The committee agreed earlier to run this meeting until 2 p.m. and to resume on Tuesday at noon and continue until 8 p.m., with the normal arrangements for lunch and the Order of Business. If we have not concluded our business by Tuesday, we shall resume on Wednesday at 10 a.m. and continue until 8 p.m., with the normal sos and a break for the Order of Business. On Thursday, if we have not previously concluded our deliberations, we will meet from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m.
Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005: Committee Stage (Resumed).
On a point of clarification, is it the case that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will take the entire Bill, particularly as the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, is speaking on the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Bill in the House? We need clarity about the arrangements for next week.
Will the Minister give a brief response and indicate if he will be taking the entire Bill?
What is the position of the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, in whom we had much trust?
As is normal, the Bill will be taken by me and the Minister of State. I intend to take as much of it as I can.
I wish to bring to the attention of members an error in the published list of amendments. The lead-in text to amendment No. 117 reads “In page 34, between lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following:”, whereas it should read “In page 34, between lines 24 and 25 to insert the following:”. Does Deputy Broughan require a copy of the text or can he correct it on his list of amendments?
Is the Chairman referring to page 34 on the list of amendments?
Yes.
Is it the amendment relating to the consultative committee?
I am referring to amendment No. 117 on page 19 of the list of amendments, which refers to page 34 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 117.
Yes. The amendment contains a drafting error.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 50 comprise 15 amendments from Deputy Broughan, ten from Deputy Eamon Ryan, four from Deputy Perry, five from Deputy Ferris and 16 from the Minister. I hope we can deal with those today and, if possible, continue beyond them.
SECTION 1.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 9, subsection (2), line 19, before "Act" to insert "Sea Fisheries Acts 1952 to 1982, the".
The citation should include all the fisheries Acts from 1952 to 1982.
I cannot accept the amendments because the Sea Fisheries Acts 1952 to 1982 are a separate set of eight Acts, as amended. As they deal largely with Bord Iascaigh Mhara, they are not affected by this Bill. Obviously, the Acts can be reviewed in due course as may be required. Neither of the amendments is necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 3, 207 and 222 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, lines 30 and 31, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) The Mercantile Marine Acts 1955 to 1983, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1994 insofar as it relates to mercantile marine and section 67 may be cited together as the Mercantile Marine Acts 1955 to 2006 and shall be construed together as one.”.
This amendment is similar to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in that it deals with the same issue. The Minister should deal with the existing citation for the Mercantile Marine Acts 1955 to 1983. The amendment could be redundant if all the relevant provisions are repealed in subsection (5) but perhaps the Minister would confirm this.
The Deputy is correct in his last assumption. The Bill provides for the repeal of both the 1983 and 1994 provisions relevant to the mercantile marine. For that reason, the text of the Bill is correct as it stands. If we were not repealing them, the Deputy's amendment might have had relevance. However, they are being repealed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 9, lines 32 and 33, to delete subsection (6) and substitute the following:
"(6) The Fishery Harbour Centres Acts 1968 to 2005 and section 69 may be cited together as the Fishery Harbour Centres Acts 1968 to 2006.”.
These are technical drafting amendments to subsections (6) and (8). They arise simply because the Bill has been delayed from 2005 to 2006.
The officials sent us a briefing about the Department as it now exists. It is a Department that is slipping under the waves as the days pass. The fishery harbours are still within the Minister's remit. Does that mean all the fishery harbours or just the five or, if one includes Dingle, six national harbours? Is that the current position?
There are only five at present. Dingle has not yet been certified. They are the harbours to which we are referring.
Are all the other harbours and small ports along the coast covered by the Department of Transport?
Yes. The intention, and we had already started the process, is that we would talk to local authorities about taking responsibility for them. The Department of Transport will probably continue that policy.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, lines 3 and 4, to delete subsection (8) and substitute the following:
"(8) The Maritime Safety Acts 1992 to 2005 and section 71 may be cited together as the Maritime Safety Acts 1992 to 2006.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, lines 26 to 41, to delete subsection (2).
This amendment deletes a standard interpretation of a reference provision of individual Bills which is no longer required as the matter is comprehensively covered in all Bills henceforth under the Interpretation Act 2005, which came into force on 1 January 2006.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 11, subsection 2, line 3, to delete", section 44”.
This amendment deletes an unnecessary specific reference to section 44 which is contained in Part 2 of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 17 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Each year the Minister shall present for approval to each of the Houses of the Oireachtas a Sustainability Impact Assessment of Sea Fisheries for the Exclusive Economic Zone and Exclusive Fishing Limits of Ireland (as defined in section 54 and section 55) based on consultation with all relevant stakeholders, and this assessment shall, as far as practicable, be presented in advance of the date of any negotiations by the Minister on the common fisheries policy in regard to national quotas, total allowable catches or other fish capture mechanisms in the sea areas in question.”.
This is the first of the fundamental amendments. It requires the Minister to present for the approval of each House of the Oireachtas a sustainability impact assessment of sea fisheries for the exclusive economic zone and exclusive fishing limits of Ireland, as defined in sections 54 and 55, based on consultation with the stakeholders in the fishing industry and with coastal communities. As far as practicable, the assessment should be presented in advance of the date of any negotiations by the Minister on the Common Fisheries Policy in regard to national quotas, total allowable catches or other fish capture mechanisms in the sea areas in question.
This relates to the debate we have had on sea fisheries in recent months. The Opposition regrets the way in which Mr. Tuohy and certain journalists with whom he seems to have close contact advanced a point of view about fisheries, which I believe was derogatory of fishing communities — in many cases it was a dastardly attack on them — and the great struggles most of them have endured over the years. Everybody was aware that there were illegal practices. In fact, there was blatant misbehaviour by a tiny number of people in certain fishery harbours.
This is almost the tenth year of this Administration. The Minister and his predecessors, including Deputy Fahey, have had a long time to come to grips with the fundamental problems facing this critical resource. Civil servants such as Mr. Tuohy who have held responsibility in this area have also had that opportunity. However, they suddenly produced the Bill and asked that it be passed a few weeks later. In addition, they got Mr. Stephen Collins to produce an article which made a savage attack on the fishing industry. That is, essentially, what happened. Why did the Minister's Department and its officials never come forward with an evaluation of Irish fisheries each year, put it before the representatives of the people in the House and explain the maritime resources of this country?
The marine sector has been treated disgracefully by Fianna Fáil. The individual Department was abolished in 2002 and now the sector's status is being further eroded. I pledge that if the Labour Party enters government, there will once again be a Department of the Marine.
It should have been relevant for civil servants to work on the Gothenburg Council conclusions and to examine what was happening to our resources. There has been gross illegality on the part of a tiny number of Irish operators but the vast bulk of those whom I and other colleagues represent at Howth Harbour have been trying desperately to survive, year in and year out, often with no help from the Minister's Department. They have experienced all kinds of difficulty, including harbour charges, and have never received any guidance. For example, when the men and women of Howth went to the Department in 1993 or 1994 to seek exclusion zones in order to protect cod resources in the Irish Sea, they received no assistance whatsoever. There are questions to answer, including why the Civil Service, the Minister and his predecessors have never come forward with this kind of structure.
