JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht

Fisheries Legislation Review: Presentations.

Chairman

I welcome Commodore Frank Lynch, flag officer commanding the Naval Service. Before Commodore Lynch speaks, I wish to state a delegation from the joint committee visited the Irish Naval Service in Haulbowline the year before last. Delegations have also visited the fishery ports of Killybegs and Dunmore and communities such as Baltimore, Ballycotton, Schull, Sherkin Island and Bantry. In all of the places we visited, representations were made to the committee on the harshness of the fishery legislative regime as implemented here. Today's meeting is a result of concerns that have been raised with members. We wish to examine the legislation.

Further, in the context of the joint committee's scrutiny of EU legislation, concerns were expressed when the joint committee considered the Proposal for a Council Regulation Establishing a Community Fisheries Agency and Amending Regulation (EC) No. 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy. This is also to be taken in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No. 1447/1999 which introduced types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. The breaches included in the list are linked to the most important obligations imposed by the Community rules on stock conservation, monitoring and marketing of fishery products. In view of its seriousness, such behaviour should attract what is described as "proportional, effective and dissuasive" penalties imposed by the national authorities.

To ensure transparency, member states are requested to report to the Commission on the action taken when breaches are detected. The assessment of this information could enable a comparison between member states as regards the action initiated against the operators in the fishing industry who may have committed a "serious infringement", as well as the effective and dissuasive character of the penalties eventually imposed. The legislator's goal should be to create a level playing field among fishermen who would therefore have greater confidence in the control authorities throughout the European Community and adhere to Community rules on conservation of fishery resources.

The procedure for reporting this data to the Commission is laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2740/1999. Therefore, it is most timely that the joint committee deals with these issues in the context of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 which was published on 3 October, and the need to have proportional, effective, and dissuasive penalties imposed by the national authorities as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1447/1999.

To inform this debate — this is where a joint committee adds value to the legislative process — the joint committee has invited the commanding officer of the Naval Service, Haulbowline, Commodore Frank Lynch. The Naval Service carries out fishery protection duties. Mr. Art Kavanagh and Mr. Kevin McCourt from AIB are here to give the banking perspective on financing the fishing industry. Irish Fishing industry representatives include the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, the Irish Fish Producers Organisation, the Irish South and West Fishermen's Organisation and the South and Eastern Fishermen's Organisation. Mr. Jacques Pichon, is from FROM Bretagne, which funds the regional organisation of the fish market in the Brittany area. He joins us to give the French perspective on fishery controls. Mr. Giorgio Gallizioli is head of the control and licences unit of the EU Commission. He will give us his views on behalf of the EU on the control and licences of fisheries. The Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher will also appear before the committee to give his views on the current regime of penalties and an update on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, which he has just published.

The joint committee thanks all those who have taken the time and made the effort to attend and inform this debate. I invite Commodore Frank Lynch, flag officer commanding Naval Service to make his presentation. Before he begins I advise everyone that each group will have an opportunity to make a short presentation on the issues they consider to be of critical importance in regard to the matters I have just outlined. This will be followed by a question and answer session which will tease out the issues. I request that all mobile phones be switched off.

I draw everyone's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Commodore Frank Lynch

I had hoped to make a Powerpoint presentation and a printout of it has been made available. It gives some of the background on how the service operates in fishery protection. I will briefly go through the Naval Service organisation, our mission statement, the basis for fishery protection, the resources we have, the area to be patrolled and how we go about patrol tasking.

Three sections within the Naval Service report to me, namely, operations, the Naval College where we do all our training, and support command. The area of interest is the naval operations command. The fleet and the fishery monitoring centre operate under that command. The guiding principle of the Naval Service is to make optimum use of its assigned resources in contributing to the security of the State and fulfilling all roles assigned by Government through the deployment of a well motivated and effective Naval Service. We are tasked by Government to provide a sea fishery protection service. Naval service officers and NCOs are authorised under the Fishery Acts to be sea fishery protection officers, only while serving on board ship. We conduct our operations at sea. It makes up 90% of our operational tasking on a day-to-day basis.

The composition of the fleet is eight vessels; one helicopter patrol vessel, five OPVs, two larger than the other three and two coastal inshore patrol vessels. The fishery monitoring centre is an additional resource that is very important for fishery protection. This is located in the naval base. It operates 24 hours a day. The operational relationship between us and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is governed by an MOU which has been developed over the past number of years. The fishery monitoring centre, FMC, is in daily contact with the fishery section in the Department. Regular operational contact takes places with the fishery monitoring centres in other countries and with Brussels. A monthly operational liaison meeting takes place between the FMC and the fishery section in the Department. We monitor via a satellite fishing vessel in the Irish zone using VMS and we target all vehicles over 15 m. The FMC also provides operational support to the fleet. It collates all the data that is collected and provides training, advice and guidance on fishery matters.

The overall establishment of the Naval Service personnel is 1,144. Our current make-up includes 87% operational officers, 93% other ranks. The total strength is 1,068. I have shown a slide with a table of patrol days because it includes reference to resources. We have increased the use of the resources from the benchmark period of 2000. We have increased patrol days per unit on average from 158 to 210. We are on programme in 2005 for 1680 patrol days.

The next slide shows the areas to be patrolled. It shows the 200-mile limit, the North-West Grey Area where there are multiple claims between the UK and Ireland and in the south between the UK, Ireland and France. It also shows the hake restriction zone and the various limits. This is the area we patrol. The next slide is a shot from the vessel monitoring system. This monitors the activity of vessels of 15 m and above in the zone. A series of warnings are shown on the left-hand side when vessels are overdue. We have a series of other alarms when they are entering restricted areas, as is shown in the bottom left-hand corner of the slide.

The slide showing the sectors numbered one to ten is based on International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES zones. Let me outline the basis on which we patrol. A sailing order is given to a ship and the ship proceeds to a selection of sectors. We try not to have two ships in the one sector at any one time, although this can occur. When the captain goes to sea he uses all the collated information to guide the deployment of the ship and his boarding officers on patrol. The data are constantly updated through the fishery monitoring centre.

The members will note from my presentation the graphic representation of activity in the Irish zone yesterday, involving 266 contacts over 15 m. Darker colours on the representation denote Irish vessels. A selection of various other nationalities are represented.

On the boarding process, the captain makes an assessment of all available data and then decides which vessels he will board. On completion of the inspection, the fishing log is signed and the boarding is recorded. Where infringements are detected, the vessel may be warned or detained. The details of the inspection are collected electronically on the vessel and inserted into the fishery protection information system onshore.

Written warnings are given for minor infringements. The warning is singed by the fishing vessel skipper and inputted into the fishery protection information system. The skipper is warned that repeat infringements could lead to detentions.

On deciding to detain a fishing vessel, the vessel is escorted to port and handed over to the Garda. Written statements are provided to the Garda and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The Naval Service engages in due process as the case proceeds through the courts.

A series of activities is monitored by the captain before he decides to board. He considers the history of the vessel. If it has never been boarded before, boarding it would be a priority. The activity the vessel engaged in is also considered. If it has just sailed and is not fishing, there would not be much merit in boarding it and therefore the captain might not do so.

Deputy O’Donovan

I welcome Commodore Lynch. To my knowledge, it is the first time he has appeared before this committee. He showed the members a map that can depict the various vessels fishing on any given day. This is quite important. It is encouraging to see what modern technology can do. Would the Naval Service know if a vessel fishing in box 6 or 7, for example, was a foreign vessel by using its eye in the sky, so to speak? Would it have full details on whether the trawler was French or Spanish, or on its size and name? Alternatively, does the Naval Service just know if a certain vessel is not Irish?

Commodore Lynch

The data on the foreign vessels are collected by their national centres. They are automatically sent to us once they enter any part of our zone. If a vessel is foreign, we know its identity. We have met the vast majority of them before and therefore there are data thereon in the database. We would have their history. This applies to both foreign and local vessels. The graphic information system has a series of tools with which one can show what a vessel has been doing in a given period. It shows all the fixes such that one can actually see the track, speed and course of a vessel. If it is fishing it will be going at a very slow speed. One can usually make a good estimate as to when it was fishing in a given period. Quite a detailed amount of information can be extracted using the various tools that come with the system.

Deputy O’Donovan

Is it more difficult at the perimeter of the Irish zone? If a vessel enters the fishing area at a point far from the shore or from the Naval Service's base and fishes in Irish waters for perhaps three to five hours, is it more difficult to monitor its activity than it is to monitor that of a vessel based in Haulbowline or Galway, for example?

Commodore Lynch

Has this arisen already?

Commodore Lynch

It has arisen in general discussions about an MOU but nothing specific is in place.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I thank Commodore Lynch.

Deputy Kenneally

I welcome Commodore Lynch to the meeting. I look forward to seeing the figures he will provide the joint committee on foreign boats warnings, tensions, etc. The information provided by him seems to contradict a recent article in The Irish Skipper magazine. I would be grateful if he could pass on his figures.

I have heard anecdotal evidence over a number of years that the Naval Service has not acted in an even-handed way with fishermen. I will provide examples. During the salmon fishing season this year, when small fishermen are at sea in punts and half-deck boats and hauling pots or otherwise, the Naval Service is regularly boarding these vessels close to the coast. One fisherman in a small punt was boarded twice in the same week by the Naval Service. Surely Naval Service resources would be better employed chasing the bigger fish, while fisheries officers from the regional fishery boards could be allowed to deal with small boats. It should be remembered that small fishermen must come to their local ports to land catches. I would have thought the Naval Service would be better employed chasing the bigger boats than coming after small fishermen who are doing no damage. While I accept some of them are breaking the law, the fisheries officers with the regional fishery boards should deal with them.

I thank Commodore Lynch for attending this meeting. The joint committee appreciates the information that has been given to it, which will be helpful when the select committee is considering Committee Stage amendments to the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005. I extend every good wish to the Naval Service. I thank it again for its hospitality when members of the joint committee spent an informative day at its headquarters two years ago.

Sitting suspended at 10.53 a.m. and resumed at 10.55 a.m.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Art Kavanagh and Mr. Kevin McCourt of Allied Irish Bank who will give the joint committee an overview of the banking industry's perspective on the financing of the fishing industry. Before Mr. Kavanagh begins, I advise that each group will have an opportunity to make a short presentation on the issues it considers to be of critical importance. The presentations will be followed by a question and answer session to tease out the issues. I draw everyone's attention to the fact that although members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The committee is running behind schedule because it had such an interesting chat with Commodore Frank Lynch of the Naval Service. Perhaps Mr. Kavanagh heard some of the discussion. I ask him to ensure his presentation is as brief as possible, as I am keen to hear all our guests today. I am sure members of the joint committee will want to ask him one or two questions after he has concluded.

Mr. Art Kavanagh

I am delighted to attend this meeting of the joint committee. I met some members of the committee when they visited Killybegs, County Donegal, earlier this year. I made presentations on that occasion on behalf of Killybegs Chamber of Commerce. I am branch manager of the AIB branch in Killybegs where I have worked since 1987. It is known that I have close contact with the fishing industry through Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the producers' organisations. A substantial proportion of AIB's ethos in its dealings with the fishing industry has been based on the assistance and information readily offered to it by officials from BIM, the Department and the regulatory authorities. The expertise AIB has acquired in that way allows it to operate more professionally in its business dealings with the fishing industry. That the Irish banks are major stakeholders in the fishing industry is borne out by recent Central Bank statistics which indicate that the banks have loaned €400 million to the industry. The views I will express at this meeting are personal opinions, based on my experience as a banker and a member of the fishing community, and do not necessarily reflect the corporate views of AIB or any Irish bank. Mr. McCourt and I will speak about each of the matters outlined in our documentation.

I would like to start my overview of the relationship between the banking and fishing industries by speaking about the pre-1978 era when the fishing fleet consisted of 60-foot timber vessels. At the time the industry was unable to match the progress that had been achieved by the Norwegian and Dutch fleets. The "new boats", as they continue to be known, which started to emerge in 1978 were financed by Norwegian and Dutch banks. Any loans sanctioned by Irish banks at the time were guaranteed by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, which was quite cumbersome. As there was no fishing industry knowledge within the banking industry, there was a huge reluctance on its part to fund the fishing industry.

