I had the opportunity over several weeks to hear a number of the contributions on this Bill. I listened with bated breath today to Deputy Glennon. One would swear he was on this side of the House. I know most of what I am concerned about has been thrashed out on Second Stage over a long period. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher's colleague, Deputy Glennon, paid tribute to him in saying that more than most Members of the House he was closely associated with and has a great knowledge of the fishing industry. I share that view and have always done so. However, I cannot understand how the Minister of State, if he will pardon the pun, has got caught on the hook he is now on. Time and again, his own colleagues in the House have pointed out the blatant shortfalls in the Bill. That is a matter of public record. I assume there will be a division at the end of Second Stage at 4.30 p.m. It will be remarkable in any democratic sense if the people that I have listened to talk about the Bill's serious practical defects walk through the lobbies and vote with the Government. I sincerely hope the fishermen they thought they were helping will read the Official Report and see precisely what they have been doing. I had always understood that when legislation was proposed by Government, it came through the House on the understanding that it was backed by the Cabinet and that the Government parties would support it, through the Whip system. Everything would be cleared except for minor details which will always arise with Bills of this type. The Government is presenting and asking the House to vote for a Bill which the majority of Government party Deputies have been warning the Minister of State is flawed. They do not like it and they regard it as being anti-fisherman.
For a Bill that proposes to be in the best interests of Irish fishermen, I do not understand why the Minister of State's people are so much against it. I hope it will be hand-tripped along the line. Who devised some of proposals in the Bill? It may be the senior Minister or the Civil Service or the European Union because I do not believe it is the Minister of State.
I cannot say I possess a deep knowledge of the fishing industry but I know many fishermen and I held the position of Opposition spokesman on fisheries for a few months some years ago. I do not understand why any Irish Government would want to put its fishermen at a much greater disadvantage in so far as criminality is concerned. No one will understand this better than the Minister of State. This Bill commits Irish fishermen to a level of court charges, fees and fines which no other fishermen in any other European state would be within an ass's roar of. Neither I nor the Fine Gael party will back wrong-doers, whether they are in farming, banking or fishing. Law and order and the rule of law must be respected.
Spain is one of the great fishing nations but I understand that only four court proceedings have resulted out of 4,000 cases of infringement or possible infringement in that country. What is the rationale behind the Government's decision to introduce such a level of charges? It is not apparent to any of us in the House. We all appreciate that checks and balances are necessary in all areas of life and fishing is no exception. We all acknowledge it is a difficult way to make a living and it is similar in many ways to the world of farming. There are fewer fishermen in the business than five or ten years ago. It is acknowledged the Common Fisheries Policy has not been good for Ireland, for whatever reason, over the years. The fish stocks were allowed to be fished out and now we are in a very sorry state. The industry badly needs to be given more confidence. The Minister of State knows a great deal about the industry and he has great respect for the people in it, as have all his backbenchers. However, he proposes to criminalise fishermen when there is no need to do so.
Deputy Glennon read a letter which was obviously put on the record by Deputy O'Donovan. It refers to a young fisherman who was in court recently for failure to fill out the log book. I assume it is very important to fill out the log book because this is part of the quota system and provides important information. However, had this case been heard in a Spanish court, the fisherman would have received a fine of a few thousand euro on the administrative side and no criminality would be attached. However, when the fisherman had paid everybody, including his solicitor, it had cost him €80,000.
The Minister of State proposes fines as high as €200,000 for serious misdemeanours. His backbenchers stated in this Chamber that they did not like the Bill and I understand why. If they are true to form, however, as they have been over the years, they will not be like sheep but rather like fish to be filleted. They will vote with the Government despite anything they may have said previously.
Fishing is closely associated with tourism and it is carried on in some of the remotest areas of the country. I am a party spokesperson on regional development. There is very little development of any kind in the areas where fishing takes place. Some of these coastal areas have bad roads and under-resourced villages and towns.