We could have had annual discussions on the sustainability of fish stocks before coming to the floor of the Dáil early in the autumn session to outline the position. The Minister could then have gone to Europe to negotiate taxes and quotas. Instead, there was a last-minute situation on Christmas Eve involving the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Similar scenarios, involving the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, occurred in previous years. We were suddenly presented with a list of fish species that are under threat. It is a last-minute effort that discloses the Government's contempt for the marine environment and the survival of maritime communities.
Based on the work of the Marine Institute, a careful annual evaluation is required to demonstrate what is happening in the sector. I give credit to the Chairman for what has been achieved and, in particular, what transpired when representatives of the Naval Service came before the committee. On that occasion, we were aghast to hear for the first time that we had no control over the management of quotas or of European fleets coming into our waters. There was absolutely nothing we could do about that and no steps could be taken in this regard. Our British colleagues experienced the same problem, which is why in the most recent general election there one of the parties adopted a policy to abolish the Common Fisheries Policy. The party in question wanted Britain to return to managing its own resources.
From our viewpoint, the national resources contained in the 1 million sq. km. of sea, as displayed on the map provided by the Marline Institute, are primarily the heritage of the Irish people. The resources are ours to manage, so it is useless to employ fire-brigade mechanisms in this regard.
The Minister's predecessor provided huge quotas to one or two operators. We remember all the scandalous behaviour of that era. The Minister, his party and his predecessor created that situation, yet he is now defaming the entire industry, including men and women in coastal communities who depend upon it. Day after day, these people operate out of small ports and in a savage environment to try to earn a living. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to these amendments in order to involve the Oireachtas in assessing our fishing resources in a public and transparent manner. In that way, we can see what stocks are there and what kind of commitments we can afford to agree to with other European states in order to protect those resources. We should do that in the first instance and then ask other European Governments, particularly the Spanish and French, to embark on the same course.
I have held this portfolio for the Labour Party for the past few years but it is not good to be presented with a fait accompli on Christmas Eve when the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, together with the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, was smiling. Then we suddenly heard that all our fishing resources were devastated. That is not the way to do business because it is unfair to coastal communities which depend on the maritime sector. I ask the Minister to accept this modest amendment.
The Finance Bill will be coming before the House shortly but certain other fundamental matters occur annually which must be dealt with also. The fisheries sector, including the maritime communities that depend on it, deserve three or four hours of debate in the Dáil to discuss what we can do about our fishery resources. The Minister could then strongly represent those communities in Europe. We need an assessment of those resources in order that we might know exactly where we are going. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
For purposes of clarification, is Deputy Broughan proposing that, as is the case every year, we engage with the industry?
I would like the Minister to present this assessment to us for discussion. We could then debate it on the floor of the Dáil, while the Minister and the marine spokespersons could lead the discussions. We could then inform him about what the country thinks before he represents us in European discussions.
Does the Deputy want this to be done annually?
Yes, as is the case with the budget.
Deputy Broughan's recommendation is good and I support it. The lack of consultation prior to the publication of the Bill was quite extraordinary. Representatives of the Naval Service and the Marine Institute came before the committee and vested interests spoke about developing the sector. It is regrettable, however, that there has not been more consultation on the part of the Minister's office. The amendment tabled by Deputy Broughan would bring transparency which regrettably has been absent. The hallmark of the Bill has been unfounded allegations. The Minister mentioned the Browne and Kennedy cases, which is completely irrelevant.
We cannot have a Second Stage debate now.
No, but it was completely irrelevant. It is not correct to flaunt that type of allegation as justification for what is happening here.
I was under the impression that the Marine Institute, our fishing industry and the Department were monitoring fish stocks closely and very well. I have no problem with the thrust or concept of Deputy Broughan's remarks. I endorse what he said about the particular article in The Irish Times today, which seems to vilify the fishing industry. That is unfair and untrue. My family has been involved in fishing since the time of my great, great grandfather. As a representative of a coastal community, I find the notion that fishermen are, by and large, thieves or rogues, conveys the wrong impression. The point was made that some backbenchers, including me, were seeking administrative fines for serious offences but that was never the issue.
To bring some balance to the debate, and in fairness to the Minister and his predecessor, since 1997 significant improvements have been made in the fishing industry. A programme was introduced in 1997 by the then coalition Government, which saw the renewal of the entire whitefish fleet on which over €60 million was spent. Immense work was done on piers and harbours along the coastline and, therefore, I cannot condone the view that Fianna Fáil neglected the fishing industry. In 1997, a programme for Government was laid out in which all factors relating to the fishing sector, including safety at sea, attracted millions of euro in investment and correctly so. That programme was fully implemented from 1997 to 2002.
I recall having a debate on local radio with a Labour Senator who shall remain nameless. As the word "fishing" did not appear in the Labour Party's 1997 programme for Government, I will not be lectured on that point.
That is not true.
It is. The Deputy should check the position.
It is not true. The Deputy should check his own programme.
Our programme was fully implemented and the Minister confirmed that.
We cannot have a Second Stage debate.
I do not want this debate to go down the road of political rumblings, as appears to be the case at present. Deputy Broughan embarked on that path during a tirade against Deputy Fiona O'Malley yesterday.
I want to move on.
I have one major issue with this Bill, about which the Minister is aware. It is the issue most members would like to see resolved. We can debate many of the technical amendments. In fairness, I have no difficulty with 97% of the Bill. In case the message goes out that we want to pull this Bill or to filibuster, I have a particular issue with the Bill which I will discuss at a later stage. At the same time, however, I do not want the message going abroad that we are all opposed to the Bill and against the Minister. For many reasons, I feel deeply about these issues. We can debate that at a later stage without introducing the nastiness of inter-political exchanges, which do nothing for the fishing industry or members.
I thank the Deputy. He knows that before the meeting we agreed to try to manage the amendments and we will discuss those issues as they arise.
I wish to record my abhorrence at the disgraceful article in The Irish Times today, first, for the attacks on the entire fishing industry by using the argument of a few boats against the entire industry, and, second, for the vilification of elected representatives who have taken a principled stand in support of our fishing communities. The article, to put it mildly, is a disgrace and represents gutter journalism.
I concur entirely with what Deputy Broughan stated on amendment No. 8. A major issue is the lack of consultation, politically as well as with the industry, right across the board. I commend the fishing organisations on the peaceful protest to highlight their grievances, which should be taken on board during the debate on the contents of the Bill. They need to be commended and supported on the disciplined way in which they have approached this matter.
I ask the Minister to respond on amendments Nos. 8 and 17. I will not engage in any controversy today. We have a plan of action to get through as many amendments as possible.