The first wave of refrigerated seawater vessels has come on stream in the past 25 years. Such larger vessels which can carry mackerel and herring in refrigerated seawater are known as RSW vessels. Some grant assistance was made available by BIM when the first of the super-trawlers, as they were known, started to arrive in Ireland in the late 1970s. Most of the loan finance for such boats was provided by the Christiania Bank in Norway. The re-registration of the fleet in 1989 was an important moment in the development of the fishing industry because it defined tonnage and ring-fenced the actual amount of tonnage, or fishing capacity, that Ireland was allowed to employ. Creating a value for the tonnage enabled fishermen to bring a certain level of equity to a deal if they wanted to buy a new boat and, therefore, made it easier for them to deal with banks.

The replacement programme for the refrigerated seawater fleet continued. Many of the original boats were replaced between 1994 and 1998. During that time eight new vessels were built. At that stage as no grants were being paid, these boats were financed by the fishermen and the lenders. During that period the first 100% financing package for a large boat was offered by an Irish bank. Of the eight vessels built, all but one were entirely financed in Ireland. During the past four years the RSW fleet has been further updated and 12 new vessels were built, six of which replaced some of the vessels built during the 1994 to 1998 programme. All of these vessels are now financed in Ireland.

All of the big spending on Irish fishing boats was directed at RSW vessels, but in 1998 BIM introduced schemes designed to update the ageing fleet and exploit offshore fisheries. The new vessels ranged from 15 metre inshore vessels to large 35 metre world class distant water whitefish boats. The 1998 BIM whitefish programme resulted in the building of 29 new vessels, while the 2001 scheme which is nearing completion resulted in the building of 33 new vessels. All loan facilities in respect of the fishing fleet are now with Irish banks. A ruling by Mr. Justice Blaney in the Supreme Court on 16 February 1996 made the financing of fishing vessels by any lender easier in that it clarified the situation and the status of tonnage as being part of the security captured under the marine mortgage.

Other developments during the past 25 years involved the establishment of the onshore processing facility. Factories were developed by boat owners in the early 1980s and involved huge investment in processing and freezing equipment. The capacity was created to exploit the demand for frozen mackerel, herring and scad worldwide. Members of the joint committee who visited Killybegs in April will have seen at first hand modern processing facilities. They would have seen the same when they visited Castletownbere.

The support industries for the fishing fleet developed right around the coast are fully up to scratch. One of the net manufacturers, Swan Net-Gundry, is rated as one of the biggest in the world. There is a worldwide market for fish and markets have been established in Africa, Japan and throughout the European Union.

Irish fishermen are held in high regard. They pioneered the pair-trawling process, at which they are seen as the best worldwide. During the off-season they are used by net factories to train fishermen in other countries who are trying to introduce this particular process.

Why at that stage did Irish banks want to become involved in the fishing industry, having missed the initial opportunities in the late 1970s. We obviously saw it as a good business opportunity. To be fair, the industry was also anxious to do its banking business at home rather than take out loans abroad. We saw the development of the processing industry and the available markets. We saw the fleet being upgraded and the necessity to maintain it at the highest standard in order to exploit our fisheries. We saw the continued issuance of licences by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources as a positive aspect and were aware of the BIM grant schemes. Overall, by taking cognisance of both the issuance of new licences and the BIM grant schemes, the bank was availing of an opportunity to develop its business by supporting what was clearly Government policy. The developments in Killybegs, Castletownbere and Rossaveal and the enormous amount of money being spent on fishery harbours were taken as a positive indication of the Government's interest in the industry.

The growth in lendings to the fishing sector by Irish banks went from €43 million in 1987 to €286 million in 2002 and to €388 million in March 2005, according to the most recent bulletin issued by the Central Bank. We know from lendings drawn down and new vessels delivered in the past six months that those lendings are now in the region of €400 million.

With regard to the bank's experience of dealing with the industry, we have marvelled at its ability to regenerate and reinvest in itself, in particular, its willingness to reinvest, irrespective of the availability of grants. It operates on the basis that if it is a good idea, it should be done, with or without a grant. The age profile of owners and succession issues are laudable in this industry. Many men continue to reinvest when others of a similar age would retire. We are satisfied attention is being given to the succession issue and that many sons or experienced and loyal skippers are following through. As far as we are concerned, the succession issue is secure.

Repayment experience with regard to the industry is superb and extremely positive. The reluctance of the industry to seek intervention to overcome adverse conditions, be they prices or markets, sets it apart. Its immediate reaction when things go against it is not, as with others, to put its hand out for assistance.

The enforcement of penalties is more severe than in other industries. Breaching of fishing regulations often results in Circuit Court hearings and fines of €100,000 are not uncommon. Large bank bonds are frequently requested when boats are detained in order that they will be released to resume fishing. The Naval Service delegation mentioned this earlier. The proposed increases in fines will present credit issues for lenders. There will be situations where if penalties become more severe, a fisherman could, effectively, be wiped out as a result of his or her first offence.

In dealing with the industry, I find its members to be brave and optimistic. They are true entrepreneurs and I often wonder if they get the credit they deserve. Their attitude to risk is positive, both personal and financial. Their willingness to introduce their own cash, both for the upgrading and maintenance of their vessels in addition to renewal costs, is significant.

The high level of private sector investment in the industry is demonstrated in the next slide which formed part of the presentation we made to the joint committee when it visited Killybegs in April. In the past ten years, approximately, in County Donegal the following investments were made. Some €55 million was spent on the new pier in Killybegs, €56 million on new whitefish vessels, €190 million on new RSW vessels, €50 million on other boat investments, improvements and safety features, €13 million on factory development and €20 million on infrastructure such as roads and water systems. This gives a total of €384 million. The next slide shows that of this €384 million, some €299 million was provided by the private sector, a huge percentage in normal circumstances.

Let us look at the opportunities for the industry as I see them. We have a modern fleet, expert fishermen, modern processing factories, expert support infrastructure right around the coast and new emerging markets, particularly in the eastern bloc through the new accession countries to the European Union. These markets are now accessible by road, thereby reducing the reliance on sending huge cargoes of fish by refrigerated sea transport. The decommissioning scheme under way will trim the fleet by up to 25%. This will increase the viability of the total allowable catch or quota for the remaining fleet. There is increasing recognition worldwide of fish as a healthy food. Opportunities are arising under an EU deal with Mauritania and Morocco for EU based fishing boats to fish under licence off Africa. We hope this will present opportunities for some of the fleet.

There are some issues of concern for the industry. We have an insufficient share of the total allowable catch. This is an historic problem and something about which we can do nothing now. We own 11% of the EU water base, but only have 4.4% of the total allowable catch. There has been an ongoing issue with regard to interpretation of EU regulations on landings and weighing of fish. There is also an ongoing issue regarding the weight of water allowed when fish are being weighed but some progress has been made on the matter. There is an issue in some fishery harbour centres regarding limited landing hours where office hours are applied when fish are being landed. These are issues the producers' organisations are discussing on an ongoing basis with the Department. Another issue is the threat of further quota cuts, over which we have limited control, apart from hoping that when departmental officials travel to Brussels in December, they will fight the good fight. I have already discussed the implications of increased penalties for infringements which, when examined on an intersectoral or transnational basis, are very high. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is in a difficult position, trying to comply with EU regulations while satisfying the industry. While no one will deny there must be regulation, over the last several years there have been many changes which have caused difficulties for the industry and bankers. As rules change, it is difficult to plan for them.

Fish processing abroad and the loss of onshore jobs is an issue. Up to 120,000 tonnes of pelagic fish are allocated to Ireland under the quota system. If one takes the processing costs of one tonne of fish as €120, a total of €14.4 million in income can be earned in this sector. This is apart from the value of the fish when it is landed, the income to fishermen and the profit on the finished product when sold abroad. Every tonne of fish not processed in Ireland is a direct loss to the economy. Of the €120 it costs to process a tonne of fish, €30 is direct labour costs. Too much of this income is being earned abroad.

Fishing is an Irish natural resource that must be protected and retained. There is a regional dimension to this. It is a primary driver of economic activity in the coastal communities. It is a renewable and manageable resource. It is good business for the country, the banks and the fishermen. All the benefits must be directed home. To maximise the value for the local economy, we must capture all income from the catching, processing and sales. By allowing the benefits of our fish to accrue abroad, we are wasting an opportunity. It is particularly important when we see the loss of manufacturing jobs, particularly in County Donegal, in recent times. These manufacturing jobs have been lost purely as a result of outside forces.

Various Oireachtas committees have concerned themselves with the value for money concept. There has been large investment in the fishing sector. However, on the 50-50 situation, when we are interpreting EU regulations, perhaps we could support the home team and have a more supportive rather than a regulatory role. There are many financial and social reasons why we should reduce our concentration on regulating and punishing the industry. Instead we should focus more on creating a climate which would encourage the fleet to land at home and maximise the value of the resource to the country.

Deputy Perry

I thank Mr. Kavanagh for his excellent presentation. As a banker looking at the industry he has seen some encouraging signs. However, there are worrying signals in his presentation. The level of investment, approximately €400 million, by financial institutions is not large when compared with the rest of the economy. What risks does Mr. Kavanagh see in investment in the fishing industry particularly when there are severe penalties in this country as opposed to other jurisdictions? Mr. Kavanagh cited Killybegs with its investment of €384 million. I have been in awe of the investment there but disappointed at the level of activity. Does he have a concern with the return on the investments there?

Mr. Kavanagh

Most of the banks' investment will be associated with the catching end of the business. My worry would not be for the safety of the loans because as quotas and their enforcement have tightened, so also has the length of the loans. In the beginning loans were smaller and it was possible to repay a loan on a fishing boat in six to seven years. The banks are now financing fishing boats for up to 20 years. The actual amount of cash that must be available at the end of a given year can be easily achieved within the scope of the quotas.

Chairman

What is the life of a vessel?

Mr. Kavanagh

The life of a vessel will be 20 years.

Deputy Perry

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report pointed out that in the five main fishery harbours there is no integration of management. Is there not a case for an integration of management at local level where the potential for private enterprise and State investment can be exploited? Are we not at a crossroads for future investment? The level of processing in Killybegs has been reduced from 14 factories to three or four.

Mr. Kavanagh

The level of fish coming in is not enough to maintain the factories. A certain percentage of the catch is not being landed in the town for economic, geographic and regulatory reasons.

Deputy Perry

The Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill is important. When lending finance to a person to buy a vessel, banks are devoid of sentiment. It is the bottom dollar that counts. If a bank invests money, it wants it back; it is not a charitable organisation. The criteria for banks to give this finance are shored-up loans by Government and exacting regulations with regard to the quotas. Will the banks do an assessment of what the fishing industry will be doing in Killybegs in two years' time? How can the banks set up a business plan on these exacting criteria?

Mr. Kavanagh has made two important points about his concern for the industry arising from the new regulations which may be enacted into law and also the point about uniformity of fines in the EU. Those points are important in term of the legislation.

Senator Kenneally

I too welcome Mr. Kavanagh and Mr. McCourt from AIB. Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to meet them in Killybegs. They paint a rosy picture of the future for the fishing industry and I would like to believe they are correct. This is against the backdrop of declining stocks. For example, one of the largest vessels in the Irish fleet has gone as far as Tasmania and Australia to fish. That is a measure of what is happening. It is difficult to get crews here. Most Irish people find the fishing industry, as with many industries, very tough. Most skippers have difficulty in getting crews and mostly foreign nationals are on these boats.

Even though the delegation says there are plenty of people willing to take the risk, what does the future hold? The delegation mentioned in its presentation that fishermen have been responsible in that they have not sought any interventions in the market to maintain prices. Does it believe there should be some type of intervention? Other industries have been helped in the past. Should the same happen in this case?

Deputy Broughan asked about bad debts to which the delegation said it did not have to write off anything as yet. Is it that some people have got into difficulties and that the bank has had to seize some other assets which may have had to be put up by way of guarantee when the people in question got the loan? Perhaps that is the reason there is no bad debt. Is there any history of that happening?

What is the point in having modern processing facilities if the fishing is done thousands of miles away? It is not a huge benefit to the Irish industry if the fish is landed elsewhere. The delegation mentioned Africa and I was surprised at the mention of Morocco. I thought the Spaniards had more or less fished out all the waters off the African coast and had most of the fleet tied up in Agadir. Are the opportunities there as great as they are supposed to be? It appears we are putting a fleet in place to fish elsewhere and we are not getting the value of it in the Irish ports.

Mr. Kavanagh

I will try to deal with the Senator's points one at a time. On the non-nationals issue, where non-nationals work on vessels operating out of Ireland, that is no different to the hotel and tourism sector. This is a fact of life that non-nationals are being employed. Fishing is difficult work and incomes have decreased in recent years.

