JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Jan 2006

Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005: Presentations.

Chairman

I thank members for their attendance, although it is late in the afternoon. A number of MEPs are engaging with us. Mr. Brian Crowley is on his way from Brussels. Some of the other MEPs who have indicated they will attend are Prionsias De Rossa, Ms Avril Doyle and Ms Marian Harkin. I welcome, in particular, Deputy Coveney, also an MEP, and Mr. Seán ÓNeachtáin. They are all welcome and I thank them for attending.

Members will recall that in June last year I wrote, at the request of the committee, to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, to request that they delay publishing the Sea-Fisheries Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 in order that the committee would have time to discuss with the industry the issues it considered should be addressed in the Bill. Members will recall this request was agreed on the understanding the Bill would be published on 1 October. In September, the matter of the Corrib gas field development became a major item on the political agenda and it became necessary to defer the committee's meeting with the industry in order to take a discussion on this issue with the Minister. I remind members to switch off their mobile phones. Members will recall that I wrote again to the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, requesting that the publishing of the Bill be delayed until after 12 October, a request which I regret the Department considered it could not accommodate. The Bill was published on 3 October.

Notwithstanding this, the joint committee proceeded with its meeting on 12 October, at which we met the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Commodore Frank Lynch, commanding officer of the Irish Naval Service, Haulbowline, the producer organisations, Mr. Art Kavanagh from Allied Irish Bank, Mr. Giorgio Gallizioli, head of the unit "control and licences" of the EU Commission, and Mr. Pichon, a representative of a French fishery producer organisation in Brittany.

I am sure members will join me in saying this was a seminal meeting and while members may have expressed a certain regret that the Department did not consider it prudent or to the advantage of the Ministers to delay the publication of the Bill until the committee had completed its considerations, it must be said the refusal to delay publishing the Bill was of huge benefit in that at the meeting of 12 October we were able to discuss the actual provisions of the Bill as published. This gave a very clear focus to our considerations.

After the meeting of 12 October it was agreed a delegation should follow up on the issues raised by travelling to Brussels to find out, at first hand, the actual EU Commission position, the views of the EU Parliament Fisheries Committee and the views of the Irish MEPs.

In the context of making the EU and its institutions relevant to the Irish citizen, I want to place on record that I regard the way this committee has gone about its deliberations of this Bill to be a case study in understanding the interaction between the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, the EU Council and the way the Department has made its proposals in the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill.

I want to make a comment on some of the newspaper coverage this committee's consideration of the Bill has generated and, in particular, on a number of articles Mr. Stephen Collins published in The Sunday Tribune. I want to state clearly that the citizens of this Republic, through the Irish Constitution, vest the sole legislative prerogative in the representatives elected to the Dáil and the Seanad. I reject in the strongest terms the suggestion that Mr. Collins seemed to make that no Member of the Dáil or Seanad should challenge the Department’s legislative proposals and that if one is a Fianna Fáil backbencher, one should not question the validity or propriety of the legislation proposed by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

My view is that the Department has been remiss in how it has managed its enforcement and control obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy. In reality, the legislative proposals are the Department trying, with the last throw of the dice, to leverage the legislative process in such a way that it can use this Bill as a "get out of jail card" with the EU Commission.

I led the delegation that visited Brussels on 9 and 10 November last. We had meetings with Commissioner Borg's head of cabinet, Mr. Patrick Tabone. We met Ms Carmen Estevez, co-ordinator for the EPP group in the European Parliament fisheries committee and a delegation of Commission officials led by Mr. Alain Laurec, Director of the Control and Enforcement Fisheries Directorate of the EU Commission. We met Mr. Stevenson, MEP, former President of the European Parliament fisheries committee, and attended a conference on marine biodiversity, fisheries management and marine protected areas hosted in the European Parliament. In addition, we met and had a discussion with Mrs. Attwoll, MEP, co-ordinator ALDE Group, Mr.Hudghton, MEP, co-ordinator of the Green-EFA group, Mr. Casaca, MEP, PSE group and Mr. Crowley, MEP, president UEN group and alternate fisheries committee member. We also met almost all the Irish MEPs, North and South. These meetings, the questions asked and the answers were enlightening and educational. I am convinced the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 had two undesirable aspects — gold plating and, as Mr. Crowley, MEP explained, Commission creep.