The Chairman should not press the Minister too much.
As I told another member yesterday, I am in charge of the committee hearings.
I accept that fully. The Deputies opposite levelled accusations against civil servants in the Department and made political statements but I take it that these have been addressed by Deputy O'Donovan's comments and I will refrain from attacking Deputy Broughan about the investment by his party when it was in power. However, I will not sit here and listen to him attacking the Secretary General of my Department because that is not acceptable. I am responsible for the Department. I take full responsibility for the Department. Mr. Touhy is the Accounting Officer and he comes before this committee and the Committee of Public Accounts at different times. I ask Deputy Broughan to withdraw his remarks about the Secretary General of the Department. I will take political responsibility for the Department. Mr. Touhy has a different role and it is not fair that he be named in this committee and accused of a variety of different things. That is unfair and unacceptable. I ask Deputy Broughan to withdraw his remarks, which were out of order.
The Minister had a responsibility to come before the House and inform us about what he was going to do. That matter is the subject of the amendment.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw his remark. I am big enough and robust enough to be able——
To be briefing against people——
Deputy Broughan is making an accusation for which he has no basis.
There is a long-standing tradition in the House whereby a Deputy should not refer to an official by name. Will Deputy Broughan kindly withdraw his remarks about the Secretary General?
I withdraw that remark in so far as it applies——
I thank the Deputy. On the amendment——
——but the Minister should take up his responsibilities and not delegate them to civil servants.
Deputy Broughan does not seem to be fully aware of what happens in this particular matter of assessment of sea fisheries. Irish, EU and international scientists agree on an assessment of the situation each year, in the case of all the relevant fish stocks, in advance of the December EU Fisheries Council meeting. We are not talking about fixed assets in any one place. Many of the fish stocks of which we speak straddle Irish waters as well as many other EU and third country waters. The combined work of Irish, EU and other international scientists is co-ordinated and the results are made available publicly through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, which has its headquarters in Copenhagen.
In addition, Deputy Broughan is incorrect in stating that there are no consultations. The relevant stakeholders are consulted through regional advisory councils which were established under the 2002 reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy.
The scientific data are available in printed booklet and CD form and I am sure we in the Department have no difficulty in making them available to the committee. Neither have we any difficulty coming before the committee to discuss the matter before we attend the Fisheries Council in December. However, it would be a matter that we would discuss with the committee before we go. I am not accepting this amendment in light of the fact that we are not solely in control of this approach in its entirety.
There is not much we can do about the fact that the EU Fisheries Council meets at Christmas. Successive Ministers and officials would have been delighted if they could have two or three weeks in the approach to Christmas that was spent doing something other than engaging in debates and discussions on this. I am not accepting the amendment or the subsequent one.
On a point of clarification, the Minister stated that the stock quotas relate to scientific data. Is there any input from those actively involved in the industry into the research on the condition of stocks?
The Minister also made a statement on consultation with regional areas within the industry. My information is to the contrary. Is consultation an ultimatum? I am in contact with fishermen and people actively involved in the industry. If there was consultation, other than ultimatums being issued, the Minister certainly would have at least some sector of the industry in support of this Bill. However, none of them supports it.
The Minister mentioned ICES and various other scraps of information that we receive. In reality, the committee and Deputies operate in response to the press releases that the Minister — like his predecessors — issues in those rushed days before Christmas. We probably would have been briefed by the fishery organisations about the different stocks and what the ambition of the country should have been. It seems that there has not been — not only in Ireland but also in France, Spain, Holland and the UK where the same would apply — a reasonable and sufficiently early public debate about the levels of fishing that could be sustained by various species the following year or perhaps over a number of years. That is why people are astonished to find there is absolutely no control over European fleets. A presentation by the Minister or the Minister of State with responsibility for marine matters would be more appropriate than the Department issuing a booklet. I am sure the Minister will accept the marine portfolio has been neglected over the years, as it floated in and out of various Departments.
Are we sticking to the amendments or are we going to discuss political points?
I am sticking to the amendment.
The Deputy is not.
There was never an opportunity to examine sea fisheries in the round in the Dáil. The Bill is valuable in that regard but when will that happen again?
The Minister is not accepting the amendments. It is open to the members to amend the committee's Standing Orders to include such a review on an annual basis. It is up to us to make a recommendation and to request the Dáil to amend the committee's Standing Orders.
I am not the man with the responsibility to do it. It is the Minister's responsibility.
I will not undertake the committee's business.
It is the Minister's business.
If the committee requests meetings with me, my officials and the scientists, we will continue to attend. The scientists have appeared before the joint committee in the past few years.
They have appeared every year, with industry representatives.
A handbook and CD were circulated and presentations have been made to the committee. There is no shortage of information on this issue. With regard to Deputy Ferris's question on the scientific data, consultations have been held by the regional advisory councils but science is science. One needs the basic data and then one engages in consultation to make sure one operates effectively within the limits of the science.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl 7.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Perry, John.
- Ryan, Eamon.
Níl
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Kelly, Peter.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, to delete lines 24 and 28.
This amendment deletes the definition of a capacity plan that was required for the purposes of Table 1 to section 28 of the Bill, as initiated. That definition is no longer required because the proposed revised Table 1 to section 28 makes no reference to a capacity plan but rather to the self-explanatory fish storage capacity of a sea-fishing boat. Technically, the definition is no longer needed.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 13 and 14 are related and will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, line 38, after "gear" to insert the following:
"or which is not an integral part of a fishing vessel".
This is a technical amendment to deal with any ambiguity in the original section because the definition of equipment on board a vessel leaves matters far too loose to be practical. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 13 in my name seeks to insert "but not a fishing vessel or its fixed equipment and machinery". This is a technical amendment which seeks to define fishing gear. It seeks to deal with the ambiguity in the original section regarding the definition of fishing gear. The amendment is similar to amendment No. 11.
Amendment No. 11 in my name is technical in nature and seeks to clarify whether marine life means creatures that are dead and also whether equipment includes fishing boats.
Amendment No. 14 relates to the exceptional circumstances in the section, which need to be clarified.
I will not accept amendment No. 10 because equipment which could be part of a sea-fishing boat can be, or is capable of being, used for handling or professing fish aboard such a vessel. In that instance, the equipment is integral to the fishing boat and must be covered by the definition.
Amendment No. 11 is not necessary because a sea-fishing boat is defined later in the Bill and the matter is thereby clarified. We will soon discuss amendment No. 11a in my name.
On amendment No. 13, I take Deputy Ferris's point. I agree that we must be as clear as possible in this regard and my officials have been trying to work on this. If the Deputy withdraws the amendment, I will consider it further for Report Stage. I accept the motivation behind the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, line 39, after "fish" to insert the following:
", but for the avoidance of doubt does not include a sea-fishing boat".