There has been no serious bad debt issue. I would not agree that I paint a totally rosy picture. When the owners of the present fleet of boats, which was delivered in the past 12 months, approached the various lenders for the loans which were sanctioned, the quota for mackerel was close on 80,000 tonnes whereas the quota is now less than 50,000 tonnes. Nobody could have anticipated that. There was a savage cut in the quota last year. From my last meeting with the Marine Institute, while the actual total allowable catch will not be reviewed for another two years, the scientific evidence suggests the mackerel stock is strong. That is where the big money is. While I would not jump up and down, so to speak, in terms of outlining a rosy future, I do not believe we are facing a serious difficulty with the catching sector.

I believe we will lose an opportunity with the processing sector if more fish are not landed at home. It would be more appropriate to discuss that matter with the producers' organisations when they present. They might possibly explain the reasons more of the catch is not landed at home. It is not for me to comment on that issue.

Senator Kenneally

What about intervention in the market?

Mr. Kavanagh

There is a system of intervention for certain fish. The producers' organisations will deal with that issue but it is very mild. Intervention, as we would have known it years ago in the agricultural sector, would not be as helpful financially to the fishing sector. I have been dealing with it for almost 20 years. They are an independent group and will stick it out and try to make their own way without crying for help. Their first reaction is not to cry for help. They will try to work through it themselves and that is to their credit.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

My father was an AIB manager and both of my grandfathers were AIB branch managers. My grandfathers taught me a lesson. They said banking was about risk. My grandfather said that on his first day as branch bank manager, somebody proudly strutted in and he gave him a loan to buy cattle and he was very pleased with himself. He was walking home that night equally pleased with himself and he met the poor unfortunate creature in the ditch. The rest of the money he had borrowed was blowing down the road. On the first evening in his job he ran down the road collecting the money and he learned a lesson about risk.

Mr. Kavanagh set out a picture and said something that was very interesting. He said the Department has a problem in terms of marrying the needs of the industry and the needs of regulation coming from the European Union. Mr. McCourt may wish to speak on this issue also. I presume he is not here in a personal capacity and that it was decided to send two people for a reason. Given my genetic inheritance of knowledge of risk, while Mr. Kavanagh said the Department has a problem, I put it to Mr. Kavanagh that the AIB has a problem of €200 million to €300 million because it has taken a massive risk. That is fair enough. That is what banking is about but the AIB has decided to take a massive risk by investing massive amounts in the pelagic fleet in Donegal, in particular.

When I see that fleet in a picture and look at the size of the vessels and the number of them, I know that in a week or a few days it could catch the quota. That was an amazing risk for AIB to take. Mr. Kavanagh says he has spoken to the Marine Institute and he is confident about the future stocks of mackerel. I have been a Dáil Deputy for the past three years and have listened to the Marine Institute at this committee paint an incredibly bleak picture for the future. In that same three-year period the AIB has taken a major risk of lending massively for 12 new pelagic boats, among other areas of lending.

Regarding the type of information Mr. Kavanagh gave us then and which has informed his contribution and answers here today, does he ever talk to the Department about the fundamentals of the industry or does the Department ever ask Mr. Kavanagh, as a key financial resource for the industry, about the dynamics of the industry and what is likely to happen?

Since the Cathaoirleach has been in the Chair and for as long as I have been a member, we have had debates at this time of year up to early December on quota, fishing effort and so on and often felt in the dark to some extent. How informed would the Department have been on those issues? Has it ever sought information from the financial industry on the issues that might arise when they negotiate on behalf of our fishermen?

Regarding the point Deputy Ryan made again, quotas and fishing effort change and the legislation we will discuss in the House tomorrow will have a major impact on the industry. To what extent does Mr. Kavanagh try to estimate that? Is it like any other industry such as the ICT business? Does he have people who will, in a detailed way, try to predict what the European fishing effort will be, what Ireland's share of it will be and so on?

Deputy Perry asked Mr. Kavanagh about his knowledge of fishing losses over the years and the struggles fishermen faced to try to repay loans and keep their finances in order. On a related point, does Mr. Kavanagh believe the decommissioning package will impact in any way on the type of commitments he has made to the fishing industry?

Mr. Kavanagh is obviously a strong supporter of the industry both in Donegal and here. Does he see it as having the potential of, say, the Norwegian industry? Obviously, sustainability will have to be a key factor. Mr. Kavanagh always appears to be talking in terms of an industry with greater potential than anything we have seen. I agree with Deputy Perry. We were a little shocked by the lack of activity in our factories and so on the day we visited our premier fishing port a few months ago.

Mr. Kavanagh

On the position with the quota, obviously we would be happier if we thought the quotas would increase. It would make everybody more comfortable. As matters stand currently, the easiest expression to use is that things will be tight. Things are tight. They are achievable but they are tight but it does prompt a fisherman to go where he will get the maximum value for his fish and I believe the RSW fleet will be okay.

On the question about the decommissioning, as I said previously to Deputy Ryan, it is designed more for older boats that would have been engaged in fisheries where the quota restrictions are possibly even more restrictive. For people relying on monkfish, megrim or demersal fish, which are high quality and highly priced white fish, it will enable some of them to get out of the industry at this stage possibly with more dignity than they might have done otherwise.

In terms of the loans going forward, everybody would be more comfortable. The pelagic fleet, the KFO and others over the past year or two have been trying to develop a processing industry based on blue whiting. We now have an enormous quota of blue whiting — 75,000 tonnes — which I would not have brought into the equation because the industry is very much in its infancy. Approximately 14,000 tonnes were processed in Killybegs last year with mixed results. It is an emerging market but it will be another opportunity for the ships to land and generate cashflow.

With regard to ongoing contact with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Department would not necessarily, nor would I expect it to, contact me to discuss how it should approach the quota negotiations. The Department is extremely restricted in what happens there because it is governed totally by Europe. On the other hand, in terms of officials making themselves available to me as a banker going to the Department in recent years, I could not fault them. They have been extremely generous and good in giving whatever advice they can. The point is that the rules tend to change quite quickly. I am not sure who is driving that; it is not in my remit. However, in terms of assisting me as a banker, many officials of varying levels of seniority within the Department have been extremely good to me and, I am sure, to people in my position in other banks.

Chairman

Mr. Kavanagh, you mentioned that you would have to put up bonds for fines imposed by the Circuit Court on those who bank with you. I understand from our dealings with the different ports that this is treated as a criminal offence in law. Does the bank have any difficulties dealing with people who are criminalised as a result of being fined for being a little over quota? You also mentioned that the fines and punishments are disproportionate to the offences.

Mr. Kavanagh

I will give an example. I was careful in constructing the wording of that section. I spoke to a solicitor and tried to establish what the similar fines would be. Let us take the example of somebody who buys a reasonably small fishing boat. He borrows €600,000 from the bank. His neighbour borrows €600,000 to buy a pub. The chap who buys the pub opens it on the first weekend and at 3.30 a.m. the pub is raided by the gardaí and 20 people are found on the premises, two of whom are under age. The pub owner will be fined €100, perhaps, each of the people found on the premises will be fined €25 or €50 and if the Garda authorities desire, they can close down the pub for a week because there were under age people on the premises.

There was no consultation on the drafting of the Bill with the industry.

Mr. Whooley

Our initial view on this Bill is that it is the opposite of partnership. The regional advisory councils, established under the Common Fisheries Policy, are all about stakeholder involvement and about bringing the people who are most at risk in the fishing industry into the decision-making process and giving them an opportunity to highlight their concerns, whether in terms of legislation or new policies being advocated at European level. This has been the trend.

Historically, there was very much a top down approach with the Common Fisheries Policy but, increasingly, the approach is bottom up. There is a realisation at European level that the top down approach has not worked and that we need to get stakeholders involved. Central to that view, as Mr. Kavanagh pointed out in his presentation, is the fact that investments are taking place over a 20-year period so it makes no sense for an individual to act in a cowboy fashion. A long strategic view of the industry is required and that is why the stakeholders' view is very important because it is their future that is at risk if there is a reduction in quotas and stocks. The greatest impact will be on the fishermen.

It is in recognition of the fact that there is an inclusive process, particularly at European level. Our view of this Bill is that there are draconian penalties which we do not see in other member states. We will highlight that during our presentation. We believe there is a total absence of proportionality. Essentially, the penalty does not fit the offence. A very good example of the publican was given and what happens if there is a breach of regulation in that area.

That is the document. The average fine for a log book offence in Denmark was €393 while in Ireland, the figure was €8,455. The average fine for fishing for species subject to prohibition in the UK was €2,328 while in Ireland, the figure was €23,125. It is important to realise that in the Spanish and UK cases — we will hear about the French from Mr. Pichon — these vessels are fishing side by side in the same waters as our fishing vessels with completely different penalties being imposed for identical offences. I suppose, perhaps wrongly, we all assumed at one stage that this was a Common Market and a European Community, but complete disparity is evident here. I stress these are European Union figures.

In addition to the fines, Ireland provides for automatic confiscation of the fishing gear and catch. For example, if a vessel going to the Circuit Court, which is where the vast majority of our fishing vessels end up when prosecuted for a fishery offence, has quota of four tonnes of monkfish per month and the individual has on board five tonnes, that is, one tonne over quota, the value of five tonnes is confiscated. In addition, even though the gear utilised for catching that fish is perfectly legal, the value of all that gear on board is also confiscated. That is where the bond to which Mr. Kavanagh referred is put in place. The bond would be put in place to reflect the value of the catch, the gear plus the maximum fine per offence. That is what usually dictates the amount decided for the bond. It is an enormous penalty.

Notwithstanding those enormous penalties, we now find that this proposed legislation seeks to increase the maximum amount per fine to €200,000. Ireland is number one in Europe, as far as we are concerned, and now we are looking to be number one far beyond Europe. In our view, it simply is not justified.

In addition to the increase in offences, we are looking at a new element, the proposed suspension of fishing licences. Somebody may be unfortunate enough to be charged with a repeat offence. That can happen, one can be unlucky within the space of 12 months — it happens with speeding offences. This is about people conducting a daily business and trying to earn a livelihood, it is not gun-running. People who are on the road driving seven days a week have occasionally received speeding tickets two weeks in a row or twice in three years. If there is a repeat fishing offence here twice in three years, then there is potential for a seizure of the vessel.

In the explanatory note the committee received with the Bill the comparisons between existing maximum fines and proposed maximum fines are misleading. They are on the basis of the case mentioned in the document, the Vincent Browne Supreme Court case. That case resulted in increased the ceilings in 2004. In some cases the legislation proposes to reduce those ceilings. Having said that, prior to the Supreme Court case the ceilings were much lower. Were 2003 maximum fines used that table would be significantly different. For example, it is only as a result of a Supreme Court case that some of those fines are €500,000.

We see the deficiencies, particularly in the case of the sanctions. We have lobbied extensively for the decriminalisation of offences. One of the primary reasons for this is that persons who are convicted in the Circuit Court automatically, because they have a criminal record for merely carrying out their job to the best of their ability and for being unlucky to have been prosecuted in the Circuit Court, are prohibited from entering the United States. Putting that kind of penalty in front of a young person, who has a degree of intelligence, a certain amount of ability in the fishing industry and who wants to create a career for himself, is one way of ensuring that he will not enter our industry. It is completely excessive, it is overkill in the extreme. That is why we were looking for a system of decriminalisation.

I highlighted the deficiencies already. There are sanctions, in particular, that are disproportionate to the offence when compared with those imposed by other member states. We completely object to the automatic confiscation of gear and catch. An alternative approach is required. That alternative approach would centre on a system of decriminalisation and of administrative sanctions. On the EU report quoted at the outset, 86% of all offences in the EU are dealt with in an administrative fashion yet none are so dealt with in Ireland.

Chairman

Is that because a common law system operates here and some EU countries operate an administrative law system?

Mr. Whooley

Yes, an inherited common law system.

To clarify a point made by the Naval Service representative, written warnings are given for minor book-work offences. If, as has happened on a regular basis, an individual does not hold a copy of his up-to-date fishing licence or has not been furnished a copy of that licence by the Department, he receives a written warning. If a boarding ladder is made of the incorrect material, he receives a written warning. If, for example, the number of his vessel is not painted in an appropriate fashion, he receives a written warning. Written warnings, by and large, are issued for technicalities. Our experience — I speak with considerable experience in this area — is that matters of catches in excess of the quota are consistently dealt with by detentions.