I will explain Commission creep. This also can be called competency creep and it occurs when the Commission tries to extend its competency or the competency of a particular EU policy. The Common Fisheries Policy is a fishing based policy, but in this Bill, aided and abetted by the officials in the Department, it has grown legs and walked on land. Mr. Tom Geoghegan of the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association first brought this to light when at our all day hearings on 12 October he highlighted how those in the processing, transporting, auctioneering and other ancillary——

Deputy Broughan

On a point of information, if this is the case why did the Chairman vote for this Bill four times?

Chairman

I ask the Deputy to allow me to finish my statement.

Deputy Broughan

Why did the Chairman vote for this Bill in Dáil Éireann on at least four occasions?

Chairman

Will the Deputy allow me to finish my statement?

Deputy Broughan

Yes. However, if the Bill has these problems, the Chairman could at least explain the reason he voted for it. It is invidious of the Chairman to attack a named journalist here in this manner and to comment on what he said or did not say with the sanctity of Dáil protection without giving that person an opportunity to give his point of view. As the Chairman is aware, I have strong views on the Bill, but given this statement, I cannot understand the reason the Chairman and his Fianna Fáil colleagues voted for it on that number of occasions.

Chairman

I will continue. Mr. Tom Geoghegan of the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association first brought this to light when at our all day hearings on 12 October he highlighted how those in the processing, transporting, auctioneering and other ancillary industries were being treated as if they were the ones who were breaking the Common Fisheries Policy fishing rules.

Mr. Crowley, MEP showed us what gold plating was when he explained to us that a member state can impose greater obligations or penalties on their own citizens than required by the Commission of an EU policy. He showed us how the Bill was gold plating by copperfastening — I might mix my metals, which I hope Deputy Broughan does not mind, but not my metaphors — the position whereby, as a statutory consequence of conviction on indictment, an Irish fisherman would forfeit the catch and fishing gear. However, the courts have a discretion in the case of the fisherman being a citizen of another member state.

I am, as are other Dáil, Seanad and EU Parliament members, answerable to the electorate, but those who proposed the provisions contained in the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill do not have the same accountability.

What I would like to hear today is a discussion on the principle of proportionality and I would like to explore with our MEPs what needs to be done to create a level playing field with the rest of Europe where an administrative system can deal with infringement of the Common Fisheries Policy.

I welcome all who are here today. I thank the MEPs for taking the time to attend. I want to recognise that here today we make Europe more relevant to our citizens and we show the industry, the public and the electorate that we care and scrutinise in order that we can achieve, as best as possible, legislation that reflects our EU obligations together with our sense of fair play and justice.

Mr. Durkan

On a point of order, I have similar concerns about the Bill. As the Chairman is aware, I am a member of the committee but not a spokesperson on this subject. I have similar concerns about the European Commission or any other institution extending its remit by stealth but there is a problem in that, as Deputy Broughan brought to the Chairman's attention, we have had a discussion on this legislation in the House already. I have no difficulty supporting the concerns of the people in the fishing industry, as put forward by their representatives, but I hope some useful benefit will accrue to them as a result of the committee's discussion. There is no point going through the performance of talking the talk; we must be able to walk the walk. As a result of the discussion at this committee I hope the Government will have some control or influence over the Department and its proposals given the House has already voted on this legislation.

A former Member of the House once said about another Member that it was one thing to be super mouse here and another to be mini mouse in another forum. I have no wish to go through that type of performance just for the optics of it. We must be sure the discussion which takes place here will do something beneficial for those who have expressed a concern about the legislation and the impact it will have on them.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I am anxious to hear what our MEPs have to say. Having invited them to attend the meeting, I am sure they have no wish to hear us speak initially but to hear our response to them. However, it is important that the MEPs in attendance realise the outline of the situation presented by the Chairman, validly and effectively, is not shared by all members of the committee. My party and I refute and dispute most of the contentions made. We have a different analysis of what is happening. However, that will come out in the forthcoming Committee Stage debate.