I would like to get clarification on what constitutes a sea-fishing boat.
A sea-fishing boat is defined separately later in the Bill and, therefore, it is not necessary to define it at this stage.
Is the position clarified later in the Bill?
Yes. It is a separate definition at line 35 on page 12.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 11a and the two will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11a:
In page 12, lines 1 and 2, to delete all words from and including "includes" in line 1 down to and including "life" in line 2 and substitute the following:
"include anadromous and catadromous species and all crustaceans and molluscs found in the sea and the brood and spawn of fish".
Deputy Perry raised this matter on Second Stage and the amendment in his name seeks to achieve the same result. The definition I have included covers the point the Deputy raised on Second Stage. It is an attempt to address the matter raised by him.
The amendment seeks to remove any doubt by providing a definition of fish and sea fish that is more comprehensive than that contained in the Bill, as initiated. Besides covering the anadromous species, such as salmon, which breed in freshwater, and catadromous species, such as eels, which breed in the sea, the definition specifically covers lobsters, crabs and other kinds of shellfish found in the sea and the brood and spawn of fish, as well as parts of the fish. The definition covers cetaceans such as, for example, whales and dolphins, and other species that are regarded as fish for the purposes of agreements. I refer here to the UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, which is appended to the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003. All of these species are subject to protective measures against overfishing.
In effect, the definition updates and consolidates the definitions contained in the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959. In section 3(1) of that Act, fish are defined as including all crustaceans and molluscs found in the sea and the brood and spawn of fish and it is stated that references to a fish should be construed as including references to part of that fish. In section 219, sea fish are defined as meaning fish of any kind, except salmon and freshwater eels, found in the sea, whether fresh or in other conditions, and includes crustaceans and molluscs found in the sea. Having raised and highlighted the matter, I hope the Deputy will accept that we have tried to meet his concerns by providing a clearer definition.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 12, line 25, after "and," to insert "in lieu of him or her,".
This is a drafting amendment. It is required to make it clear that the DPP, rather than the Attorney General, will be the prosecutor for sea fisheries offences arising after the Government order is made under section 40 of the Bill. This will transfer to the DPP responsibility for the prosecution of such offences.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No.16:
In page 12, line 36, to delete "or partly".
This amendment proposes to delete the words "or partly" from line 36. The definition of a fishing boat could apply to a ferry carrying lorries which holds fish or any craft of that nature. In order to specifically define fishing boat the words "or partly" should be removed.
I cannot accept the amendment. I understand what the Deputy is getting at but it is important that any vessel used, either wholly or partly, for the transport of fish is covered in the definition of sea-fishing boat for the purposes of the Bill. To do otherwise would cause significant difficulties for fishery protection and would not be practical. I ask Deputy Ferris to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 13, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
""Total Allowable Catch" means the quantity of certain species of fish permitted to be captured in respect of a particular period which is fixed by a regulation of the Council of the European Communities following the annual report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the Sustainability Impact Assessment of Sea Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Exclusive Fishing Limits of Ireland.".
The Minister looked specifically at the earlier amendment. Given that he has tried to cover most of the definitions we use commonly, is there a definition of a "catch" in law?
It is contained in the EU regulations.
Why is it not included in Irish law? These other definitions are also contained in the EU regulations.
Perhaps the Minister can return to this matter on Report Stage if he does not have the information today.
We will examine it further.
We talk about the catch all the time and the Minister will have to look at it when he engages in talks at Christmas in respect of arrangements for 2007. If he wants to tighten the situation with regard to European fleets, would it not be good to have a clear definition in our law?
European law is also our law.
One could say the same in respect of all the other definitions.
We will not get into a philosophical argument. I said that I will examine the matter. There is no point in taking up the time of the Parliamentary Counsel, the Attorney General and others in rewriting European law into Irish law when it applies. However, we will examine it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are cognate and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 13, subsection (1)(b), line 15, after “purposes” to insert the following:
"being purposes consistent with the law of the State concerning the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Exclusive Fishing Limits of the State".
This section makes a number of references to foreign sea-fishing boats and the regulations and provisions relating to their entering our exclusive fishery limits, namely, those within our exclusive economic zone. The Bill refers to the areas of law — Community law, international law and other conventions — that these boats must obey if entering our exclusive zone. My amendment suggests that we also include the words "purposes consistent with the law of the State". This brings us back to the previous point of clarification. The amendment proposes that we could hold foreign fishing boats within our exclusive zone responsible under the laws of the State and that whatever pattern of fishing they were engaged in would have to be consistent with the regulations the Minister applies under the legislation when it becomes law.
I tabled this amendment because I believe there is a lacuna in the Bill, as drafted. For clarity, the amendment should be accepted. Other Deputies have proposed amendments with a similar reference, relating to what the committee discovered a few months ago, namely, that our law will be a key reference and that whatever practices we decide on to protect our stocks must be adhered to by foreign fishing boats. In the future, we may well require them to have individualised quotas. If this becomes a requirement — I will not prejudge amendments yet to arise — with the ongoing information they give us, we would know precisely the portion of a quota a specific boat from Galicia or wherever catches in our waters. Then the fishery protection officer, the captain of our fishery protection vessel, could apply it directly. These are the reasons I suggested the amendments to sections 8 and 9. It would be useful to add these improvements to sections 8(1)(b) and 9(1)(b).
I cannot legally accept the particular amendment proposed by the Deputy or the associated amendments. Section 8(1)(b) already covers lawful purposes of any kind. There is also a more general principle involved. The Common Fisheries Policy pertains to EU waters and determines the access rights. We cannot go beyond EU law in this area and, therefore, we are not permitted to impose greater legal obligations on anyone.
The Bill states that, in addition to the Common Fisheries Policy, the Minister may decide to take additional measures. This has been the subject of amendments from members on this side because of the fears expressed by those in the fishing industry. Is the Minister not being inconsistent? My amendments propose that it is time for him to take a more muscular approach to the administration of the Common Fisheries Policy. This was an issue in the last British general election. The party which lost that election and which recently gained a new leader had a policy that proposed the abolition of the Common Fisheries Policy — or that we withdraw from it — because it had failed and had caused the devastation of stocks in the North Sea. While I do not advocate that course of action, I believe a more vigorous approach on the part of the country with the most seas in the European Union is necessary. Our generation has a responsibility to regain some of the ground lost in 1972-73. The time has come to take a more muscular approach in dealing with Europe.
The Minister stated that the EU determines access rights and that this section with the issue of the regulation of access. My understanding of the Common Fisheries Policy is that the management of effort is left to the nation states. If our regulation of access is restricted, does this mean that we are restricted with regard to other more detailed management areas? To use a maritime metaphor, can we push the boat out in terms of what can be done within the European system?