As an alternative approach the penalty should fit the offence. If there are serious offences, then we want serious penalties. If an individual blatantly goes out and catches undersized fish, encroaches into an area closed for conservation purposes or utilises undersize mesh, then that individual should face the full rigours of the law and the Irish fishing industry has no qualms about that. However, we are consistently seeing the book thrown at individuals for what we consider minor infringements, which are dealt with in a different fashion elsewhere.

Deputy Broughan

Should the proposed penalties be applied to those serious offences?

Mr. Whooley

In some cases. For undersized gear, for example, yes, I would consider penalties, although perhaps not of the magnitude suggested in this Bill. In this age of high operating costs a fine of €50,000 is sufficient to take many operations completely out of business because it directly hits one's bottom line.

Another of our difficulties with the Bill relates to section 41, which proposes the appointment of a seafood control manager. One major concern with this provision is that the Minister is sidelined. This individual is answerable only to the Secretary General and accountable only within the Department. Our view is that then the seafood control manager will not be independent. There is stated provision in the Bill for no redress or appeals procedure with this individual. It is our considered view that this will not deliver better control and enforcement.

The Bill is retrograde, ill-conceived, excessive and, most importantly, a missed opportunity. We need a progressive Bill, we need administrative and graded sanctions and we need accountability but, above all, we need stakeholder involvement. We are the people at the coalface. Our members of the producer organisation are the individuals employing people and generating money in rural communities where there is an absence of economic alternatives. We want to be included in any drafting of policies or legislation. We have a role to play and that has been recognised at European level with the advent of regional advisory councils. We believe the Bill must be withdrawn and redrafted.

Deputy O’Donovan

I welcome the professional presentation by Mr. Whooley but we would not expect anything less. He has set out graphically the reservations I had when I first read the explanatory memorandum and legislation. The death penalty might as well be introduced for fishing. The penalties provided for in the legislation surpass the maximum penalties in place for the importation of drugs. Someone has gone mad with the Bill. We have consulted fishing organisations at least twice a year and the Irish South and West Fishermen's Organisation is in my bailiwick. The organisation has always advocated consultation and the Minister and the Department have on a number of occasions expressed gratitude to the representative organisations for their co-operation, particularly when fighting for quotas in Europe. However, the Bill contravenes every attempt that has been made to bring logic to bear. One of the most serious issues raised is an attempt to criminalise fishermen.

Ireland operates the most severe, draconian regime as regards penalties, confiscation of equipment, tying up of boats and so on in Europe. Instead of trying to reach a happy medium and row back towards the European model, which is fair, the Government is moving to the opposite extreme. I have major reservations about the legislation. A number of Members expressed concerns at the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meeting yesterday.

Chairman

The Deputy should not leak what was said at that meeting.

Deputy O’Donovan

I would be quite proud to leak it.

Deputy Broughan

I was invited to a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party a few months ago.

Chairman

We are seeking new members.

Deputy O’Donovan

The Deputy would be more than welcome. My final comment at the party meeting was that a number of members would have severe difficulty lending their names to the Bill if it is put through the House. That is the strongest statement I have ever made about legislation. I presumed several months ago, when the Bill was first discussed by the committee, that we would have an opportunity to conduct an in-depth analysis and discussion of the legislation with the fishing organisations before it was introduced. It has been brought forward and I am disappointed at the manner in which the Bill is being railroaded through the Oireachtas.

The fishing industry faces many difficulties and fishermen are facing up to them as best they can. We are putting a gun to their heads. The Bill provides for the seizure of vessels, which would mean a fisherman would lose his licence, quotas and other allocations. His house, family and livelihood might as well be taken from him. The handbrake needs to be applied and we need to engage in a reverse thrust.

Chairman

The Minister agreed not to publish the legislation until the end of September. Unfortunately, due to other pressing matters such as our visit to various regional harbours and the Corrib gas field protest, the committee could not take the discussion on the legislation. It was scheduled for September but, unfortunately, a deadline was in place. I would like to be fair to the Minister.

Deputy O’Donovan

Perhaps the tail is wagging the dog in order to make it start barking.

Chairman

The Minister did not publish the legislation until 5 October. It was up to the committee to schedule this discussion but it had to be deferred until now. The Deputy is correct that it would have been better to have held this all-day session first.

Senator Kenneally

I cannot disagree with Deputy O'Donovan's comments. I was appalled when I read the legislation and I also spoke about this at the parliamentary party meeting yesterday. I am not afraid to outline what I said last night. A number of party members leak widely what they say at such meetings but I have no problem putting my comments on the record because I am deeply unhappy with the legislation.

I refer to the reference to section 41 on the first page of the explanatory memorandum, which Mr. Whooley mentioned, which transfers powers from the Minister to the Secretary General of the Department. The last time I checked we live in a democracy but this legislation is totally undemocratic. We are elected to run the affairs of the country and for too long we have been transferring powers to faceless individuals. We then have to face the public. Section 41 is a total joke and a line should be drawn through it immediately. If there is a need for a seafood control manager, the Minister should be given the power to appoint him or her through a ministerial order, if he or she thinks it necessary. The current proposal is totally unacceptable.

I examined the proposed fines and thought they had been reduced but Mr. Whooley has indicated that is not the case. The 2003 figures would be more relevant. A number of reductions are provided but the fines are still draconian. I cannot understand where the Government is going with this legislation. Why is the Department so down on our fishermen? Is the Department trying to put itself out of business, given that there will be no need for a Department of the marine if no fishermen are at sea?

Mr. Ó Cinnéide has a schedule of penalties proposed by his organisation. As we will deal with the passage of the legislation, we need to know what the fisheries organisations think should be provided in it. I will get the schedule from Mr. Ó Cinnéide later. Have efforts been made at EU level to co-ordinate the imposition of fines throughout member states? Mr. Whooley has outlined a number of examples but they were relatively obvious. Does Ireland impose the stiffest fines?

If the legislation is enacted, it must be passed by the committee. I propose that we, as a committee, should refuse to take it.

Deputy Broughan

It is regrettable that the Bill, which was only published last Wednesday, will be taken in the Dáil tomorrow afternoon and that the committee did not have an opportunity to discuss it extensively with industry representatives. Our Fianna Fáil colleagues will have an opportunity to vote the Bill down tomorrow or early next week.

I would like to follow up on Senator Kenneally's questions about fines. Mr. Whooley made an excellent presentation in this regard. Are our fines following conviction on indictment significantly higher than those of other member states? In the past decade, were the vast proportion of offences committed in the industry summary offences whereby people ended up in court and these penalties could have been imposed? The point about criminalisation is interesting vis-à-vis its impact on people. Obviously there is a determination on the part of the Department to try to create a level playing pitch in which all sectors can have confidence.

That is clear. I wish to point out, lest Deputies waste their valuable Private Members' time next week raising this issue, that this is a no-win situation until the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party has had a chance to discuss it.

Deputy Broughan

The Chairman and other Deputies will have an opportunity at the end of Second Stage to vote on it. We will expect the Fianna Fáil Party to honour the commitments it has been making in this regard.

Chairman

We will not play politics with the Bill. What we will do is try to change it to make it right so that it will work for Government, the European Union and the industry.

I ask Mr. Whooley to allow the other members of the delegation an opportunity to reply now. We will share the questions so that we do not delay.

Mr. Lorcán Ó Cinnéide

There was no consultation of any shape or form about any aspect of this Bill with anyone on this side of the table. I want to make it perfectly clear that there was zero consultation with us.

Deputy Perry

That is extraordinary. I am amazed there was no consultation.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

At a meeting we attended in the Department some months ago when I raised the matter of the possibility of this legislation, I was told it was the sole prerogative of the Government to publish legislation and that the civil servants involved felt constrained by that. I had some sympathy for them and took that at face value. There was certainly no consultation and I doubt anybody was more surprised than us by that. We are all responsible for the presentation and our opposition to the Bill is extensive and detailed.

Ireland is a member of the European Union and fisheries are largely governed from Brussels. In my view it is not beyond the capability of the European Union to make adequate provision for somebody who is in flagrant breach. I cannot conceive of any incident on the high seas involving fishing boats and the Common Fisheries Policy which would justify the endangerment of one additional life. Everybody out there is putting their lives on the line every day but the possibility of being shot at by some clown is completely unacceptable.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Ó Cinnéide. I ask Mr. O'Donoghue to reply to the questions and there is no need for him to add to what Mr. Ó Cinnéide has said.

Mr. Seán O’Donoghue

I will not refer to what Mr. Ó Cinnéide said only to agree wholeheartedly with him.

I will address two or three of the questions and Mr. Jason Whooley and others will address the remainder. Deputy Broughan asked about the percentage of cases which are on indictment rather than on summary. I do not have the statistics to hand but there has been a sea change in the manner in which fisheries offences have been dealt with in the past three to four years. Almost 99% of cases detected are sent on indictment to the Circuit Court and a summary offence is now a rarity. This is a slap on the hand in terms of the fines relating to the indictment. It seems to be linked back to the Vincent Browne Supreme Court case, Browne v. A.G. and Others. Prior to this, at least 20% of the cases were regarded as summary rather than indictable offences. Any reference in the new Bill to summary offences can be disregarded because all cases are going on indictment and this should be borne in mind.

Deputies Broughan and Eamon Ryan also referred to the sea fisheries control manager position. Deputy Broughan asked whether it was reasonable to have a regulator. As the legislation is currently drafted, this is not an independent position. The industry can see some merit in the existence of a completely independent regulator. However, this proposal is to set up an office or a person who will be beyond reproach as there is no appeals mechanism and it will be still under the remit of the Department. My organisation does not believe this will add one iota to the improvement of control and enforcement. In our view, the proposals in this Bill are already in existence within the Department's management structure.

Deputy Broughan

In the past some regulators were former officials who were then floated out as an agency. Is Mr. O'Donoghue of the view that this should be stipulated in the Bill?

Mr. O’Donoghue

I would agree and I recommend that the effectiveness and efficiency of the control system be examined. We are examining sea fisheries control but there is also a large inland fisheries control to be considered. Any proposed body should encompass the whole industry. I do not see how section 41 of the Bill will make one iota of difference in terms of improving control and enforcement.

A question was asked about the level of fines applied across Europe. From the point of view of the industry, the new Common Fisheries Policy contains a provision which is meant to co-ordinate all the protection services across the European Union by means of a new control agency. I cannot see the levelling of fines being put into action, given the different legal systems in member states. In our view, the only way to make the laws and the penalties suit the crime is by way of the administrative route to which Mr. Whooley referred and which is the method for dealing with 86% of fisheries penalties across Europe.

Mr. Frank Doyle

My organisation has not been part of this presentation so there may be a difference of opinion on one or two points.

Chairman

Will Mr. Doyle explain that statement to the committee? Was there no consultation between the groups?

Mr. Doyle

There is consultation but for various reasons I was unable to attend the meeting last night.

Chairman

Were you invited to the meeting?

Mr. Doyle

Yes, I was invited.

Chairman

In that case I remind Mr. Doyle to be fair to his colleagues.

Mr. Doyle

I would have said the same at the meeting last night.

What is the reason for the rush in preparing this Bill? It has come out of thin air; nobody knew about it and there has been no consultation. It appeared out of the woodwork during the week. The implication is that fishermen are the cause of whatever problems exist and this is the message being given.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The Legislature must react to a Supreme Court decision.

Mr. Doyle

That may well be but I do not know. It suddenly came out of thin air, as far as my organisation is concerned.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I understand it is as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

Mr. Doyle

That may be the case but it is here now. The problem may have less to do with fishermen than with the administration and ministerial involvement over the years.It is to do with fisheries policy over the period since 1989, when licensing became an issue. Lack of licensing policy has created serious complications on several fronts and has created vast over-capacity in certain areas over that period.As another speaker said, we are now faced with decommissioning of some major elements of different fleetswhile there is an expansion of other fleetsat the same time.This means we have a plus and a minus situation 15 years after the original decision to introduce capacity limits.

The question of changes in the current legislation has been raised. One might ask why there is a need for change since the current legislation is among the toughest in Europe. Why do we need higher ceilings? Are they not already high enough? If they are high enough, why change them to a higher level? Nobody disputes the need for effective control. I stress the word "effective". In a multi-jurisdictional fishery with different member states responsible for different parts, it must be fair and equal. This is part of the problem. Depending on which side of the line one is, in the same fishery someone might be hit for a wildly different level of penalty.