It is inappropriate and unfortunate, Chairman, to make such a direct attack on the officials of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources with regard to the presentation of legislation. It is clear from the legislative processes we follow that this Bill was discussed, presented and agreed at Cabinet and was presented by the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats parties for Second Stage debate in the Dáil, as is provided for in the Constitution. It is not appropriate to direct attacks at the officials in the Department when it was the Cabinet that made the decision to present the Bill. If you have a problem with the Bill, Chairman, you should take it up with the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Government.

Deputy Broughan

You must have lost the debate in the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party.

Chairman

I call Mr. Seán Ó Neachtain, MEP, a permanent member of the fisheries committee in the European Parliament. He is also co-ordinator of the EUN group in the European Parliament.

Mr. Seán Ó Neachtain, MEP

I am delighted to have received the committee's invitation. I thank the Chairman and the committee for having taken the initiative on 9 and 10 November to visit us in Brussels to talk to the various representatives. That was important in view of what is proposed in the Bill. The European Parliament's fisheries committee would otherwise not have had direct knowledge of its content.

The fisheries committee has no direct say in what is prescribed by any member state with regard to sanctions. It is important this is clarified. However, this matter has been referred to and debated in the European Parliament fisheries committee as a result of the committee's visit. It highlighted the seriousness of the issue. It was a good initiative and I hope other committees will use it as an example and come to the European Parliament or invite us to attend committee meetings to outline the various provisions in legislation that it is proposed to put before the House. It is important to outline the sanction aspects of this in a European context because there is wide diversity between the sanctions that are imposed across the EU. For example, fines for having prohibited fishing gear on board range from €451 to €9,000. Fines for unauthorised fishing range from €375 to €8,000. Fines for falsifying data run from €98 to €133,000. In light of this, I requested the permission of the chairman of the European Parliament fisheries committee, Mr. Morillon, to raise this as an oral question during a debate on the Casaca report, which contains similarities. That was done at the last Parliament meeting in Strasbourg. It is interesting that the views of members of the fisheries committee in particular were very much in support of having uniform administrative sanctions across the European Union, rather than criminal sanctions. Members who spoke on this issue in the European Parliament referred strongly to that point. In his reply, Commissioner Joe Borg stated this was not directly a Commission issue and that the Commission could not interfere in the choice of instrument used by individual member states. While referring to the sensitivity involved, however, the Commissioner stated strongly and clearly the Commission's view that administrative procedures, and thus administrative sanctions, are preferable in administering justice. They are preferable for many reasons, including the fact that they are imposed swiftly and do not require a lengthy process of establishing liability before sanctions can be imposed in criminal proceedings.

Each member who spoke said we need sanctions for infringements but we do not need draconian sanctions. That is also my opinion. This has been the view of the majority of members I have met, particularly on the European Parliament's fisheries committee. I cannot understand why sanctions introduced under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill must be so draconian. If they are so draconian, they will do unlimited damage to an already vulnerable industry. Since joining the European Parliament's fisheries committee, it has been my experience that the Irish fishing industry is vulnerable for many reasons. Sanctions such as these should have the proportionality that has been demanded across other member states.

In an interesting comment, the Commissioner said the Commission will be proposing a harmonisation of sanctions for serious infringements to be published next year. Hopefully, this will create a reasonably level playing field across the EU, which would do justice in the area of infringements of maritime law.

Given the direction of this Bill, I hope we will take on board this matter. In particular, the issue of proportionality should be addressed in any forthcoming legislation.

Deputy Simon Coveney, MEP

It is good to be back at a meeting of the committee. It is somewhat unusual for me to be on this side of the room but I am glad to be here nonetheless. As the committee made the effort to go to Brussels, the least we can do is to show up at a committee meeting here to offer our views on what has become an extraordinary debate because a Government party seems to be totally split on an issue with a Minister trying to push in one direction and backbenchers trying to push in another.

As members will know, the Common Fisheries Policy, from a policy point of view, is decided collectively across the European Union, mainly at the Council of Ministers. Each year decisions are made on total allowable catches, quotas, days at sea, conservation measures and so on. Matters not decided collectively across the European Union are sanctions, monitoring and how we enforce the rules and policy decided collectively because they are the responsibility of individual member states and that is what is causing the problem in this instance.

There are many good things in this legislation and in this debate we should not excuse or apologise for fishermen who break the law. However, as legislators — I suppose I am on both sides of the fence to a certain extent — we should ensure the sanctions and the way we enforce the law in Ireland are consistent with what is happening in the rest of the European Union so that they slot into the Common Fisheries Policy from an enforcement point of view.

