the Paps Mountains or on the Sullane River in Macroom. I have a son who has a 30 ft to 40 ft boat and fishes wrecks 30 miles or 40 miles out. Therefore I am fairly au fait with the industry particularly from the leisure side.

I am aware of the dangers associated with this industry and the need for safety provisions. Several speakers mentioned the horrible tragedy that was resurrected recently by coverage of the court case. I heard one or two Deputies comment on it and it occurred to me that they did not take much notice of the topic because it had already been acted upon here. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, enacted 18 of the 20 recommendations of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. The only two outstanding issues relate to the insurance of small boats under 40 ft and to compiling a register of small boats. The Minister of State has dealt with the fines issue and the need for floatation devices and so on. There was considerable grumbling by some stakeholders at the introduction of those measures. I recall my son complained about them when they were announced. I also heard him complain about the requirement to spend 12 weeks in the inner harbour with his boat before he got his skipper's licence or was officially allowed to take it out further. However, I welcome all these requirements. It is essential to have safe practice and procedures in place.

I appreciate that commercial fishing is a hazardous job. The wearing of safety gear at times can almost be a hazard in itself in the same way as the wearing of a safety harness when aloft on a construction site can be an impediment at times, but that must to be worked around. I welcome the commitment to safety and to moving forward in that respect.

The importance of our fishing industry is beginning to be recognised. I agree with Deputy Howlin's suggestion that the industry was not as such sold off as traded off for benefits in agriculture. We are only beginning to realise that. There was a reluctance on the part of members of the older generation to eat fish because of the religious requirement that it should be eaten on Fridays. The industry has had to cope with considerable baggage that was a disincentive in terms of selling fish but that has all changed. It is now recognised that this industry is an important asset. Too often we hear people say that we have no natural assets; we have some of the best rivers and the best seas and we must exploit them in a responsible fashion. That is what much of this Bill is about.

Every time an issue such as this arises, some groups will take a stance against it. I speak as one of the few politicians who publicly said at the time, when I was the chairman of a trout fishing club, that I agreed with introduction of the rod licence. We all know the history of that. I was trying to foresee what might happen. In hindsight I was correct in saying what I thought would happen. Because the State did not have money to plough into buying fisheries and to improve inland fisheries people fought against that proposal. It was mainly well established club members who led the protest. There were 150,000 casual anglers and the vast majority of those have no place to fish because of the stance that was taken at that time. Irrespective of where one travels in the south west throughout Cork and Kerry, and I am sure this is also true of other regions, one sees signs displayed with the name of an angling club and the words "fishing preserved", and even if a permit is available it will be only for fly fishing. That was the outcome of the decision not to pursue the introduction of a rod licence where the State would have a great input, could buy up the interests and facilitate anglers by making banks of rivers available and so on and compensating the landowners. It was shortsighted and we made mistakes.

Any legislation will give rise to conflict with the primary stakeholders. It is evident in terms of the most endangered species, the salmon fishermen. I work very much with the landlubbers, the salmon anglers. I understand where the sea fishery people are coming from and that fishing is their livelihood and that they could be put out of action in the same way as beet growers who were mentioned earlier. The same could happen in terms of fishing but there are conflict points. We must be courageous at times and admit that a proposal is the correct decision, that we must take it and support it. In doing so, we might offend some constituents from time to time, but we must be conscious of the need for preservation. Anglers were the first people to become conscious of that. Traditionally, after a sea angling competition there would be boxes of, not so much ling as they would be taken but, conger, dog fish and so on and tonnes of them would be dumped into the river after the weigh-in competition. That was the practice seven, eight or nine years ago, but that has all changed. Conservation officers were appointed in every club and now everything is weighed and returned to sea. That does not happen in commercial fishing unfortunately and despite the best efforts, undersized fish are caught and die before anything can be done about it. We all need to work together in that regard.

I refer to Deputy O'Donovan, Deputy Martin Brady and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. They are on the side of people involved with the sea. They are working with these people and they know the background, history, culture and dangers involved. I would listen very carefully to their comments on this matter. I will add my comments as well. Our fishing assets are in the ownership of all the people, not just the fishermen or consumers, and we have a right to say what should be done with them. Even if people are landlubbers, so to speak, they have a right to add their comments, as long as it is done in a fair way.