This is an interesting proposal. The Minister's point is that the Common Fisheries Policy and the EU decide the access rights for Spanish vessels fishing in Irish waters. I am concerned about who is responsible for monitoring what fish that are taken out of Irish waters. Is a record kept in countries such as Spain or France of, for example, the whitefish or herring caught in Irish waters? This is an important record for proper management of the stocks. The Minister stated that we will have no control over what fish leaves Irish waters, be it legitimately taken or otherwise. Is there any monitoring at foreign ports, particularly those in Spain, of the amount of fish caught in Irish waters or is a blind eye being turned?
This is a matter of some concern, particularly if we have no way of monitoring, on a regular basis, the amount of fish being taken out of Irish waters. How can we efficiently monitor the stocks and depletion levels or carry out marine research otherwise? There appear to be more inspectors per capita monitoring our fishing fleet and the catches it lands here — the ratio being approximately ten to one compared to the Spanish ratio. I am concerned that many fish are being caught in Irish waters. We do not know the quantity or the species of fish caught or where they have been caught. This is a critical issue from the point of view of the management of fish stocks in the future.
I agree with the Deputies that tighter control and monitoring will be better for the management of the dwindling fishing stocks in Irish and EU waters. I am not averse to trying to ensure that the information regarding controls and monitoring is vigorously pursued. That is the reason the Government is supporting the establishment, in Vigo, of the EU fisheries protection body.
I reiterate my point that the EU determines the access rights and the terms and conditions relating to fishing and that we are constrained by international law. I refer to the points made by Deputies Broughan, Eamon Ryan and O'Donovan. Ireland, like every member state, has control over its national fleet in order to keep it within the limits but we cannot impose greater obligations than are available to us under EU law. This is a matter of international law and we cannot take unilateral action. The danger of taking this particular course would be that other countries might take unilateral action and introduce very restrictive regimes that might affect our fishermen and our fishing fleet. This is not a course of action we should pursue. The rules and regulations in this area of access rights and terms and conditions apply internationally. The Bill covers the issue raised by Deputy Broughan in his amendment regarding being in a place for lawful purposes.
In response to the Minister, there was a review of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2002 which was supposed to be deal with the alleviation of poverty and low incomes in coastal communities. However, this objective was not achieved. It is astonishing that, in the interim, a Common Fisheries Policy control mechanism has not been put in place. The Minister was the first to inform the committee about the establishment at Vigo of the EU fisheries control centre. I do not wish to prejudge the other amendments but it is extraordinary that such a policy exists but that control mechanisms were not put in place.
This issue impacts most on Ireland. Irish fishermen fishing in Norwegian waters are obliged to deal with a country that did not enter the European Union because it perceived that to do so would have a negative and disastrous impact on its economy and culture. The same is true of Iceland. Our legislation should include the possibility of imposing additional controls on non-Irish fleets.
The Naval Service delegation explained to the committee the lack of control over non-Irish vessels in Irish waters. The commodore stated that he had no powers to deal with over-fishing by foreign vessels. They could land their catches in their ports of origin and could swap quotas within their co-operatives. There is a lacuna in the law regarding the treatment of Irish vessels as against foreign vessels fishing in Irish waters and it is not being dealt with in a decisive manner. Deputy Broughan made a very relevant point. Effectively, there are two laws, one relating to Irish vessels and another one relating to foreign vessels.
Has the Minister anything further to add?
I cannot add anything except to restate that this is international law. I agree with the Deputies that everything is not perfect regarding fisheries protection, either in Irish or other waters. The sooner we get to have an even application throughout the sector the better it will be for everybody. We cannot do that by breaking international law. The Naval Service obviously has a role and its fisheries protection element has been increased. It has the power to board vessels and to report. Nobody expected that everything would change the day after the decision was made in 2002. However, changes have taken place and a programme is being rolled out in that regard. In the next few years it will be effective in providing adequate fishery protection.
I will withdraw amendment No. 18. In the light of these amendments, I hope that the Minister will review sections 8 to 10, inclusive, before Report Stage and consider whether we need to make some legislative provision to protect our waters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 13, subsection (2), line 37, after "boats" to insert the following:
"including the requirement for every foreign fishing boat to report to an Irish fishery harbour or other port so designated by the Minister during each or any entrance by such a vessel into the territorial seas of the State".
Section 9(2) states:
The Minister may make regulations in relation to the maintenance of good order amongst foreign sea-fishing boats for the time being within the territorial seas of the State and the persons on board such boats.
It would be useful to add the requirement for every foreign fishing boat to report to an Irish fishery harbour or other port so designated by the Minister during each or any entrance by such a vessel into the territorial seas of the State. While it would not apply in an emergency case where the Naval Service needed to arrest someone, the Minister would have the power, if so required, to simply request a vessel in our waters to visit a certain port where any matters of concern could be investigated. I presume that the new fisheries protection authority could liaise with the protection authority of the home country of the vessel concerned and could liaise with the European Union fisheries control agency in Vigo, if and whenever it becomes operational.
We are told that the Spanish boats all belong to co-operatives and that the company or co-operative holds the quota. It is impossible to assess that portion of a quota on a boat at any particular time. When we spoke to the commodore and officers of the Naval Service, I was very impressed by their knowledge of the boats that enter our waters, hundreds of which are fishing in our western seas. While they knew the boats and some of the masters, they did not know what they were doing or carrying. This is a fundamental point of grave concern to us. It is the point that distinguished journalists and others seem to wilfully miss, perhaps because they are Europhiles and wedded to a federal system in Europe. They are inclined to dismiss anything that introduces a note of criticism into how European affairs are run.
In another context, I note that the Minister is rightly not rushing into the common energy policy. When we listened to French colleagues who appeared before the committee, it was striking to hear how France's navy deals with predators and those ransacking its seas. Those who did not report to a French port are required to get out of French territorial waters and stay out. It would be useful for the Minister and the Naval Service to have these additional powers.
Regarding the management of the harbours, the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the autonomous role of harbour masters and the level of State funding. With the exception of Killybegs, much could be done on the level of control, delegated responsibility, investment and even the allocation of quotas, which the Bill has failed to do. Has the Minister an opinion on delegated functions to be given and investment in the five State-owned fishery harbours? The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states that certain ports do not even have harbour masters. Deputy Broughan referred to the management in the State-owned harbours and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed to major anomalies. In many cases the Department has neglected this critical element of the infrastructure and the development of coastal communities.
The Deputy has steered out into different waters.
That was the point Deputy Broughan made.
We should save that discussion for a different day. As the Deputy knows, we will discuss fishery harbours at the joint committee.
Deputy Broughan referred to foreign vessels reporting to harbour centres. Without appropriate management in the harbours, how can that be done?
The Chairman is a tough taskmaster. Like Deputy Perry, smaller boats must stay near the shore and bigger boats can venture further out.
That was the first since we started and I hope we will have no further explosions before 2 p.m.
As there is no fuse in me today, the Chairman need not worry about it being lit.