The real concern in this legislation is that with regard to sanctions we are going in one direction while the rest of Europe is going in another. That concern has been raised by other Irish MEPs and myself at the fisheries committee. Commissioner Borg has also expressed some concern, although he qualifies all his statements by saying it is in the competence of individual member states and that Ireland can do as it wishes in regard to sanctions. However, he certainly expressed concern that we seem to be moving towards raising fines, increasing sanctions and dealing with offences as criminal ones even though 90% of breaches of the rules are dealt with administratively across the European Union. We are out of sync and that is why MEPs like Mr. Casaca, a socialist MEP from Spain, met this committee when it went to the European Parliament and was extremely surprised by the contents of the Bill because it is so inconsistent with what his government is doing in regard to its fishing fleet.

It is unfortunate we did not have this discussion before the Bill was published because there is a regrettable assumption, that when there is bad news for farmers or fishermen, it is the EU Commission reaching out and forcing us to do what we are doing. It is not the EU Commission, or the European Union for that matter, that requires the Government to introduce the type of fines and sanctions proposed in this legislation. That is a decision for our Government and Minister. In fact, the Commission has expressed some concern, as opposed to approval, in regard to this legislation. It is important to nail that issue at the outset.

Chairman

What concern did the Commission express?

Deputy Coveney, MEP

In answering questions at the fisheries committee the Commissioner has said he would like to see convergence on the sanctions issue, essentially enforcement of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. What we are seeing in this legislation is a separation, with one country going down the road of criminal sanctions, allowing judges to deal with individual cases and setting parameters for the imposition of fines etc., and others providing for administrative sanctions. Legally the Government is perfectly entitled to adopt the former approach but people in this room should know that many within the European Union are uncomfortable with this. While qualifying his statement by saying the Government has a right to do so, the Commissioner has expressed his desire that there be a convergence regarding the approach towards the imposition of sanctions — punishment, if one wants to call it that — on fishermen, whether they be Irish, Spanish or French, who break the rules.

The other concern raised — if it proves to be true, it would be totally unacceptable — is that foreign fishermen would be treated differently under the law from Irish fishermen within Irish waters. If, for example, an Irish fisherman was to be brought before the court for a breach of a certain law and the judge was required to confiscate his or her gear but would have discretion in deciding whether to confiscate the gear of a foreign fisherman, that would be totally unacceptable. If we are to have tough laws, they must apply to everybody. I understand the Department makes the case that this concern is not well founded and that the same rules apply to everybody. I respectfully suggest the committee try to establish the facts. Whatever about imposing inconsistent rules in Irish waters, it would be totally unacceptable if Irish fishermen were to be treated differently from foreign fishermen in our own waters.

From a political perspective, there seems to be inconsistency. Fishermen rightly ask me where the Government stands on this legislation. I tell them that their guess is as good as mine because I hear Fianna Fáil Deputies stating one view, a Fianna Fáil Minister is saying very little and everybody is blaming the Department. The bottom line is that the legislation is the responsibility of the Government. I suspect the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is very uncomfortable and none too happy about it. I do not know where the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, stands on the matter. I hope, however, that both of them are willing to listen to common sense and the industry, as well as the Commissioner, in order that we can make the necessary changes on Committee Stage to ensure we impose appropriate sanctions on fishermen who breach the rules. Fishermen are concerned that they should not be excessive. Those who consistently breach the rules deserve to have tough sanctions imposed on them but it is not appropriate to impose sanctions that are totally out of sync with those applied in the rest of the European Union. From that point of view and a European perspective, there are still serious concerns about the legislation. That is why it is unfortunate that it was agreed to on Second Stage.

Chairman

I thank one member of the European Parliament, Deputy Coveney, and turn to another, Ms Mairéad McGuinness. I thank her for attending.

Ms Mairéad McGuinness, MEP

While it is unusual for Deputy Coveney to be on this side of the room, it is unusual for me to attend any of these rooms. I jumped at the opportunity to do so and thank the committee for its invitation. I am an expert on a number of issues but not on fisheries. Therefore, I will be quicker than the other MEPs who are members of the European Parliament fisheries committee. However, I did attend the committee's hearing in the European Parliament. There is a problem regarding what the European Union is saying and what Irish legislation is attempting to do, which is much more severe than what is needed. The objective is to stop illegal fishing. Has anyone said the legislation will achieve this? If it is too severe, it needs to be amended.