I am aware of the EU implications and we have been warned that the sky will fall if this Bill is not passed this week. I have listened to many ultimatums from Brussels. What are the principles applied by our negotiators in Brussels when it comes down to a vital national asset such as this? It is similar to the milk quota in the world of farming years ago. This Bill will haul Irish fishermen into the courts to face charges which in most cases are not serious by any standards but the sentencing, fines and penalties proposed will cause the fishermen to wonder what sort of regime is running the country.
If someone fishes without a licence in Spain, the average fine for such an offence is €1,463 whereas the fine for the same offence in this country will be €21,000. They are all fishermen following the same way of life and all citizens of the European Union. It is difficult to understand why we are putting the boot into this great industry. It has been a great industry for a variety of reasons. The communities served by the fishing industry would be wastelands without it. The people who contacted me about this Bill are incensed by it. They do not understand what the Minister of State is at. Given the knowledge he has of the industry, had the Minister of State been in the place of his colleagues rather than in his current position, he would have been the most vociferous person in the House with regard to how bad and unfair this legislation is. The most outstanding aspect of this legislation is its unfairness.
I would like to know what the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, thinks of this. Is this his work? I am surprised he is not here to answer for it on behalf of the Government. Given that he is the senior Minister, one would have expected him to be here. However, when the Government was formed the marine area was sidelined and removed from the Minister's brief. It was only through the Minister of State's elevation that it was accorded some measure of respectability. This would make us wonder whether Government has decided to write fisheries out of the script altogether. If that is the case, the problem is even greater than we thought.
I do not need to tell the Minister of State that the fishing industry has been crying out for change for years. When I first read Deputy Gallagher's speech, I could not believe what I was reading. I could not believe that under this Bill any naval officer, irrespective of the jurisdiction they are from, would have the power to fire at or onto a boat. I know that provision has been removed. However, the Minister of State could not blame me or any of the Government backbenchers from wondering what those who included that provision would be capable of including in the legislation if we had no counterbalances.
I genuinely believe that it is very important we instil confidence in fishermen and the fishing industry. I do not have time to go through all the issues we should be discussing, but which have not been covered here. I hope the Minister of State will do something about the issue of salmon drift net fishing. I hope the day comes when all sides of that case are given a fair hearing. We know from tourism statistics that a salmon caught by a tourist is more beneficial to the State, by a factor of 150, than a salmon caught in the ordinary way. I hope the Minister of State puts his mind to this issue in the near future. I am somewhat surprised that something has not happened in this regard already, because I heard the Minister of State speak about the issue long ago. I would have thought that if anybody in the House could do something about this, it would be him, but it is not happening, whatever the reason.
I understand there have been a number of court cases and Supreme Court judgments in this area, namely in the Browne v Attorney General and Kennedy v Attorney General cases. I did not have time to study those judgments in detail, but I understand the word from the Department is that this legislation must be passed. I have heard this kind of talk before. Sometimes it might be the case, but other times there is no need for the rush. Rushed legislation was always bad legislation, irrespective of what it set out to do.
I do not know what the agenda is, but whatever it is, it is not normal for a Government to put the boot into the fishing industry as this Government is doing. I may be charged that this is Opposition drivel, but our job is to expose by whatever means we can the faults in legislation. We have heard all sides, including the Progressive Democrats, state that this legislation is not wanted. Their way out of it is to say that because they put the boot in at the parliamentary party and did this or that, matters will be different when the amendments are introduced. As long as I am in this House, I cannot remember a Bill being substantially changed. If this Bill is dramatically changed, will it bear any resemblance to the Bill that was introduced? Where will we stand then? We understand the House has the job of debating amendments, but I am beginning to think that the original Bill is so flawed that it should be thrown out.
I understand that the average fine for a logbook offence in Denmark is approximately €393. The same offence here will incur a fine of €8,455 when this legislation is passed. In the UK, a person found fishing for a prohibited species incurs a fine of €2,380.