There is no level playing field as has been mentioned, which is largely due to different national systems, cultures and attitudes. What is regarded in some member states as a very serious offence is regarded as trivial elsewhere and vice versa. Further to an interesting comment by the commodore earlier this morning — it is not the first time I heard it — the current legislation cannot deal with the problem nor can the proposed legislation. The problem is how to deal with a foreign vessel fishing in Irish waters which is in breach of its vessel quota. Nobody can determine the vessel quota for a particular vessel at a particular time. This represents a huge gap in the system. If the Naval Service patrolling up to 200 miles out to sea is unable to determine what rights a particular vessel has at a particular time, it cannot function. I understand that it is virtually impossible to find out the quota of a particular foreign vessel. I am thinking more of one country than another. There is a huge black hole which needs to be addressed.

Chairman

I have to stop Mr. Doyle now. We will leave the other questions for a minute. I ask Mr. Doyle to bear with me as I am under considerable pressure. I will call Mr. Pichon now and I ask Mr. Whooley to sit alongside him. I ask the rest of the witnesses to remain. We will hear from Mr. Gallizioli before we adjourn.

Deputy Broughan

I ask Mr. Pichon to deal with an extraordinary point that Mr. Doyle, Mr. Whooley and others have made that our Naval Service would not have a clue about the quota requirements of another EU member state vessel.

Chairman

It is unlikely that the Minister of State will appear before 2.30 p.m. because he will be taking parliamentary questions in the Chamber and most spokespersons will also need to be present. I propose that when we finish with Mr. Gallizioli we suspend until 4 o'clock so that we can take the Minister of State. I hope I have the right pronunciation for Mr. Gallizioli's name as the local and national radio make a pastime of checking my pronunciations of Spanish and other terms. I ask the clerk through his assistant to inform the Minister of State that he will not now be called before 2.30 p.m. and to make himself available to the committee at 4 p.m.

I welcome Monsieur Pichon to the meeting and I ask him to outline his experience in another country, France. I understand Mr. Whooley will assist him if he has any difficulties with the language. I wish to draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Under the salient rulings of the Chair, Members are reminded that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I thank Mr. Pichon for taking the time to come here.

Mr. Jacques Pichon

I ask members of the committee to excuse my poor English. In a way it might help them to save some time. I have been impressed by the presentation made by my colleague. I have not prepared such a presentation myself as until yesterday evening I did not know what I would need to do today. I am the chief executive of FROM Bretagne, which is a French producer organisation. We represent approximately 300 vessels, from 5 m boats to 45 m boats, most of which are trawlers. They fish throughout European waters but mainly from the Shetland Islands to the south part of the Bay of Biscay. They need to face different levels of sanction of the same kinds of offences depending on the member state which enforces the EU regulation. As has already been said, it is very complicated for fishermen to understand why they might face a €3,000 fine in one country and a €30,000 fine for exactly the same offence in another country.

As a Frenchman I do not have to take part in these debates but as our members are fishing alongside Irish boats, in ways we are stakeholders. If this Bill is adopted we will need to apply it and will need to face the increase in fines proposed.

Mr. Tom Geoghegan

I thank the Chairman. For the record, our organisation is the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association, IFPEA. I can understand the confusion with all the abbreviations for the various organisations.

On the processing side, the committee probably does not fully realise the seriousness of the position in terms of employment. This is due to a number of things. We have been tussling with the issue of weighing for two years. It has been a factor in making it easier for Irish fishing vessels to land abroad, mainly because the enforcement throughout the community was uneven in different countries and ours was a very strict enforcement. If they were all strict and there was a level playing field, that would be fine. That was a serious contributory problem that is being addressed at present.

I am particularly concerned about the pelagic sector. Since the year 2000 the number of plants operating here has been halved from 29 to 15. We are concerned at the direction of policy in sections 14 and 15 of the Bill. The proposed regulations seek to supplement the Common Fisheries Policy. This will not only affect sea-fishing boats but will also extend to persons buying, handling, weighing, transporting and processing fish. A strict regime has been in force in Ireland that has contributed to the serious situation on the shore, yet we are seeking to supplement the Common Fisheries Policy and to visit processors with more regulation. An addendum states that there is an automatic implication for buyers, handlers, transporters and processors of fish in the case of any contravention of the regulation by the master or owner of a fishing vessel.

This proposal is all-pervasive in its vision for supplementing and going beyond the EU's vision of a co-ordinated process based on a level playing field. I can give examples when it comes to giving the Commission details on this matter. This must be watched because, relatively speaking, the shore end is the one that is suffering most. Fishermen are mobile. I am not saying that they do not have problems with prices but they can go to Norway and other places. The shore is suffering in a serious way. We cannot take any more regulation because, at present, in seeking to conform with regulations, more plants are about to close because they have to gear up for another regime. We are quite concerned.

Chairman

I apologise but I must close this part of the meeting. We have had a good cross-section of views. I ask Mr. Walsh to please forgive me. These views are helpful to the committee. I thank Mr. Pichon. Witnesses are welcome to remain. We will suspend for two minutes to allow Mr. Gallizioli to appear before the committee.

Sitting suspended at 1.27 p.m. and resumed at 1.31 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Giorgio Gallizioli, head of the control and licences unit of the Directorate-General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the EU Commission. The unit deals with fishery matters. Mr. Gallizioli will outline the EU Commission's perspective. He is familiar with the workings of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, with which he has dealings. He has had an opportunity to listen to the views of the industry today and the views and experiences of Mr. Pichon regarding the fisheries regime and the fines being imposed across Europe.

Members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name, in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I understand the Minister of State has agreed to return to the committee at 4 p.m. We have communicated to his private secretary that we will not have heard the witnesses until then.

Minister of State at the Department of Communication, Marine and Natural Resources (Deputy. Gallagher)

I am taking parliamentary questions, including priority questions, but it could well be that I will be able to return by 3.30 p.m., if that is acceptable to the Chairman.

Chairman

I am sorry this meeting has run on and I appreciate that the Minister of State has been waiting to appear before the committee. I thank him for doing so. We have agreed with the members who have just left to prepare for the Minister of State's questions in the Chamber that are to return at 4 p.m. We will change this to 3.30 p.m. I ask that the Whips be contacted in this regard.

I call on Mr. Gallizioli to make his presentation. He is very welcome and I thank him for travelling from Brussels.

Mr. Giorgio Gallizioli

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for the opportunity to present the Commission's views on this subject. I understand the committee's attention has been drawn to the document published by the Commission on serious infringements in breach of common fisheries policy law.

I will give a general view. It is important to distinguish between the communication itself and the aim to have a level playing field, which is the committee's main concern. As was said, I am in charge of legislation and control in the Directorate-General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. It is important to remind oneself why we have a report on serious infringements. There is much provision concerning the control of fishing activities. The committee will be pleased to note the Commission has just published an action plan to simplify legislation. We need such control measures because we are dealing with shared resources. Any time a new provision is made, we must be absolutely sure it is complied with. If there is no compliance, there is no sense in having rules.

On the communication on serious infringements, the Council listed 19 serious infringements in 1999. The main task was to increase transparency regarding the manner in which member states enforce Community and national rules dealing with fisheries. The second step is to have increased uniformity regarding penalties across the European Union. The communication, published yearly by the Commission services, is to be considered a tool to enhance transparency and information. In this regard it is similar to the CNL report and the scoreboard on compliance, which was mentioned this morning. All three reports must be considered together because, standing alone, the communication on serious infringements is not very clear in its content. We intend to merge the three reports in the future.

We have already published four editions, although there has been a focus on only one. The first pertained to 2000, the second to 2001, the third to 2002 and the fourth to 2003. We are about to prepare the report on 2004, which will be the first to cover the new member states. Since we have four editions, we are assessing the publication to determine whether it addresses its aims satisfactorily. We would like to improve both the text and the result of the communication. We want to improve the text because it is stated clearly in each communication that the figures we publish are not very accurate. This is because of the way in which the data were collated. In this regard, there are different systems in operation in each member state and therefore it is difficult to make accurate comparisons. It is not possible because of crude figures. We need member states to help us gather clearer data.

I emphasise that the figures must be interpreted with many caveats, particularly the figures concerning the levels of penalties. This is because we are comparing different circumstances. We had a meeting recently at which we concluded there is an absolute need to make a distinction between member states' legal orders. It is not possible to make comparisons between countries where the sanctions are imposed through criminal procedures and countries where they are imposed through administrative procedures. I was told, for instance, that in some member states where the criminal procedure is used, cases are brought before the court only when they are very serious. Many cases go unnoticed because they do not proceed to the courts. Of course when the cases proceed to court, the penalties imposed are very high. The public can see we impose high penalties. This, however, depends on the system because it is a national choice. It is not for the EU Commission to say a country must use a particular system.

Penal and administrative sanctions have different effects and it is important to distinguish between them. Member states have very few cases of penal sanctions. In some countries there are only one or two cases making it difficult to average out the level of penalties. There are hundreds or thousands of cases of administrative penalties making it is possible to estimate an average. The figures furnished to the Commission's service for the criminal penalties include the value of the catches. This is not the case with administrative sanctions. The penal sanction therefore is not only the amount stated in the legislation but also the value of the catches, making it very high.

A typical administrative sanction used in some member states is suspension of a licence. Legislation does not quantify suspension for a couple of months in the way it does for penalty payments. The fisherman, however, loses money when his licence is withdrawn. That is why it is difficult for us to compare the sanctions. In the new edition of the communication we will make a clear distinction between the different national legislative provisions.

In respect of a uniform level of sanctions we not only consider the figures for the penalties but also how the system works. The number of infringements corresponds to the number of inspections, and therefore to the number of inspectors. There is no uniform definition of inspection procedure across the European Union. This is why we pay attention to the figures. These have been confirmed by member states but do not precisely represent the situation because this parameter must take into account other factors such as the number of inspections.

The figures spread over several years are erratic. Even in one country the penalties differ making it difficult to say one country imposes more severe penalties than another. These figures correspond to particular situations, often depending on the number of important cases brought to the court. We must also take into account that the numbers of penalties imposed by member states comprise those imposed on foreign vessels. In some member states foreign vessels account for one third of the infringements. This is significant if we are to apply the same rules across the board.

That is not surprising.

Chairman

It is a bit like my constituency. I only have the River Lee. In the Netherlands, average fines were €1,727, in Portugal, €491, Finland, €420, Sweden, €536 while the UK is similar to Ireland at €8,795. Mr. Gallizioli referred to the number of prosecutions. Do these relate to the size of the fleet? In the report, different sizes of the fleets are given as a percentage of these fines.

Mr. Gallizioli

Mr. Gallizioli

I am joined by Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary, Mr. Thomas Tobin, principal officer, and Mr. James Lavelle, assistant principal.

Chairman

As the Minister of State knows, we have decided to engage with the industry and others. While I do not know if the Minister of State has studied any of the presentations made today, many questions have been raised with regard to the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill to which the Minister of State will not be able to respond immediately. The Bill was published recently and although we had the month of September to hold hearings on it, unfortunately, we had no time to do this. However, some important issues were raised today, as well as the explanations provided by the official from Brussels, Mr. George Gallizioli. I ask the Minister of State to make his presentation and members will then ask questions.

Deputy Gallagher

Before I comment in detail on the Government's legislative proposals, I thank the committee for arranging the hearing and thank all others who contributed. While I was not present for all of the hearing, I watched it with one eye and tried to listen to it during the course of other meetings. I congratulate the committee. The hearings will prove most helpful to me when I take the Bill through the Houses in the coming weeks and months.

A pertinent question was asked as to why the Bill seemed to fall out of the sky this week. The heads of the Bill went to Government on 4 October last, five days after I was appointed to office and three or four weeks before I received my statutory responsibilities. It was on its way in January of this year but a number of issues arose and my officials and I took some time to go through the detail of the Bill before it went to Government last week. The Government decided that the Bill should be expedited and should come before the Houses as quickly as possible. It was expected that Second Stage would begin in the Dáil tomorrow but that will not happen. It will be a matter for the Whips to decide when it will come before the House and a matter for the committee and myself to decide when Committee Stage is taken by the committee.

The contributions by those representing the industry, the Naval Service, the European Union and the French fishermen were interesting. I will be more than pleased to have the opportunity to read the transcripts and, eventually, to read the committee report.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is not just about regulation, despite the perception that this is the case, particularly for its marine section. The Department also has a developmental role, which I like to highlight at all times. We are responsible for developing the industry in a sustainable fashion, whether with regard to sea fish or inland fish.