The correct use of this asset is becoming more important every day, especially, as has been said, with the demise of employment in agriculture. The sea can also be used for leisure and tourism purposes. There is enormous potential in this area, particularly in regard to inland fisheries, which was a shambles. Some ten years ago the Central Fisheries Board was examined in the Committee of Public Accounts. It was the worst organised group that ever came before us. I am pleased to say the employment of a central fisheries officer and other measures have changed things for the better.

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, has another Bill in hand that will deal with this area. I do not wish to focus too much on inland fisheries but I am sure the Minister of State would be the first one to tell me that inland and sea fishing are inextricably linked and that we must deal with them as a single topic. In the past we have dealt with the matter in a piecemeal fashion. Inland fishing is divided among coarse fishing, pike fishing, carp fishing, salmon fishing and trout fishing. They are all separate groups that are fighting their own corner and vying with each other to some extent, which does nothing for the overall good of the industry. We have a great asset and it will be diminished if we do not deal with it properly. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to encourage people to do the right thing.

The constituent to whom I referred is Tom MacSweeney, who presents the "Seascapes" programme. He has done marvellous work that has raised people's awareness, particularly in the context of Cork Harbour. Modest people that we are, we describe it as the second best natural harbour in the world. We have not tried to claim the first position as we have with so many other areas, for example, sport. I disagree with Tom MacSweeney to some extent over the siting of industry in the harbour. There is plenty of room for everything. I earned my living on an island in the centre of the harbour for a long time before I was elected to the House.

A second person to whom I wish to briefly pay tribute is Matt Murphy of Sherkin Island. The Sherkin Island marine station has done more to educate young people than any other single establishment or group, including the State. This facility is very much a voluntary effort. He has done Trojan work at a time when there was very little awareness of the need to protect species or the environment. The Minister of State referred to the intention to make the centre more prominent and to give it more facilities. Research on the potential of shellfish has been particularly important. He was doing this work before the rest of us bothered to get involved. We just kept catching the fish.

It is not all doom and gloom. I referred to the experience and commitment of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. With him in charge there is hope and potential for the industry. He will be caught in the firing line between commercial fishermen and rod anglers and in other areas. His knowledge will come to the fore. People of all parties accept what he says because of his expertise in the area. It has been said that he might be riding to orders on this one but I do not know if that is the case.

I will not refer to section 28, other than to say in passing that nobody referred to the fact that the two largest fines have been reduced by at least 50%. Two fines are being reduced from €500,000 to €200,000 and from €127,000 to €100,000. Previous speakers may not have noticed this when reading the Bill. I do not have the expertise to comment further on this section nor do I have sufficient knowledge of the industry to discuss it in greater detail. I will leave that to Deputies Martin Brady and O'Donovan. I will pay great attention to their comments. We must work together on this matter. I will finish as I started by expressing comhghairdeachas leis an Aire Stáit, Deputy Gallagher, for the effort at consolidation in this Bill which has been ignored by so many people in the past, and his commitment to fisheries in general.

Mr. Morgan

I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Boyle.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Glennon)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Morgan

In his opening contribution to this debate, the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, in referring to the waters off our coast, stated: "[T]hey are European waters now whether one likes it or not." There are many involved in the fishing industry who would see this as a large part of the problem, not that fishermen from other member states are allowed fish in our waters, but that control over those waters has, as the Minister of State admitted, been effectively handed over to the European Union under the rubric of the discredited Common Fisheries Policy.

This State has nominal sovereignty over 11% of EU fishing waters and yet Irish fishermen only take around 4% of the EU catch. It is a natural resource that has, or had, enormous potential. I say "had" because since 1973 not only have billions of euro in worth of fish been taken by foreign fleets with no advantage to the sector here, that free-for-all has resulted in the depletion of many of the species around our coast.