I am confused by the political element to the debate. Similar to the BSE issue, the intention is to blame someone else. Who is running the show? Why is the legislation, about which there was agreement, being debated by parties and within Government on the basis that it does not fit the demands made of it? I am new to this game and the process was in train before I was elected to the European Parliament but it is clear the legislation does not have to be this severe. While it is within the competence of each member state to decide, the notion of criminal sanctions is severe where administrative sanctions are, perhaps, more appropriate. However, member states interpret the rules differently in regard to agricultural issues and different sanctions apply but it does little to instil faith in citizens in the European Union because there is always a perception that they are being hard done by, as is the case with Irish fishermen compared with their colleagues in other member states. That is regrettable. Fishermen and Fianna Fáil are terrified of this legislation. At the very least, those voices should be heard and listened to.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I thank the committee for its invitation. Like Ms McGuinness, I am not a member of the fisheries committee of the European Parliament. I am a member of the employment and social policy affairs committee but, nevertheless, I appreciate the invitation and would be loath to fail to attend this Parliament regarding a serious issue such as this.

I have no intention of pretending I am apolitical on this issue as I represent the Labour Party in the European Parliament. I have discussed the fisheries issue with Deputy Broughan, our spokesperson in the Dáil, and share his concerns regarding aspects of the legislation. However, I agree with European Parliament colleagues that the type and level of sanctions are matters for the Oireachtas, not the European Parliament or European Commission.

I have to plead ignorance regarding the Commission's view on criminal versus administrative sanctions. The fishing industry is of extreme importance to Ireland and an extraordinarily important resource. As Deputy Broughan stated in his contribution on the legislation, it is extremely important to guarantee the commercial viability as well as the sustainability of the industry. Neither issue can be dealt with individually. An industry cannot be sustained commercially if it does not have the necessary stock. It is, therefore, necessary to police the way in which stocks are drawn from the sea in order that they are not overdrawn. The experience to date is that there has been over-fishing of our seas both by Irish fishermen and non-Irish fishing fleets. Therefore, it is not a question of saying no to sanctions, and to strong sanctions, but of whether they are proportionate. I am not sure whether it is possible to make sanctions fair, which is requested in other places, because everyone believes they are being penalised unfairly. While we must stick to the question of proportionality, it is extremely important to bear in mind that there is a need for sustainability.

If sanctions to date have failed to defend the sustainability of our fishery stocks, we must consider increasing the sanctions in a way which is graduated and proportionate. These must be proportionate to the offence, the frequency of the offence and the seriousness of the offence, etc. It goes without saying that regardless of whether the owner of the boat is an Irish company, an Irish person or a foreign person, the law must apply equally to all. It cannot be applied unequally between one nationality and another. The European Commission and the European Parliament would have a say in regard to treating one European nationality differently from another. The treaties make it clear that there cannot be discrimination within the European Union on the basis of nationality.

In order to avoid another misunderstanding, I should say that a recent European Court of Justice ruling made it clear that the European Commission can, in fact, require criminal sanctions in certain areas. The ruling related to breaches of environmental directives in particular. It is currently being examined to see whether it would have wider application. The likelihood is that it could have wider application, therefore, there is no question that, under EU law, it is within the competence of an Irish Government to introduce criminal sanctions. The question is whether Dáil Éireann agrees that these sanctions should be applied and whether they are proportionate.

From my reading of the file on the matter, it appears there has been very little consultation with the stakeholders in regard to the legislation, which is a grave mistake. In this day and age, when one is dealing with a large area of the Irish economy where people's livelihoods are at stake and where tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on the industry, largely in areas which cannot access easily other kinds of employment, it is necessary to achieve the correct balance. My plea at this late stage is that widespread consultations should take place on how the legislation should develop and evolve.