All those who contributed to the hearing and many outside this forum with an interest in and concern for the fishing industry will be aware that the industry is facing difficult times. High fuel prices are having a serious impact on the sector and it is important to bear in mind that the sector has also had to contend with progressively reducing quotas over a number of years. This reflects the reality that many important fish stocks around Ireland and elsewhere are under pressure. The fish around our coast are under pressure not just from the Irish fleet but from the fleets of neighbouring EU member states which have a right to fish in Irish waters.

With regard to high fuel prices, the industry representatives met with Commissioner Borg in July last, following which he made recommendations. He and I had a short discussion during the last Council meeting. We considered short-term and long-term issues which we will address. I gave a commitment that we would carry out a study on what needed to be done in the short-term. In the long-term, the Directorate General responsible for fish and the fisheries fund does not have sufficient resources to invest in research and development. Instead, the seventh framework which deals with science and technology should have that responsibility. Research and development should be an over-arching process in which all vessels can share to ensure they become more efficient and fuel-friendly, thus reducing their overall costs.

The scientists who deal with fisheries have detected evidence of the decline to dangerously low levels of many important fish stocks. In that respect, the species that has attracted most headlines is cod. This decline is not confined to Irish waters but to many other waters, notably in the north and the Baltic. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, is about to publish scientific advice for fish stocks for 2006. We expect that this will reflect the serious scientific concerns about stocks generally.

This advice will be followed next month by the Commission proposals for next year's quotas, which will come before the Council in December next. When all of these elements are available, I will be glad to discuss them further with the committee, if it so wishes, and with the industry, as is traditional, between the November and December Council meetings. This is the overall policy context against which today's hearings and other discussions must take place. The industry has shown a remarkable resilience throughout the difficult period it has undergone in recent times. Industry representatives have demonstrated a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue with the Department and the European Commission in attempting to identify the best way forward.

There is a general consensus that the greatest threat to the future viability of the sector is declining fish stocks. I encountered conflicting opinions on this issue during my time in the European Parliament and as a member of the EU fisheries committee. During that period, Ireland and the United Kingdom stated their desire to develop technical conservation measures. Their initiatives in this regard were appreciated by all members of the committee.

It is important to remember that we are all in this together and it is not a case of the Department versus the industry. We each have a responsibility as custodians to ensure there are sufficient fish stocks into the future. As a consequence of reductions in quotas, we must ensure we add value to the fish that are landed. To do so, we must ensure fisheries are managed and I am a strong supporter of this approach. Such management will not be effective if undertaken unilaterally by the Department. Rather, it must be done by way of bilateral agreements between the Department and the organisations that represent the industry.

Above all else, the downward trend must be reversed and the legislative proposals the committee is considering today must be viewed in the context of this common objective. They are intended to improve the implementation of EU fisheries conservation measures and the sustainable management of sea fisheries so as to enhance the future prospects of the industry and the coastal communities which depend on it. I am well aware that coastal regions are heavily dependent on the fishing industry where there is no alternative source of employment.

While the necessity to confront these difficulties is beyond dispute, it would be incorrect to contend that the problems facing the sea industry are overwhelming and insurmountable. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will return to this topic towards the end of my address. I emphasise the positive developments taking place and ask members to consider the backdrop. There has been some comment on opinions I allegedly expressed in the past. I never intended to criticise those who negotiated our entry into the EU or those who negotiated the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, in 1983. These negotiations were undertaken in good faith. Those involved could not foresee the developments that took place in the Irish fishing industry in the subsequent 20 years. Had such foresight been possible, the situation may have been different. We must deal with the reality of the situation by making maximum use of the resources available to us.

One positive development was the reform of the CFP in 2002. Many hoped for a more significant transformation and that Ireland might be granted a greater percentage of the total allowable catch, TAC. For such to be achieved, however, some other country would have had to lose out and negotiations cannot be conducted on that basis. Nevertheless, progress was achieved in 2002 on stock conservation measures, with control enforcement given a much greater emphasis in the reformed CFP.

Other progress includes the EU agreement we secured for cod and hake recovery plans in Irish waters. Moreover, a €45 million decommissioning scheme for the white fish and shellfish sectors was recently announced. I look forward to the recommendations arising from the announcement last week of an important study into possible new quota management arrangements. In this context, I will be pleased to discuss with industry representatives how best we can manage other species. An obvious one is horse mackerel or scad. I look forward to discussions with the industry with a view to agreeing a management regime for scad before the end of year.

The recent launch of regional advisory councils which give Irish fishermen a voice in the shaping of future changes in the CFP is another welcome development. I am convinced that the input of the industry will be important and that this will not be a cosmetic exercise or smoke screen. I am certain their views and contributions will be taken into consideration by the Commission.

There are, therefore, a number of important developments taking place in the sector. I welcome the close consultation with industry representatives, including producers and processors. It is vitally important that there should be a two-way flow so that we work together in the best interests of the industry. Although fuel prices are historically high, some fish products, notably pelagic fish such as mackerel, are fetching good prices. It would be even better if those good prices were secured and the price of fuel was the same as it was this time last year. However, we must accept economic realities.

We are dealing with a complex and complicated sector where a variety of balances must be struck in devising the best way forward. This is true of the sea fisheries legislation being considered at today's hearings. Before dealing with the legislation, I wish to make some general observations on why it is and always has been important for the industry that there is a strong and effective fisheries control framework in place in Ireland, not only for Irish vessels but for all vessels fishing in Irish waters. Under the CFP, Ireland has a legal responsibility for fisheries enforcement in the sea around Ireland, which is ten times the size of our land mass. This area is fished extensively by many European fleets, being at one time the most prolific fishing grounds in Europe. I hope we will return to that situation in the future.

Fish stocks in Irish waters are under considerable pressure and if conservation measures and quotas are not effectively enforced, we will have further reductions within a short time. It is our own fleet that is most dependent on the security of stocks in Irish waters. If stocks are depleted through ineffective fisheries enforcement, we will be the first to see the effects of that. This would be the worst possible outcome for our industry and the coastal communities which depend so much on it. It is a vital necessity for the industry that there is a strong and effective legal framework for enforcement of all fleets, including our own, in our exclusive fishery limits. This is why the Government has set high standards in legislation and has, in the national interest, avoided any pressure to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

The Naval Service representative provided statistics to the committee to the effect that approximately 50% of the vessels boarded are Irish and 50% are foreign. It was interesting to hear this as I, like many others, was always of the impression that only Irish vessels were boarded and not foreign vessels. Perhaps it is a perception.

The Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill was published a few days ago, some 12 months after the Government decided on the heads of the Bill. It takes some time to put meat on the bones of such a measure. I have been mandated by the Government to seek an early adoption of the Bill. I look forward to working co-operatively and positively with the committee to have the Bill adopted as soon as possible. While the Bill will not come before the House tomorrow as originally intended, the committee members may take it that it will do so during the course of this session.

The Bill, which has some 70 sections, is a substantial document and is intended to modernise the legislative basis for fisheries. The current principal Act was adopted in the middle of the 20th century and has been subjected to a number of amendments. This Bill will consolidate some seven Acts which were enacted over a number of decades. After its enactment, the legislation will be made up of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003 and this Bill.

The mid-20th century Act was designed for a fishing industry which primarily involved short trips by small Irish boats. As I have noted previously, the industry has changed beyond recognition since 1983. It now includes many multimillion euro businesses, large vessels operating in faraway regions and large non-Irish boats fishing in the waters around our coast. A number of such vessels have been particularly active in respect of landing whitefish in Ireland.

The industry is now substantially regulated at EU level within the Common Fisheries Policy. The Bill is designed to fill a major gap in the Acts in respect of the implementation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, following litigation which resulted in the impugning of certain secondary legislation which was not covered by the current Acts — the Vincent Browne case. We must amend the legal framework to have regard to these realities and the outcome of those court cases and to modernise our systems and structures so that we implement best practices in fisheries management and control.

While I do not intend to focus in detail on the Bill, many witnesses who spoke before my submission have done so. Hopefully, we can deal with the issues raised in the course of this meeting and over the coming weeks.

I want to turn to the burning question of fines and forfeitures, which has been identified for specific attention at today's meeting. Recently, there has been a strong emphasis on measures to strengthen the fisheries enforcement service of the Department and this process has been accelerated. At the outset, one must note that no one is guilty until so proven. Despite the fact that investigations have been underway for 12 months in parts of the country, everyone involved is innocent and no one should rush to any conclusions. While quite a number of European Court of Justice proceedings in which the EU Commission has taken action against Ireland in respect of failures to implement the Common Fisheries Policy are forthcoming, the resolution of issues is underway. We have established a land-based inspectorate, an independent sea fishing boat licensing authority, and have instigated the decommissioning programme to remove 25% of the whitefish fleet and to reduce the capacity of the shellfish fleet, predominately in the scallops sector. The revision of the legal framework that implements the Common Fisheries Policy at national level is considered to be a necessary element for delivering a strengthened fisheries service.

The European Union Common Fisheries Policy sets out certain basic principles which must be attended by all member states to enable those states to enforce the duties which are mandatory for them under the Common Fisheries Policy at national level. The basic regulation is EU Regulation 2371/2002 and the control regulation is EU Regulation 2847/93. Under the Community regulations, a person who commits a breach of the law must be deprived of any financial benefit of his or her actions. Given the considerable value of fish which can be landed from one trip and the potential level of financial penalties, European law states those breaking the law must take account of this reality. It is also important to note that the penalties for fishery offences are financial. I am not aware of any country in which imprisonment is a possibility.

This leads me to the question of administrative sanctions. I was most impressed to listen to the European Commission's representative, Mr.Gallizioli, as he reflected the Commission's views, whatever members thought. Possibly, that can be teased out during the course of the evening. I am most anxious to obtain further information from the Commission. It would appear from what he has said that administrative sanctions are the preferred choice for minor offences. I underline minor offences because everyone from the Department and the industry agrees that the criminal law is there to deal with anything of a serious nature.

The presentation was most interesting. While I knew this was the practice in other countries, and I will deal with it, we may have a problem with our Constitution. However, if we have a Common Fisheries Policy, the legislation, fines, forfeitures and administrative decisions should be even-handed throughout all Europe. Some countries impose higher penalties than others and I believe our practices may be average.

While we have this opportunity, we should examine the nature and detail of the financial penalties for fisheries offences. In 2003, the average fine in this country for infringement was under €5,000 per individual prosecution, in respect of 26 successful prosecutions. In 2004, the average fine imposed by the courts was €5,500 per individual prosecution. The EU report on serious infringements for 2003 shows the average fine varied from member state to member state and involved a wide range of penalties. For example, in Britain, an average fine amounted to €77,922. The industry has lobbied that the levels of fines and forfeitures applicable to fisheries offences in Ireland are excessive. The maximum possible levels of fines for the main fishery offences have not been amended since 1994 and in some cases not since 1983.

In the context of proposing a revision of the maximum fines which may be imposed by the courts under the legislative framework, the following principles must be taken into account. The basic European rules about deterrent and dissuasive systems are that people fishing illegally should not benefit from the activity under the obligations of the fisheries policy. The current regime, including forfeitures, is designed to be a deterrent and dissuasive. Any change should be justified objectively on clear policy grounds and would need to demonstrate that it furthered the deterrent and dissuasive requirement of the Common Fisheries Policy.

The increases in maximum fines which are stipulated in the Bill have been set by the Government. Any changes to them will be a matter for the Government to decide. I will be the conduit between the committee and the Government and will deal with these issues during the passage of the Bill. The fines and forfeiture structure in the Bill is intended to reflect the principle to which I have referred. These are maximum fines that may be applied for any particular offence. Like all other legislators, I want the fine or penalty to reflect the crime. It can be assumed that the courts will set the level of fine in the majority of cases, as has been the practice in the past. Normally it is set significantly below the maximum level, but that is a matter for the Judiciary to decide. While I do not wish to transgress that principle, I am quite free to express my views as to what the maximum fines should be. Ireland is among a number of EU member states which face legal proceedings brought by the Commission for alleged failures in fisheries control. I will make the details available to members later on.

Article 2.28 of the treaty now allows the Commission to re-enter a matter where judgment has been given against a member state to seek to impose penalties for continued failure to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Justice. Members are aware that France was fined recently for its failure to correct deficiencies in the control system. The European Court of Justice has determined fines in the case against France involving a sum payment of €20,000 and a penalty of €57.57 million for each period of six months from the date of the judgment. The judgment has not been fully implemented. Any failure, even one that arises from the judgment of domestic courts, to provide for a dissuasive and deterrent regime or to ensure that offenders are brought to account may ultimately result in further legal proceedings under Article 2.28. Such proceedings may involve the levelling of substantial penalties on a member state. The purpose of this provision is to compel member states to address any shortcoming in the systems identified by the European Court of Justice. We are anxious to avoid any changes in domestic law which might result in the weakening of the regime.