While I am not sure what the Government can do about it, we are told that a new European Union fisheries control agency is to be established in Vigo. I will choose my words carefully. Historically in Irish waters, the Spanish themselves were the great marauders of our waters in the past 30 or 40 years when our fishing fleet was totally undeveloped. I remain concerned about the vast quantity of fish of various species leaving our waters annually, without any monitoring of those fish in Europe. I ask the Minister to raise the matter at European level.
It appears that we are powerless to do anything about the boats coming here and catching large quantities of fish. When we hear and read about the problems, incursions and illegal fishing by Irish boats, which I hope is being done only by a small minority of Irish fishermen, and the vast quantities of fish going out of our waters and international waters off our coastline, it is a matter of major concern as to who can control and manage those stocks. It is like being penny wise and pound foolish. We have very few designated ports, which are well policed. I am concerned that we are missing the big picture. While the Minister may not be able to do anything about it here, at European level, from the point of view of conservation of stock, we should know where our fish go and in what quantities.
Before the Minister responds, I advise members that the joint committee scrutinised the proposal to establish the European Fisheries Control Agency in Vigo in Spain and laid a report before the House.
Sections 8 and 9 relate to ships passing through Ireland's exclusive fisheries zones, whereas ships fishing or over-fishing are covered by section 10. It is important to make that distinction.
I cannot accept amendment No. 20 for the same reason I could not accept the two previous amendments. The amendment proposes to introduce specific requirements, which we cannot do on a unilateral basis. The provision is a replication of section 222 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 for making regulations.
If the Naval Service makes a judgment or has reason to believe that a vessel is over-fishing, section 10 will apply. Using its tracking systems and through flyovers by CASA aircraft and so forth, the Naval Service is able to have a full picture of what is taking place in our waters at all times. If an incident is detected, it can direct a vessel into a designated port. The issue is, therefore, covered to an extent but the legislation may not go further than is currently provided. Each of the ports have harbour masters.
On a general issue, I do not believe anyone here or in Europe claims that the fishery protection system is perfect but it is important to pass the legislation to try to make our system as perfect as possible.
Is it not the case that when a boat is leaving, for example, a Galician port to sail into Irish waters, the authorities in Haulbowline are not informed? Is the Minister concerned about allegations that electronic equipment is deliberately interfered with to ensure that the electronic tracking system does not work? This allegation was reported in an article we discussed earlier. Is it not possible that this practice is widespread among vessels in foreign fleets? In that case, would including the amendment in the Statute Book not be warranted? The Government could then inform its EU counterparts that Ireland wants the provision included in the Common Fisheries Policy.
The Common Fisheries Policy, even after its reform in 2002, is endemically and systematically corrupt. It is impossible for us to have any form of conservation or protection measures under the current system. The Minister stated that the Naval Service has a full picture of what is taking place in Irish waters. That may be the case but the Naval Service does not have a picture of what is happening in terms of quotas or landings. In the absence of that knowledge, we have, effectively, open fishing in Irish waters.
In response to some of the comments made about my remarks in recent days, when I say that the system is corrupt, I also mean that Irish fishermen are the same as their French and Spanish counterparts in that everyone is, in some sense, corrupted by the system. One would pull one's hair out on Castletownbere pier if one were to see a boat pulling fish out of our waters and landing them if one could not do likewise. It is almost as difficult to police our logging system as it is impossible for us to police Spanish or French boats. The heart of the matter is that the European Common Fisheries Policy system is corrupt and our fishing industry, like all other national fisheries, has been corrupted by it. Until we do as Deputy Broughan proposes and inform our counterparts in Brussels that the system is not working, we will not have proper protection.
We must suspend until after the division being taken in the House.
Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 1.20 p.m.
Deputy Eamon Ryan was concluding his point before the suspension.
I was only warming up. I did not realise I would not be able to make another contribution. Even though the two motions are joined, I did not realise that I had only one opportunity to speak on both motions.
I referred to the crucial central point of my concern, which is linked to some of the later amendments. I support Deputy Broughan's motion in terms of what jurisdiction we have on foreign sea-fishing boats.
I will elaborate on why I believe the system is corrupt and why it corrupts fishermen. What applies to the Irish fleet is no different from what applies to foreign fleets in Irish waters. While the quota management system for Irish vessels gives us more information than that for foreign vessels, there is a fundamental problem in that an Irish trawlerman who gets his monthly quota to catch cod, hake or mackerel, for example, is tempted not to record his catch in his log book. In a system where one believes everyone is overfishing and where there is effectively open fishing, this temptation is incredible such that one is tempted to land one's catch where one knows there will be no harbour inspection or appear late at night, at which time one's catch will not be monitored. This allows one to go out fishing the next day with the same quota allocation. If one is to be boarded by a Naval Service vessel, it is the easiest thing in the world to fill in one's log book at that stage knowing what one has on board.
The Naval Service may state a vessel has caught its quota or has a catch slightly above or below that quota but it does not really know what it has landed in a given month. This is a fundamental flaw in our system and it is even worse when dealing with foreign vessels in our waters. In that case, the Naval Service boards the foreign vessel but does not know its quota or even what it has landed. In such circumstances, what is to stop the fishermen on the foreign boat from overfishing in our waters, catching a multiple of its quota and sailing back to its home country, be it Spain, France, Portugal or Belgium, where we cannot control every landing?
The central flaw involves ascertaining whether boats are adhering to their quotas at any time. We are relying on log books and do not have a full picture. The only way in which we can start policing the system is if we have same-time information on what boats are catching and their quotas. This does not involve rocket science. We live in a world of mobile phones and electronic communications in which it would be very easy to impose on a skipper a requirement to send up-to-date information on his quota and landings to the Irish authorities on the same day he makes his catch. Unless we achieve this, all the fine provisions and other intentions of the Bill will amount to nothing. As long as a vessel is not boarded, its skipper does not have to record his catch in his log book, which effectively means we have open fishing. Therefore, the current system is corrupt and corrupts individual fishermen who cannot but do the same as everyone else. I do not want to criminalise anyone or criticise coastal communities, but we should be honest about recognising the flaw in the system.
We need to state to the relevant EU authorities that the system is utterly flawed and needs to be dramatically reformed, even though it has just been reformed and even in the light of all the latest conservation measures. The first reform I would introduce is a requirement to record electronically one's TAC, quota and landings. The initiative will have to be taken by Heads of Government. We cannot stress the urgency of the issue at a lower level. If we wait four or five years for a review of the Common Fisheries Policy, we will be heading towards circumstances in which there will be nothing left in our waters but jellyfish, as scientists have said at this committee. Heads of Government need to state at EU level that we have discovered the system does not and can never work and that it requires urgent and radical reform. Such reform would be inexpensive and could be introduced tomorrow. That is why my amendment is important.