The only other point I wish to make is that I believe it is a bad trend. I did not sign the letter MEPs circulated to members. I was the only MEP from the Republic of Ireland who did not sign it. I did not do so for two reasons. First, I did not attend the meeting out of which the letter arose because I had other commitments. I also did not do so because there was an implication in the letter that civil servants were to blame for the legislation. As a former Member of this House, I know well civil servants prepare legislation, but the Minister is responsible for it. It is a bad trend to blame civil servants for political decisions. No legislation lands on any Deputy's desk without having gone to Cabinet for approval in draft form. This legislation is a political decision, not a Civil Service one. I appeal that in this debate we should accept our responsibilities as elected politicians who represent our constituents to the best of our ability.

Senator Kenneally

I welcome the visiting MEPs and thank them for the interest they have shown in this legislation and for the interest they showed and the help they provided to us when we went to Brussels to debate this.

A suggestion was made at the start of the meeting that because Cabinet approved the legislation and it was published, Fianna Fáil backbenchers, Senators and others should be in agreement with it. There is almost a suggestion that we should not have a view of our own on it. Of course, we have strongly held views of our own on the legislation. We see the need for the legislation and are not against it as such, but we are against certain aspects of it and for that reason we want to see amendments brought forward on Committee Stage which will, hopefully, make the Bill more acceptable.

We were told at one stage the Bill should have been passed by 31 December 2005 or God knows what would have happened. We have passed that date and nothing has happened. We were not told, however, that the result of the Browne case and another case——

Chairman

The Kennedy case.

Senator Kenneally

The Browne and Kennedy cases had implications for all Departments, not just the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. For some reason there was some haste attached to this Bill. However, while it has not been passed yet, the delay has made no difference. We must ensure we get the legislation right.

One of the areas of the Bill about which I have grave reservations is section 41 which sees the appointment of a quality seafood manager who will be appointed by the Secretary General of the Department — not by the Minister — who is given significant and far-reaching powers. We will all complain and raise questions in the Dáil and be told the Minister has no responsibility. The Minister will have responsibility for nothing if the Bill is passed in its current format. Hopefully this section will be changed.

I was amazed by what we found out when we went to Brussels, particularly having spoken to Mr. Tabone. He and our MEPs have told us that it is a matter for ourselves to introduce our own legislation. When I asked Mr. Tabone what would happen if we reversed our intended policy and imposed the proposed Irish sanctions on foreign fishermen and only imposed on Irish fishermen what is now imposed on foreign fishermen, he told us the European Union would have to intervene. However, because we currently discriminate only against our own fishermen, the European Union does not have to intervene. This policy treats one EU citizen differently from another and is fundamentally wrong.

The area of sanctions has exercised us more than any other. We were told the Attorney General has said it would be unconstitutional to bring in administrative sanctions in the fisheries area. We have never seen that legal advice, despite the fact we have administrative sanctions for motoring and littering offences etc. I have discovered since our return from Brussels that we already have sanctions in the fisheries area for inland fisheries. With SI 297 of 2003 we already have such sanctions. It seems we are being misled to a certain extent. Why can we have them in one area of the fishing industry but not for another? I hope this matter will also be resolved on Committee Stage of the Bill.

I wish to ask a question of the MEPs. Our visit to Brussels seemed to generate some interest, certainly among those involved in the fishing community. When we went away and they might have been talking about the matter among themselves, perhaps during a subsequent fisheries meeting, what reaction did the MEPs get to what we had laid before the members of the committee?

Chairman

We will continue with other speakers and the MEPs might note the questions asked. I call Deputy Eamon Ryan who will be followed by Deputy Broughan.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I welcome the MEPs and hope they will be able to take something back to Brussels, as we may be able to influence them. As marine spokesman for my party, it seems to me that fisheries enforcement measures applied by member states of the European Union are utterly corrupted. In that utter corruption the management system as applied in the European Union is utterly ineffective. It is a mockery of a system. We need not only to amend our legislation to introduce proper control and enforcement but to review and change the entire management system as devised and controlled in Brussels.

I say the system is corrupted. Let us take the latest example which confirms that assumption to me. Yesterday we heard a very useful presentation by scientists from the Marine Institute who said they could not get good data on stocks. Dr. Paul Connolly said:

ICES, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the organisation which deals with the science, has for the first time had to say that for the Irish Sea and the west of Scotland, the data are very bad. We do not believe the landing statistics and cannot do assessments. The result is that one does not have good scientific advice, and the EU figures and the TACs, total allowable catches, are not based on science but on something plucked out of the air.