There is a clear need, therefore, for stocks to be managed and conserved but the problem is that Irish fishermen feel that while other fleets have been responsible and are still responsible for the bulk of over-fishing, it is they who are being made to pay the main price. This explains the huge anger that exists among fishermen and fishing communities at what they perceive to be the attempt through the Bill to criminalise them. Other Deputies have detailed the massive discrepancies that will exist between the level of penalties imposed on Irish fishermen and their EU counterparts if this Bill is passed. That will only compound the discrepancy which already exists between the policing of Irish vessels and those from other states.

When Commodore Lynch of the Naval Service spoke recently to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, he provided figures which show that the majority of the serious actions, including warnings and detentions, taken by the Naval Service against fishing boats are against Irish boats. This is despite the fact that around 60% of the larger fishing vessels operating in Irish waters are foreign vessels and that these are most likely to be involved in illegal practices.

That belief is confirmed by the evidence of fishermen who observe these vessels in action and the ploys in which they engage to avoid detection. Even when they are boarded, there appears to be little the Irish Naval Service can do, as Commodore Lynch admitted to the Oireachtas committee. Not only is it difficult for the Irish Naval Service to monitor the quota given to foreign vessels, it is not even its role. In effect, this means that foreign vessels can operate with a large degree of impunity in Irish waters and that advantage will be further tilted in their favour by the introduction of the type of penalties against Irish fishermen proposed in this legislation.

In his speech, the Minister of State said "There is an obligation on every Member and on the European Commission to ensure that we have a sustainable fishery and preserve resources for future generations". On the face of it that is true. However, how much concern did other member states or the Commission show during the 30 years that Irish fish stocks were subject to a virtual open season? It is only recently that they expressed concern. It appears the onus for preserving stocks is to be placed on Irish fishermen alone.

I was glad to see that Deputies Perry and Broughan agree the Common Fisheries Policy has been a total failure and is in need of an overhaul. My party argued this for a long time, just as we pointed out the manner in which Irish fisheries were sacrificed as part of a deal made on accession to the then EEC in 1973. I know other speakers made that point and several other related points. It is not too late to attempt to revoke that or at least engage in some damage limitation to ensure Irish fishermen are given priority in the future management of our fishing waters and that this State begins to exercise some sovereignty in this regard.

I concur with calls from other Members for a full debate on the future of the Irish fishing industry. That debate must involve a root and branch examination of the terms under which Irish waters are mismanaged under the Common Fisheries Policy and the proposals for a new strategy from those involved in the sector. I suggest the first step should be the rejection of this legislation.

As someone with a background entirely spent in the fishing industry, with the exception of a few years when I had to engage in activity regarding British occupation of part of our country and this political excursion for as long as it lasts, I must state I could be passionate and fired up about this issue. However, I felt that might cause a diversion to the backbench Deputies who stated they are particularly displeased and angry with this legislation. I want them to keep that anger until they vote on this legislation. I hope they will exercise it wisely.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005. It is an important debate and should involve all Members of the Oireachtas——

Mr. O’Connor

Hear, hear.

Mr. F. McGrath

——including Members who do not represent areas near ports or coastal areas and not only those with a particular interest in the fishing industry and fishermen. I happen to live in Dublin North-Central which includes Dublin Port and Dublin Bay and, as such, I have an interest in marine and fishing issues. It is important we have a broad debate because the State's fishing industry belongs to the people and the people directly involved in the fishing industry must be supported by all Members of the Oireachtas. While I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill, I strongly oppose it because major issues arise.

Ireland is a maritime country. It is an island nation with a strong, long and proud history of fishing and life on the sea and fishing is of major importance. We must also be conscious of the economic benefits of the fishing industry in modern-day life. That is why I state as an Independent Member of the Oireachtas that I will examine the objective and sensible proposals in the legislation. I will also examine the proposals and amendments that support fishermen, conservation and the development of the fishing industry as a whole. It is important to develop the fishing industry to the maximum potential of the people working in it in the interests of the tax payers and citizens of the country.

We often forget about the difficulties, dangers and hazardous conditions faced by people in the industry, such as those caused by climate changes. We must have great respect and admiration for them. It is not a cushy number. It is a difficult job and good luck to them and their families in times when they benefit economically because they work extremely hard and take risks. We should not apologise for that in any way. Many people involved in the industry have lost their lives and we should not lose sight of that.