The Bill provides that the maximum fine for an infringement of a logbook regulation, which is the most commonly detected offence, be increased from €25,000 to €35,000. This is a reasonable increase on the level established in 1994. If we were to take 1994 and attach an index to it, I would expect a fines Bill to be introduced by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the next year or the lifetime of this Government. Such a Bill would apply across the board, not just to sea fisheries, and fines would increase based on the consumer price index or some other basis each year. If it was to be introduced here, the fines would be possibly much higher than that.

The fine proposed for fishing without a sea fishing boat licence has been increased from €12,783 to €100,000. Hopefully, this will not affect too many people. Irrespective of which side of the debate one is on, fishing without a licence must be regarded as a serious offence and the level of the fine reflects this. In considering the maximum penalty, we must pay regard to the considerable variation in the size of vessels, from small in-shore vessels to much larger craft. It is important to have a sufficiently high level of penalty to enable a judge to deal with this offence. A judge does not necessarily have to impose the maximum fine but the fine or penalty must fit the crime.

Regarding vessels which operate abroad and do not call to an Irish port to off-load their fish for foreign sale, the size of the catch will be a relevant factor if a vessel is prosecuted in this jurisdiction and the catch is not available for forfeiture upon conviction. Questions were raised about the reasons for treating foreign vessels differently. I have an issue with this provision and it was one of the first questions I asked. The penalty sufficient to cover the value of the catch is essential if we are to adhere to the requirements of EU regulations. I will do my utmost during my time in this Department to make a case at European level for common fines in all member states. We should ensure commonality throughout Europe with regard to the Common Fisheries Policy because the level of fines varies greatly between member states. We can dine á la carte and examine fines in some member states but it is difficult to compare all of them on a broad basis. Fines in Ireland are less than those in the UK — both in England and Scotland. In some cases, the fine for a summary offence in the UK is approximately €75,000 or approximately £50,000 and there is no maximum fine set for offences with an indictment. The highest average UK fine in 2003 was approximately €80,000, which reflects the maximum fines applicable to many offences. The average fine imposed in Ireland in 2003 was €4,972, while the average fine in the EU was €4,664.

The Bill will maintain the long-standing status quo regarding forfeitures by providing for forfeiture of fishing gear as a statutory consequence of conviction on indictment and forfeiture of unlawfully caught fish. I am extremely anxious that we move on this issue and I will raise the matter at either the forthcoming Council meeting or the following meeting. Ireland has a basic obligation under EU law to apply a level of forfeitures to indictable offences that acts as a deterrent and sets a proportionate penalty.

I raised the issue of administrative sanctions when I had a general look at the Bill and I still strongly believe that we must have appropriate penalties for minor offences and free up the time of the gardaí and sea fisheries officers. I will pursue this issue vigorously. The industry made a strong case for the introduction of administrative penalties and sanctions. While they have advantages and the potential to deal quickly and expeditiously with offences, I understand from legal advisers that there is a substantial legal issue regarding the implementation of such a system in Ireland. I was interested to hear the view of the Commission's legal representative on withdrawing licences for a period, which should possibly be looked at. In the case of most fisheries offences, EU regulations require that penalties act as a deterrent, be dissuasive and involve depriving the wrongdoer of the benefit of his or her actions. However, legal advisers tell me that Article 34.1 of the Constitution poses a problem if I wish to introduce administrative sanctions. Article 34.1 states:

Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.

One may immediately ask what the difference is between a minor fisheries offence and speeding. Even if administrative sanctions existed, this is not necessarily conclusive. A court of law would be open to anyone who was not prepared to accept an administrative sanction. I am very anxious to pursue this matter and see if there is anything I can do within the law and the Constitution following today's presentations, particularly those made by the representatives from the Commission.

I am informed that, under Article 34, a defendant, when facing a potential penalty above certain limits, is entitled to have the matter dealt with by a jury trial in an open court with the full protection of law. Other countries on the Continent do not have our constitutional system. Those governed by civil law have a different approach and it must not be assumed we could adopt the same. We will reach conclusions concerning the matter during the passage of the Bill.

The State is not obliged to have administrative sanctions in place. I am advised there could be a problem in that the required level of sanction could trespass on the exclusive role of the courts in the administration of justice, exposing the rules to legal challenges. No protection would arise from Article 29.4.10° of the Constitution. From a legal perspective, moving to administrative penalties without being obliged to do so by EU legislation would render any measure I might place before the Houses vulnerable to challenge. We can discuss this matter in more detail when we reach the relevant section.

Comparing our level of fines with our near neighbour, the United Kingdom, it is approximately the same as the European average. If there is to be a level playing pitch and we are not to be dissuasive, will the common denominator be the lowest or highest or should we find the average and involve the European Union? The Common Fisheries Policy has basic rules but each country must have its own provisions for forfeitures, fines, etc. Other member states impose higher fines than Ireland and the number of fines is greater in most member states than is the case here. None of us wants the fines set at a low level, as if they are not dissuasive, they are not in anyone's interest. Whatever else they may be, fines must be dissuasive. I assure the committee and the industry that I will continue my efforts to work for a level playing field in the EU so that penalties are equal across the board and set at a dissuasive level. We must take account of the constitutional and legal difficulties associated with administrative systems but we can examine this issue.

I have taken up much of the committee's time but I wish to refer to the fleet's decommissioning. We had no choice, particularly in the case of boats of the demersal fleet, all of which experienced difficulty in this respect. Vessels over 18 metres in length and 15 years of age will have an opportunity to apply for the decommissioning scheme. The fish they would have caught will be available to the 75% of the fleet remaining, which will hopefully give them better economic opportunities than they have at present. It is necessary to manage the fisheries. As we land precious stock species that fall within the quota regime, it is vitally important that we manage them properly. I have responded to this matter and appointed a Danish-UK consortium to determine what changes could be made in light of international experience. We can handle the horse mackerel issue but I am anxious to have the consortium in place before 2006 as, if it is not in place by the beginning of January, we will have lost a full year.

A number of those making presentations referred to water content, particularly in respect of pelagic fish being pumped onto tankers and then to factories. This situation does not arise in other countries with heavy dependencies on pelagic fish, namely, Scotland and Norway, where the fish are pumped directly into factories and a weighing system is used. Our method disadvantages the Irish pelagic industry. First, from a quality point of view, were we to weigh the fish on the quayside and then put them into dry tankers, their quality would be affected in the hoppers. Second, going from minus five or zero degrees to ambient temperature and back again and then being held for a number of weeks in tankers is unacceptable.

Let us be factual with regard to this matter, even though all politicians like to take credit.

Chairman

We will reflect on a number of issues that have been raised at this committee. It would be unfair if I did not do so. The committee will engage a senior counsel to advise on administrative and common law matters and on the legality of the Bill before the House.

The committee will travel to Brussels to meet EU officials like Mr. Gallizioli and to meet the fisheries committee of the EU. We wish to have these meetings before debating Committee Stage of the Bill. I hope the Minister of State will be understanding in this regard although he would be within his rights to bring the Bill before a committee of the entire House, bypassing this committee entirely. We need to be more informed to develop a clear understanding of the legislation being passed. This is a radical overhaul of fisheries legislation.

The Minister of State will be interested in this point as it is a reflection of what was said today. Is he aware there was no consultation with fishery groups or stakeholders in respect of the Bill? Is this the way forward in the age of regulatory impact analysis, launched by the Taoiseach on 11 July? This states that all regulations and legislation should be discussed with interest groups and stakeholders. Was a White Paper published, seeking the views of those in the industry and others? Will the Minister of State advise the committee if there was a Green Paper to demonstrate the Government's intent in respect of legislative proposal? These questions arise from presentations made today. While this point may be borne out by our investigations in Brussels can the Minister of State explain why the Bill increases sanctions in law that are significantly higher than other EU states? I will refer to this presently.

I do not know if the Minister of State was present during the contribution of Mr. Gallizioli, head of the control and licences unit of the EU Commission. The desire is to have uniformity across all EU states and it is the responsibility of each country to introduce systems of sanction. The committee has heard groups make reference to Circuit Court criminal offences and that fines and punishment must be proportionate to the offence. The Minister of State has referred to fines across Europe, with reference to 2003. As some members left to attend to other business I wish to refer to the communication from the Commission to the Council in the European Parliament on reports from member states on behaviour that seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy in 2002. Has the Minister of State seen this report? In 2002 the average fine in Ireland was €11,978, in Italy it was €1,691, in the Netherlands, €1,727, in Portugal, €491, in Finland, €420, in Sweden, €536, and in the United Kingdom, which has a common law system like ours, it was €8,795. Questions were raised on this today.

The Minister of State mentioned that another ICES report is due. We always seem to get that news at this time of the year and it is a serious matter. Is it intended to soften us up for more tough impositions on Ireland when the Minister of State goes to Brussels to make his case for Ireland?

I was in Killybegs recently and we spoke to representatives from there this morning. They looked after us when we were there and briefed us extremely well. We were taken aback by the low level of activity in the factories. We saw the problems encountered with regard to managing blue mackerel. I am glad the Minister of State is attempting to solve the weight problem.

The final word from the skippers and men and women of Killybegs was that the Department still seems to have the view that the industry is a sundown industry. Would it be possible to make it a decent sustainable industry through good co-operation and management and strong local input into the fishery harbours? Obviously it cannot be made into a sunrise industry such as ICT but it could create an important activity without an element of grimness for the 100,000 or 200,000 people who live in coastal communities. I represent one such community in Howth. Does the Minister of State envisage such an industry rather than the constant talk of it being on the verge of collapse? The people in these communities are sick of that and would like a positive response. They must be involved and we have a major obligation to our EU partners and the world with regard to sustainability. It can be done with goodwill.

Chairman

We will take the answers individually because many questions have been asked.

Deputy Gallagher

With regard to invigilating boats from all countries, I draw the attention of members to the fact that a new EU agency has been established in Vigo and that should allow for more co-ordination. I do not want to preside over a regime where boats such as those described by Deputy Broughan were at an advantage. I realise that what happened in the past meant it might be advantageous for one to be caught while others escaped. That is different now with the spy in the sky and co-ordination in Vigo will be important.

If a seafood control manager is to be appointed, the role must be totally independent. I listened to the views expressed today and they must be considered. It is a mirror image of the general register of fishing vessels in the Department taking over from the Minister. This would be exactly the same.

No one suggests the incumbent at the sea fishing register of vessels is anything but independent. However, that person is located in the Department and has other responsibilities. It may be that we should examine the concept of total independence of the seafood control manager given the views expressed here.

Deputy Broughan

It would be a powerful position.

Deputy Gallagher

Of course it would. Perception can be quite dangerous and we must ensure confidence in the role. Whoever the person is, whether he or she comes from inside or outside the Department, I have every reason to believe that he or she would show the same degree of independence. I must also ensure the general industry, this committee and the Houses are happy with that.

With regard to decommissioning, I accepted and recommended the report by Mr. Padraic White, warts and all, to the Government. I thank Mr. White for being available to compile the report. He was assisted by officials from the Department and BIM and completed the report expeditiously. The Government responded positively but the issue of crews was not included. That might be a matter for skippers so I will not transgress by becoming involved.

A number of Deputies from the south-east asked me to meet with representatives and I have no difficulty with that. I have always had an open-door approach and I am anxious to meet with anyone. However, I do not want to give the impression by attending such a meeting that I have more that €45 million available. That is all I have and all that is available for 2006 and 2007.

With regard to ICES and the scientists, it is not a question of softening anyone. I do not know what is coming down the track. It is suggested problems still exist. I hope that as a result of the pain experienced during these years that we will have some gain during the coming years. We will know well in advance of the December meeting what the quota will be on mackerel, which is always a major issue. Many people think that is the benchmark but it does not necessarily follow. It is a straddling stock and will be decided next month in a meeting between the EU and Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. I have no reason to believe there will be a reduction but if there is any further reduction, that will sound warning bells for us. I hope the status quo will prevail or there will be a small increase.