If the Minister states we cannot implement my proposal because of current international laws, I suggest we should include it as a signal of our intent. My amendment includes the phrase "such regulations may include". It would not enforce a particular requirement immediately but allow us to do so should a relevant international measure be introduced. The Taoiseach should state at the next meeting of Heads of Government that there is a serious problem associated with the Common Fisheries Policy, that if we do not protect our important marine resources, they will be gone and that, therefore, we require immediate action.
I am interested in hearing the Minister's opinions on my view that our quota system is unenforceable and leads to corruption.
I want to comment on Deputy Ryan's contribution. The problem for Irish fishermen is that even if all the necessary regulations were in place, they are coming from an unequal base. Irish waters comprise 11% of total European waters, yet Irish fishermen are only allowed 4% of the catch. That is what must be dealt with.
There has been a complete abdication of responsibility on the part of successive Governments since Ireland entered the European Union. Irish fishermen and coastal communities are suffering as a result of bad negotiations and a lack of effort to address the inequality affecting them.
We can have philosophical discussions about the rights and wrongs of the Common Fisheries Policy, as implemented here or elsewhere, for as long as we like, but the fact remains that we cannot act unilaterally in respect of what is proposed today. That is not to dismiss the validity of the arguments made and approaches adopted by Deputies. I have stated categorically at meetings of this committee and elsewhere that the fisheries protection regime is not perfect and I have heard, on more than one occasion, justifications by Irish fishermen of illegal acts. They have argued that they should be allowed to engage in illegal acts because everyone else is doing so. In this regard, I agree with Deputy Ryan's analysis that unless everybody believes there is a level playing field, they will try to get away with activities they should not be getting away with. I am not condoning or justifying such activities, but is fair to say there is the aforementioned attitude, as Deputy Ryan stated.
Deputy Broughan raised this matter originally and stated there was no tracking and that authorities were not told when a boat left a Spanish or other port. That is true, but when such boats enter our waters, they must inform our authorities. A signal from a boat is received every couple of hours at our Naval Service base indicating the location of the boat in question and the progress it is making. When it has finished fishing in our waters, it must report to our Naval Service base. That is the tracking system we have in place.
Deputy Broughan and, perhaps, Deputy Ryan raised the concern that transponders seem indicate that a boat is in one area when it is actually in another. They are correct. They described what I referred to as organised or systematic criminality. Some very sophisticated scams have been detected and the perpetrators prosecuted.
In one instance, two large multi-million euro Irish trawlers illegally switched off their required satellite tracking system before entering a closed area where they proceeded to fill up with the young mackerel that were supposed to be protected in that conservation area. That case was heard and proven by the United Kingdom authorities. Another instance involved two other large multi-million European trawlers making illegal landings in the middle of the night for a prearranged meeting with a fleet of lorries. The trawlers' satellite tracking devices had been tampered with in a sophisticated way to give false readings so that, while the fish were being unloaded and taken to a fish processing plant where people must have known they had been illegally landed, the transponders indicated to the control authorities that the trawlers were still 20 to 30 miles off the west coast of Ireland. That case will come to court in future.
Is the Minister referring to allegations or cases that have been tried in the courts?
The first case I mentioned was heard and proven by the UK authorities. The second case must still to go to court.
The second case has not yet gone to court.
Not yet. I could mention other instances in which satellite tracking mechanisms have been tampered with but I cite those two cases as examples.
I suppose the Minister had better not say too much that might prejudice the outcome of the case.
I deliberately kept the details as vague as possible but I wanted to highlight the kind of difficulties that can arise in respect of the gathering of evidence.
Although forgetting to fill in a log book might seem a small infringement, the log book is an extremely important document, like a tax return. In the case of a fisherman who allegedly forgot to fill in the log book, we would need to establish whether he just forgot or whether, as in the scenario that Deputy Eamon Ryan mentioned, he was trying to land fish illegally to ensure that there would be no record of his catch. The difficulty lies in trying to deal with those issues.
In response to Deputy Eamon Ryan, I agree that the system is not perfect — in fact, it is rather imperfect — but he is wrong to state that the system is corrupt. I accept that this is not the Deputy's intention but such statements cast aspersions, not just on fishermen but also on the wide range of people who are charged with the responsibility of policing fishing effort. However, although I am not sure how my officials will view this, I can tell the Deputy and the committee that I do not have a huge difficulty with——
With respect, we were asked earlier to speak to the amendments but the Minister has not spoken to the amendments in the past ten minutes. Other sections of the Bill deal with the new fishery regime that will apply to Irish boats but these amendments to section 9 concern foreign vessels and the Minister has not addressed them. The policy in which we are engaged is a total and utter farce. The Minister balked at Deputy Eamon Ryan's use of the word "corrupt" but the reason he used that term to describe the European system of fishing quotas is that they are farcical. The Minister mentioned Irish boats in the context of amendments that clearly refer to boats originating from countries such as Spain and France. He has not spoken to the amendments. We are making the point that, whereas the Bill will make provisions relating to Irish fishing vessels, we fundamentally do not have a clue about what will happen to foreign vessels. The Minister has not told us, as he should have done, how the Bill will enable him to invigilate those boats.
In fact, the Minister has only worried us by telling us that such boats might have their transponders switched off. There is a big ocean out there and we are responsible for more than 1 million sq. km. of territory. When I tabled an amendment about the contiguous zones, I was obliged to explain to the Minister's Department that this country has a claim on up to 500,000 square miles of ocean. That is a huge territory for a tiny fleet of fishery protection vessels——
I was interrupted by Deputy Broughan.
The Minister interrupted me earlier when he said that I did not address the amendments.
I did not interrupt Deputy Broughan. I responded to what he said.
The Minister has not addressed either of the amendments in the past ten minutes.
I know the truth is difficult for Deputy Broughan to accept——
The Minister has not spoken to the amendments.
Deputy Broughan interrupted me every time I spoke but I said nothing about that. Let us have the same rules for both of us. The Deputy should allow me to conclude my response——
The Minister should speak to the amendments.
I do not tell Deputy Broughan what he can and cannot say. That is the Chairman's role.
The reason the discussion went off on a tangent is that Deputy Eamon Ryan raised a number of issues when he spoke to amendment No. 21 in his name.
I understand that. Quite independently, Deputy Eamon Ryan and I have tabled practically the same amendment, except that amendment No. 22 in my name would amend section 10, which deals with "Unauthorised fishing while on board foreign sea-fishing boat within exclusive fishery limits."
We will come to that.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 deal with the same subject, although they amend different sections.
May I seek a clarification from the Minister?
Perhaps I am at fault for allowing the discussion to continue but I want the Minister to respond to the two amendments under discussion. Once we have disposed of those, we can deal with the other matters that have been raised.
We can discuss the issue of criminality later.
The view has been propagated that tampering with on-board electronic equipment is systematic among those who operate trawlers. Will the Minister clarify whether two instances constitute a systematic problem? Does he know of incidents other than the two he mentioned?