This brings me to the area of safety at sea. During recent days we saw the case involving the Pisces, the tragic deaths of people in Wexford, the suffering of the families and the situation of the owner of the boat. That case was horrific and sad. Did we learn lessons from it? As I speak, how many people are bringing out boats without proper life-jackets or taking the necessary safety measures? I know from visiting different parts of the country, such as beautiful parts of Galway or Kerry, one goes on boat trips and no one insists on the wearing of life jackets. That is unacceptable and I urge the Minister of State to take this issue on board when dealing with future legislation. We cannot allow more tragic deaths to occur.

On the broader issue of fishing, we must listen to the people involved in the industry and that is why I am concerned about the legislation. No Department or Minister will progress without the support and consent of the people involved in the industry. If fishermen approach us, we must listen to their concerns and reflect them in the legislation. It is important we have a planned and well thought-out strategy on conservation. I strongly support my colleagues when they raise the issue of conservation and planning for the future. I know that is a concern for some people and rightly so.

We must break the mindset from our history regarding illegal fishing. We had a tradition of being against the empire, which is perfectly understandable for a nation controlled by an imperial power. People fished illegally as a challenge to the empire. We have moved on from the days of rogue fishermen setting lines in the middle of the night and fishing illegally. It is time for a change in mindset. To ensure proper planning, conservation must be part of the broader agenda. Aspects of this Bill are directly connected to this point and I acknowledge that.

Society in general often ignores this issue. We must consider the role of fish and health issues in society. We need new creative ideas. We have a terrible situation of a massive cancer epidemic in society. This is obviously connected to diet and the modern way of life. Statistics show that the high rates of cancer represent an epidemic much worse than the TB epidemic in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. This is not accepted as a reality. A sensible strategy by the Department of Health and Children would recognise the importance of fish in the diet of Irish people. This is particularly true of oily fish in respect of heart disease, blood and cholesterol. Creative Ministers for Health and Children and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources would recognise the need to focus on marketing and development. A planned campaign should encourage people to eat fish two or three times per week rather than once. A campaign on the value of fish is needed and I encourage the Minister not to price fish out of the market.

Major concerns about this Bill must be acknowledged. The Dumping at Sea Act also refers to the proposed fill-in of 52 acres in Dublin Bay. I commend Dublin Bay Watch Limited for its campaign,which I support. I will continue the tradition of Mr. Seán Dublin Bay Loftus.

Mr. Boyle

On Second Stage the Labour Party spokesman, Deputy Broughan, attempted to defer the Bill. As party Whip I supported this, perhaps for different reasons to the other two Opposition parties. The Green Party's position on this Bill has nothing to do with opposition for the sake of it. As our party spokesperson has highlighted, we support this Bill in its intent and content. However, we find it hard to believe the Government supports it. Regular reports suggest disagreement between the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Several contributions from Government Deputies suggest faith in this legislation is not what it should be from a Government presenting a Bill to this House. While supporting this Bill on Second Stage, I fear the Bill we will see after Committee and Report Stages will be a different type of animal. That would be most unfortunate.

I come from an island and fishing background. My family history would have been irredeemably altered if my grandfather had not stayed for another drink and instead took his place on the ferry before the Arranmore boat disaster. I know the risks to which people engaged in the fishing industry are exposed. That has changed somewhat with the modernisation of our fleet. Unfortunately, a Cinderella industry has seen its modernisation occur at a time when the raw material for the fishing industry has been most damaged.

We must acknowledge overfishing in our oceans. When Ireland was a smaller fishing nation it was easier to blame other nations for the size of their fleet and their capacity to take our stock. It was easier to blame inefficiency and ineptitude of other governments for the Common Fisheries Policy, in failing to negotiate proper standards and quotas for our fishing industry. The reality is that the modern Irish fishing fleet contains too many large vessels that are, in conservation terms, vacuum cleaners. The 20 ft boat is no longer the mainstay of our fleet. If we are serious about sustaining fishing stocks and how the industry can sustain coastal communities around the country, we must acknowledge that Irish people take some responsibility for overfishing.