I worked in Killybegs for years when there was a great deal of activity and much employment. Last year was an exceptional year in that the industry, both processors and producers, said they were at a disadvantage and would not land at Killybegs. When they landed there, while the prices were reasonably high, they were weighing it at, say 100 tonnes, but only 80 tonnes was arriving at the factories. I did my bit, together with the officials from the Department and the EU Commission, to address this issue. I also thank Commissioner Borg who, incidentally, will be visiting Ireland between 10 November and 11 November. It will not be a very long visit, but I hope that he can get a flavour of what we are experiencing in Ireland. I also hope, having overcome our difficulties, the visit will be advantageous for us.

I am looking forward to the day that mackerel and other fish travel faster, get out of Norwegian waters and travel to the west of Ireland, when other vessels would then have to go there to fish and land in Killybegs and other ports. However, I must be a realist. The fish are still swimming up north, prices are good and that is making Norway commercially attractive.

Deputy Perry

This legislation could have caused serious problems if enacted as originally proposed. It is a major Bill and it is extraordinary that meaningful dialogue did not take place prior to its preparation because it is a blueprint for years to come. It is very restrictive and will result in more people being decommissioned from the fishing industry. The Minister of State may have to call on Padraic White to provide more funds to compensate the people who will be put out of business.

The regulations are over-prescriptive and the industry representative bodies have stated that they had no consultation with the Minister of State about them. I agree with the sentiments of the Chairman regarding the lack of clarity as to what the Minister of State intends to do.

The representative bodies have claimed that no consultations took place on the contents of the Bill, which goes against partnership and ignores European developments. There was no stakeholder involvement in the drawing up of this legislation. The penalties proposed in the legislation are draconian and there is a complete absence of proportionality. These are serious charges by the representative bodies.

I am astonished that the Department could draw up this type of Bill. which is very complex, and expect it to be passed by this committee. Will the Minister of State consider withdrawing it now and going back to the drawing board, in light of the level of serious objections to it? Such objections are wide-ranging and criticism has been levelled at the sanctions, article 41 and the criminalisation system of the Minister for Finance. The Bill has been described as retrograde, ill-conceived, excessive and a missed opportunity. It is not deemed by the Irish fishing industry to be progressive, which adds up to a charge of incompetence on the part of the Minister of State and his Department. The Department should have taken a partnership approach to the preparation of this legislation, given the commercial and viability concerns within the industry.

I have great admiration for people who have invested heavily in fishing businesses. A representative from the banks outlined to us earlier the level of investment by the private sector in Killybegs. People are willing to take the risk, borrow from the banks, go on the high seas and their only intention is to run an honest business. However, a Victorian attitude has been adopted towards such people and is incorporated into the Bill. We have a 19th century mindset governing a 21st century Bill. It is unacceptable that the representative bodies, who represent every vessel owner in the country, were not consulted. I am astonished at that.

Amending the Bill will solve our problems. It is bad legislation that will be very difficult to correct. The reaction to date has been overwhelmingly negative and the Minister of State will have a very difficult job fixing this. There is no point in the Minister of State coming to this committee, cherry-picking sections from the legislation and talking the talk. Can he implement any change? I doubt it, given the level of objections voiced here today.

Concerns were raised with regard to France, for example. French vessels can come into Irish waters and over-fish but Irish naval officers have no powers to arrest or follow them. Has the Department examined whether there is any way of prosecuting them when they arrive at their port of origin? It is outrageous that the only people being prosecuted are Irish vessel owners. Foreign vessel owners can fly flags of convenience in Irish waters and the marine service has no powers to apprehend and prosecute them.

Regardless of who is in my seat — although I hope it will not be Deputy Perry — it is a difficult job. I will be as reasonable as I can given the goldfish bowl within which I have to operate. I will be glad to consider practical amendments. However, it would be a retrograde step if I were to discard this legislation and decide to start afresh.

Deputy Broughan

Is the fisheries control agency in Vigo up and running?

Deputy Gallagher

It is not yet up and running.

Deputy Broughan

When will it be?

Deputy Gallagher

Hopefully in 2006.

Senator Kenneally

I welcome the Minister of State. He is aware of my views on this legislation because he heard them last night at our parliamentary party meeting. I rehearsed them again here this morning. I have serious concerns about the Bill.

I concur with the Minister of State's comments on the developmental role of the Department. The Department has been proactive over the past years in developing our fleet and providing grant aid for its modernisation and to help it compete with other countries.

However, we are here to discuss this legislation, which is badly flawed and will give rise to a number of problems. Most of our problems with regard to fisheries arose from signing up to the EEC in 1973. I do not blame anybody involved at that time. We were able to use our underdeveloped fisheries to gain other concessions. Unfortunately, because we have developed so well, that decision caught up with us.

In that context, we should be mindful of the fishing industry and do whatever can be done to work with its members. It is in everybody's interest that we work together but it appears we are not doing so. We have been told that the fishing industry was not consulted when this legislation was drawn up. It is obvious that stakeholder involvement did not apply in this situation. The fishing industry helped the Minister of State where it could during difficult EU fisheries negotiations but it is being stabbed in the back with this legislation.

The penalties are draconian if compared to other countries. The Minister of State claimed that it is reasonable to increase fines in terms of log books from €25,000 to €35,000 because of the levels in place in 1994. I do not have a problem with increases, I have been an advocate for them. If legislation had been introduced a long time ago to index link all these fines, we would not find ourselves in this situation. The problem here, however, is that the fine was originally too high. My colleague, Deputy O'Donovan, correctly pointed out that certain fines and penalties are more severe for the fishing industry than those incurred for pushing drugs. That is a nonsense. In many other areas of life, penalties for transgressions are not as bad. One is criminalised for a minor offence and cannot then, for example, enter the USA. That is ridiculous.

I am reminded of an event that took place in my own area where people were convicted on the words of fisheries officers. The statement of these officers was accepted and the judge handed down sentence. We had a case where fisheries officers and the regional fisheries manager were discredited and dismissed. Many people were criminalised as a result of the actions of those officials. I have not heard of any attempts to remedy that situation. This is what we have done to people and we are copper fastening it by putting it into this legislation.

I accept the Minister of State's bona fides on this and understand that he has to act according to the legal opinion he receives. However, it is extraordinary that we cannot introduce administrative sanctions. He made reference to Article 43 of the Constitution and to the phrase "except where proscribed by law." Speeding offences and litter fines are proscribed by law, yet both can incur on-the-spot fines. I do not see why that cannot be done in this instance. One can be fined for littering or for not wearing a seatbelt but cannot be fined for a minor fisheries offence. That is incongruous and I am glad that this committee will have a senior counsel examine the matter.

I was struck by section 41 of the Bill, which proposes a new seafood control manager. Why does the Secretary General have the power to make and revoke this appointment?

In my experience, all this has been done. A section allowing it to be done in the future by ministerial order could be added to the Bill. This process is not democratic. It is a major mistake, and must be reviewed. Some members suggested appointing somebody with independent powers. They are the first to complain, and rightly so, when they submit parliamentary questions and are told the Minister has no responsibility in this area. That is what we are doing here. We are removing the responsibility and accountability. This is wrong and must be changed.

Deputy Gallagher

I indicated clearly my view on administrative sanctions for minor offences. There is no disagreement here. More serious offences can be dealt with in the courts. Having listened to our friend from Europe, there seems to be no difficulty as regards Europe and this is also the advice I receive from the Attorney General. I acknowledge Senator Kenneally's comments on litter fines. This highlights these matters and gives me an opportunity to receive further advice. I do not know if the Senator was here when I referred to the sea fisheries control which is a mirror image of the general register of fishing boats. There is no reflection on the individuals; one does not know who is in the other one. It was suggested today that this should be independent and physically separate from the Department, and not seen to be part of the Department. That is something to consider. The question of responsibility comes under the Public Service Management Act. While the Senator says this will take it away from the Minister, the Minister is currently not greatly involved.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Mr. Ó Cinnéide's earlier comments were interesting. Nobody wants to criminalise our fishing industry. All sides recognise that fishing is a difficult and dangerous job that deserves our support. We would be fine if we had abundant stocks but our stocks are in collapse. We may disagree with some of the scientific advice, but we agree that we have difficulties. For the industry to survive and thrive we need a system of rationing, conservation and management. Therefore we need rules, regulations and enforcement. That is what the Bill attempts to do. It is not a bad thing, and for the fishing industry it is essential. We must not criminalise the industry but this is the right thing for it in the long run given that we must ration stocks rather than revert to a hunter gatherer system where each person catches as much as he or she can. In that system, with declining stocks, people would lose out.

Obviously Deputy Fiona O'Malley has tasted of the salmon of knowledge.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I am chiefly worried about Deputy O'Donovan. There was a famous play, Drama at Inish, in which a Deputy from Cork voted against the Government and regretted it forever. Deputy O’Donovan looked like him for a while this morning. Is the Minister of State saying that weighing mechanisms were the reason for the downturn rather than any concern about allegations?

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their appearance today. I hope any legislation or amendments he makes will be helpful to the discussion here and will allow us to work with him through Committee Stages to ensure itis fair and proportionate and will meet with EU and national rules and regulations.

We are meeting next Wednesday to discuss the ports strategy statement. We have not been in touch with the Minister of State's office yet but will be meeting representatives of Dublin and Cork port, Sligo regional harbour and Sligo County Council. In September we visited a number of regional harbours around the country. We wanted the views of Sligo harbour and County Council on how the handover of harbours would be handled by local authorities. We developed our own views in light of our visits which we will share with the Minister of State when we discuss the ports strategy statement.

This committee is busy from now until Christmas. We must finish an energy report which involves two days of public hearings. There is an ongoing ICT review of our broadband report to see how many of our recommendations to Government have been implemented. I expect we will finish our work before Christmas but we have a full agenda. If we have to make room for legislation we will but we wish to complete our work by then.

The Minister of State is in receipt of our salmon report of yesterday and we have read the statements on it. Does he wish to comment so that we will have an idea of his position on it?

Deputy Gallagher

I would not profess to be the busiest Minister in the Dáil but it has been a particularly busy week. We have had to discuss Irish Ferries as well as preparing for this meeting. I convened the first meeting of the National Salmon Commission yesterday and dealt with parliamentary questions today. I did not, therefore, read every line of the report, though from discussions with the committee I have some idea of what it contains.

I thank the committee for the presentation. I have passed a copy to every member of the National Salmon Commission. The commission comprises 21 individuals from all parts of the country reflecting the views of all stakeholders. I had an exchange of views in the Dáil today with Deputy Eamon Ryan and Deputy Perry. If I had sufficient money tomorrow morning for a buyout it might not necessarily be the right thing to do. I am not averse to a voluntary buyout that would be balanced and ensure we conserve our stocks and exploit them on a sustainable level.

Too many people fail to understand the intricacies of the subject. Some e-mails I have received were alarming and personalised, referring to the fact that I come from Donegal. I am proud to come from Donegal but I am seen to be looking after the interest of only 120 out of 800 licence holders. Bearing in mind Donegal has a coast that runs from Malin Head to Bundoran, it is not unreasonable. I can tolerate vilification but I wish people would play the ball rather than the man.

I have asked the National Salmon Commission to read the report in conjunction with others they have received. I am not averse to making recommendations to Government about a voluntary buyout. The buyout in the north east of England means we are now the only country in Europe to have commercial fishing. However, after the voluntary buyout of €3.25 million in the north east of Scotland, 25,000 fish are still being landed each year. To say there is no commercial fishing there is wrong. Since 2002, the quota has been reduced from 220,000 to 139,900.

I am also criticised for taking the advice of the National Salmon Commission instead of scientists. There was a three year strategy in place and if I dismantled that not one member would serve on that committee. I am considering adopting the scientific evidence by 2007, so I will return to the subject in due course. There are other factors, such as pollution, poaching of seals and global warming, and the issue is not simple. I am the Minister of State with responsibility, and although it will be a difficult task, I wish to be reasonable, fair, balanced and, above all, responsible.

With regard to the ports policy statement which has been referred to, I launched this policy on 5 January and we are making progress on it. The Government decided that 12 ports in the country would be transferred to local authorities. However, it is not just a question of transferring an asset from the Department to the local authorities, as I am interested in the plans of these local authorities. I do not wish a case to arise where such assets would be sold for other reasons, such as to help finance the local authority system. If the transfer is to be carried out it must be in the best interest of ports and industry.

Chairman

I hope the joint committee will be helpful, with members having visited a number of ports or regional harbours in September. I urge the Minister not to take notice of vilification as we have all been vilified several times. Those people who vilify the Minister should stand for election.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.55 p.m sine die.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht - Wednesday, 12 Oct 2005

Fisheries Legislation Review: Presentations.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2005