Does Deputy Ferris think that such things need to take place systematically before action is taken? If it had happened only once or twice, would that not be enough? I only mentioned the incidents as an example. If he wants me to start citing other cases——
I will not allow anybody to criminalise Irish fishermen. The Minister must clarify whether two incidents constitute a systematic problem. Is he saying that the problem is systematic or is he saying that there have been only two cases?
Deputy Ferris has made his point.
I have been very patient. The Minister needs to clarify what he means by systematic.
I mean very well planned.
That is not what "systematic" means. It means "widespread".
Was the Minister referring to a small number of incidents?
That is what I have consistently said.
Therefore, it is not systematic. Have only two incidents been discovered?
No, we are not talking about only two cases. It is systematic by the people involved.
Of how many such cases is the Minister aware?
By "systematic" I mean that it was well planned by a small number of people.
I ask the Minister not to answer any further questions on this matter. He has made the point clearly that he was referring to a small number of offences. I ask him to wrap up his response on the amendments.
I will not accept amendments Nos. 20 and 21 because I cannot introduce unilateral action.
The Minister is not accepting amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Before I speak to the amendments, let me say two things. I used the words "systematically" and "corrupt" because I believe that those are the right words. If the Chairman will allow me, I will explain later why I believe that to be the case. Before Deputy Broughan interrupted him, I understand the Minister was about to say what he planned to do, or what was possible on a national scale. He might want to return to that because it is an important issue. I understand he was to respond on my suggestion on going to the European Union. The system is corrupt.
Deputy Broughan has brought it to my attention that Deputy Ryan has already spoken for ten minutes. I want to conclude on these two amendments. There will be ample time for discussion when other amendments are debated.
For me, this is the central amendment. There is a difference between my amendment and that of Deputy Broughan, although the intent is the same. The central point I make is the need for instantaneous electronic communication of fish quota. That is a crucial, progressive development. It is different from calling into a harbour. That brings us to the systematic corruption in the system. If I am an Irish fisherman going out with a quota allocated from my local producer group, I go out and catch that quota for the day. When steaming back in, unless I am stopped by the navy or someone on the pier, I will not fill in my log book because I know other fishermen will not be doing so. The fish will be landed as black fish. That is the corruption in the system. The log book system does not work. My amendment is therefore crucial for Irish and foreign boats. They are all the same. Irish boats landing in Scotland are availing of the same wider loophole that applies in Ireland.
For the sake of clarity, does the Deputy's amendment relate to foreign seafishing boats?
Yes, it does.
Is it correct that it has no connection with an Irish vessel?
Yes, but the Chairman makes a good point. I might have to amend the amendment by removing the word "foreign".
We will move on.
Therefore, that basic point——
With all due respect, the amendment before us relates to foreign sea-fishing boats. In his address, Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to a vessel steaming into what I presume are Irish waters, and berthing. My understanding is that most of those vessels would be Irish-owned. Perhaps on Report Stage the Deputy might look at that amendment again and rephrase it.
I stand by the amendment. The Chairman may be making a case that I should duplicate the amendment with regard to Irish boats.
No.
Rather than setting up this major policing system, with big fines, and trying to catch people as they land fish, and tell them they have not filled in their log books — which they might have forgotten to do — a non-tamperable electronic recording system which tells exactly what is happening would get rid of the corruption and criminality in the system. If we cannot allow for that here, I want the Taoiseach to go Brussels as Head of Government and say we need to change this immediately.
If we get our own house in order first, we are in a much better position going to Europe to put that forward. I am not averse to what Deputy Eamon Ryan is saying. In the past, people have the impression and probably evidence to show there is no even-handedness in the system, and that there are loopholes there. When people see others getting away with something, they will take action. The only way one can tackle that is, as Deputy Ryan says, at European level. I have no difficulty with that but we should get our own house in order before we start talking about foreign vessels.
I support Deputy Ryan's amendment which, although it refers to foreign vessels, might well also apply to Irish vessels. The log book system is dated and creates huge difficulty. With technology so advanced, one would imagine there would be an automated system showing the TAC, the total allowable catch, with total transparency.
Will the Minister consider this matter again on Report Stage?
I would like to be helpful but there is no point in me being dishonest. We cannot breach EU law, which is what this amendment asks us to do. Now I am being interrupted again.
I want to ask a question.
Would the Deputy mind waiting until I finish? He might not need to ask the question if he listens to me. Once we have our own house in order we can look at new regimes and methods in order to ensure that no boats, Irish or foreign, do anything illegal in our waters. I have no difficulty pursuing that through the EU. It must be part of the Common Fisheries Policy.
This is like saying Kilkenny will win the all-Ireland football title or will beat Meath at football in the coming season. It will not happen. Kilkenny does not even have a team.
The Minister is putting the matter on the long finger. My amendment is quite similar to Deputy Ryan's amendment. We came up with them independently. However, the matter arises in the section relating to people on board a foreign vessel, and what they might be doing. Was it not intended that Haulbowline would be in touch with the control agency in Vigo? Deputy Ryan rightly asked that real time information be available with regard to portions of tax and quotas and that at long last we would have some knowledge. The bulk of the Bill pertains to our own fishing vessels.
The Minister talks of putting our own house in order. I will be briefly political and say it got into disorder because of the action of the Minister's party and of some of his predecessors. Given that we are now in a mess, it is invidious that we should have this severe regime while at the same time, the majority of boats coming through our seas can do what they like, with open season on Irish fishing stocks. In that sense the entire process here today is a complete farce. The Minister will not be returning in the next year with any such regulations as he speaks of.
We have been sleeping, eating and drinking this legislation since June of last year.
We have not.
We have; we are exhausted.
We got sight of the legislation in late October. We read about it in the newspapers.
I have been involved in this since June. I ask the Minister not to engage with the political aspect——
It is very hard not to.
The Minister might respond to the two amendments. We have only 12 minutes left.
The wording in my amendment reads that such regulations "may include the requirement". That does not infringe international law. It does not set any regulations but signals our intent to move towards the requirement for same time day to day information being provided on individual quotas on a boat. It is important for us to insert that in this important legislation. It is a strong signal to Brussels that this is the way we need to go. If the Minister would agrees with that basic principle, and accept the amendment, we could then pursue it on a European level with cross-party support for such changes. The signal that we have legislated for the possible future provision of such a requirement would show the intent of the Government in that regard.
The Minister has indicated that this is the way he would go.
Yes, as soon as we get our house in order.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 13, subsection (2), line 37, after "boats." to insert the following:
"Such regulations may include the requirement that foreign sea-fishing boats provide evidence to a sea-fisheries protection officer prior to entering our exclusive fishery limits of their up to date individual quota allocation as determined within their own national fishing quota management system under the total allowable catch regulations agreed by the Council of European Communities.".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Perry, John.
- Ryan, Eamon.
Níl
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Kelly, Peter.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 2 p.m. until noon on Tuesday, 14 February 2006.