The more we have modernised, the more we have moved away from the concept of the captain owner of a vessel. Many of those who benefit from the Irish fishing industry are not those who go out on boats and fish. They sit at home in citadels, wait for the fleet to come in and count the profits. With such distance between the nature and danger of the industry and the community that needs to benefit from the industry, questions must be asked on past legislation and how it can benefit people at which it is targeted.

The unfortunate aspect of the need to rigorously enforce conservation measures for our fishing stocks is that it leads to confrontation between many in the fishing industry and those policing on behalf of the State. It is regrettable that the Irish Naval Service, which does an excellent job on fisheries protection, finds itself confronted by people who seek to bend rules, exceed quotas and gain a competitive advantage by challenging the forces of the State. That cannot be condoned by this House.

If we are serious about a fishing industry of which we can be proud and developing that industry for the future, we must speak with one voice to ensure this happens. That said, I look forward with interest to the amendments if proposed by the Government. If they are of a number and type that changes the nature of this Bill, the strong support of the Green Party can no longer persist.

Mr. Wilkinson

I come from Waterford, the historically famous port of Helvick and Dunmore East, adjacent to the Celtic Sea and a rich fishing ground. As we examine the fishing industry, it bears a resemblance to the agriculture industry in that it is difficult to attract young people to it. We realise the great danger associated with this hazardous occupation but I wonder if this is factored into legislation. In monetary terms this is a small but important industry. God be with the days when fish on Friday was set in stone. As in many other areas, change is prevalent in the fishing industry.

I compliment Deputies Martin Brady and Denis O'Donovan, who know the fishing industry well, on their contributions and the concerns they have raised. Why is the enactment of this Bill urgent? Two judgments of the Supreme Court, the Browne judgment of 2003 and the Kennedy judgment of 2005, have undermined the legal basis for implementing fishery law under the current Acts. The Commission is monitoring Ireland's performance on control and is likely to pursue the State in the European Court if we do not take action. This could result in financial penalties being imposed on the State, to be paid by taxpayers. France was recently fined €2 million, with a continuing fine of €57 million, in respect of enforcement failures.

Many concerns exist about this Bill, mainly that the current fine structures should be replaced by administrative sanctions. Fines are too high and an independent control agency should be set up. The Navy should not have the power to fire at fishing boats and there is unequal treatment of Irish and foreign boats in the Bill. Attempts should be made to take these concerns on board. I compliment the Minister of State on his commitment to the fishing industry, not only in Dáil Éireann but also in Brussels and Strasbourg, where he represented the people of Connaught-Ulster with distinction. We are very lucky to have a man with his great knowledge of fishing handling this situation.

The primary purpose of this Bill is to modernise the legislative framework for sea fisheries. The principal Act currently in place was adopted in the mid-20th century and was subject to a number of amendments. It was designed for a sea fishing industry that primarily involved short trips by small Irish boats. The sea fishing industry has changed almost beyond recognition since then, in terms of the size of the fleet. It now includes many multi-million euro businesses with large Irish boats operating in far away regions and large non-Irish boats fishing in Irish waters. The latter often land their catches in Ireland and many Members will be familiar with the number of French vessels landing in Killybegs and Castletownbere.

The industry is now substantially regulated at EU level, through the Common Fisheries Policy. In that context, the Bill is designed to fill a major gap in the Fisheries Act regarding the implementation of the EU common fisheries policy, following litigation which resulted in the impugning by the Supreme Court of certain secondary legislation for lack of cover in the current Acts. It is necessary to amend the legal framework to have regard for these realities and to modernise our systems and structures so that best practice in fishery management and control is implemented. The Bill represents a sound basis for progress. However it needs further work and I am confident the Minister of State will take my views and concerns on board before enactment.

The regulation of the fishing industry must accommodate the small vessel as well as the enormous fish-processing boats that fish European waters. In this regard, I suggest a number of changes to the Bill. It must provide for administrative and graded sanctions and decriminalise fishery offences. According to EU data, 86% of all EU fisheries offences are now dealt with by way of administrative sanctions.

The section relating to the seafood manager should be deleted as it is only a mechanism for resolving an internal Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources management issue, adds little or nothing to the provision of improved control and enforcement, lacks accountability and undermines and sidelines the role of the Minister. Should such a position be necessary, then a fully independent officer of a seafood control regulator should be established, with an appropriate appeals mechanism.

The automatic confiscation of catch and gear, which only applies to Irish vessels, must be changed to allow the issue to be decided at the discretion of the courts. The fines and penalties detailed in the Bill lack proportionality and must be reduced and changed. The underlining principle must be that only serious fisheries offences attract serious penalties. There is no reason the small fisherman should be put out of business because of a once-off indiscretion. Proportionality must be borne in mind when the issue of fines and penalties is being discussed.

The provision on the use of firearms against fishing vessels must be deleted. In recent months we have seen what happens when firearms are used to solve disputes. We have spent more than 30 years, and some would say a great deal longer, trying to take firearms off the scene in Ireland, for many reasons. Great progress has been made and the use of firearms against fishing vessels should be deleted from the Bill. Emotions run high on the seas and tense situations might only be inflamed by the use of firearms. In society, we condemn the use and prevalence of firearms. We should try to curtail the prevalence of firearms rather than legislating for their use on fishing vessels.

I ask the Minister of State to take on board my views and concerns. I am very grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill.

Mr. O’Connor

I appreciate Deputy Wilkinson's courtesy in agreeing to share his time with me. I welcome the opportunity to comment on this legislation and compliment and congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, for his work in this area.

I will not rise to the lecture we got this morning about the motives of those of us who wish to speak on this legislation who do not live by the sea or who cannot see the sea from our front windows. It is very important that we take our role in the Parliament seriously and that all of us uphold that principle. I could easily be very insular and stay in Tallaght without worrying about anything else going on around me, but that is not the kind of parliamentarian I want to be. It is important that we all examine legislation and if we were to apply the same rules that have been suggested for Fianna Fáil backbenchers to the Opposition, there would not be a word out of them any day of the week. The earlier comments were a little unfair.

I do not want to be flippant, but I can stand on the hill in my parish of Belgard and see Dublin Bay just as clearly as can Deputy Finian McGrath. My paternal grandfather died on the seas, so I have an interest in the area. Deputy Finian McGrath, in a very fair contribution, made the point that we are all consumers. He and other colleagues referred to eating fish and I come from a generation where fish on a Friday was very much a ritual. Some Members will know that I had a health scare six years ago, where I had serious heart surgery. I have taken my diet seriously since then, although perhaps I should have been taking it seriously all along, and my dietician tells me that if I am telling her the truth, she is happy. I agree with the serious point made by Deputy Finian McGrath because I have found that including fish in my diet has helped my health enormously. I try to have fish at least three times a week, if not more. I encourage others to include fish in their diet. My colleague from Dublin Bay, Deputy Finian McGrath has already made the point, which is an important and fair one in the context of this discussion, that we should promote Irish fish and I hope all Members will do so. My diet is relatively small but the point is a serious one.

I wish to be associated with the complimentary remarks concerning our colleagues, Deputy O'Flynn, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Deputies O'Donovan and Martin Brady. Their statements to the Dáil and the brave and courageous manner in which they have taken on this debate indicates that they have a particular interest in the issue. Some Members will know that I am a near neighbour of Deputy O'Donovan on the Fianna Fáil corridor and have had many opportunities to talk to him and understand where he is coming from, given that we represent completely different kinds of constituencies. I made the point in a debate yesterday that it is good for Deputies, particularly new Deputies like me, to have the opportunity to share experiences and information with colleagues and there are a number of issues on which I have been able to take advantage of Deputy O'Donovan's skill and understanding. I hope when he has to tackle serious urban problems he will pick my brain and I will be happy to facilitate that. I have listened very carefully to what Deputy O'Donovan and other colleagues have been saying. It is good that we can take the opportunity to show solidarity and to understand where they are coming from and to try to help to promote the views they are expressing.

I suspect I do not have much time to deal with the concerns expressed about the legislation and I do not know if I will have an opportunity to do so in the future.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 24 Nov 2005

Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Nov 2005