The entire management system is based on figures plucked out of the air which no one believes. I asked Dr. Connolly why he did not believe the landing statistics and he said in reply:

I repeat this is an EU-wide problem and does not relate only to Ireland. [We acknowledge that the system is corrupted.] Scientists do not believe the landing statistics because of misreporting — area misreporting and under-reporting. Scientists have cited this constantly for the past ten or 15 years but the problem is becoming acute in that scientists now say the data are so bad that for them to spend time trying to give scientific advice based on them is ridiculous, and they will not do so.

He agreed that this was a shocking condemnation of the system. We are seeing it everywhere. We are seeing it in reports from Peterhead where unreported landings were allegedly made, valued by Irish boats alone at up to €40 million over a period of years. We have seen examples in Whitby in England of fleets being fined because of, effectively, a managed system of unreporting.

This scandal, one of the biggest environmental scandals of our times, requires tough measures and change. The current system is failing the Irish and European public. This country has responsibility for some of the most lucrative and richest fishing grounds in the world and we are wiping them clean. That is not in the interests of the people of Europe or the longer term interests of fishermen. The scientists who addressed the committee yesterday stated that if we kept going as we were, the only marine life that would be supported in those seas would be jellyfish. The public will be faced with the possibility of having jellyfish and chips on the menu if we keep going as we are.

I refute some of the general views on this matter. The scientists who addressed the committee yesterday were very clear that what we needed more than anything else was enforcement. While we need change here, we also need change in the overall system in Brussels. I hope this meeting will ensure this message is sent to Brussels as an honest assessment of what is really happening.

I wish to discuss specific aspects of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 which I supported and voted for on Second Stage. I would like to see it amended in certain respects. I look forward to seeing the amendments which will be proposed by the Government on Committee Stage. No Bill is perfect at the beginning of the legislative process but I support the general principle, intent and thrust of this Bill. While I would not like to criminalise any fisherman for a small breach of the rules, there is a need for appropriate and effective administrative sanctions in certain circumstances. It is right that criminal sanctions should be put in place. In the light of the unfolding scandal with which we are familiar, it is appropriate that such sanctions should be commensurate with the financial gain that sometimes results from illegal activity.

I was interested to hear Proinsias De Rossa say the application of criminal sanctions under the European environmental directives had been agreed. We are looking at a big environmental scandal and a social and economic issue. Very heavy fines are appropriate in some cases. There are vessels in the fleet which can store 7,000 tonnes of fish, hauls worth several million euro. To provide for a system that imposes fines of merely a couple of thousand euro would not be an effective deterrent. We have to allow the courts to decide on appropriate fines — it is not our job to do so. We should legislate to allow for suitable fines. I disagree with many of my colleagues. However, I am open to debate and discussion on the fine detail of the Bill which I consider to be necessary. It is appropriate that we should provide for criminal sanctions in certain instances, although it is not appropriate to do so in other circumstances. I accept that there is a place for administrative sanctions. We should be honest about this ongoing scandal. If we do not address these problems honestly, the fishing communities which depend on the fishing grounds which are being wiped clean as a consequence of the lack of honesty about what is happening will lose out in the long run.

Deputy Broughan

Like my colleagues, I warmly welcome the four MEPs and thank them for attending this meeting and contributing to the debate. I was unable to go to Brussels with my colleagues to meet the delegation. As I mentioned to Proinsias De Rossa, this Parliament has had to consider a great deal of EU legislation on a regular basis in recent years. The Chairman will agree such legislation is often approved on the nod, following a fairly cursory examination. I would welcome an opportunity to examine in more detail what is being done at EU level and interact with it.

It was striking at the last general election in the United Kingdom that one of the major parties advocated the abandonment of the Common Fisheries Policy. Fishermen often remind me that the policy constituted the fundamental reason the people of Norway decided not to join the European Union. They feel their country's involvement in the policy would not be in the interests of sustainability or profitability. Like the EU Commissioner, Mr. Joe Borg, the four MEPs at this meeting have a great responsibility to ensure the policy is reformed in a meaningful way.

While the European Union has existed since 1957, when the Treaty of Rome was agreed, it did not establish until this year a control headquarters to monitor European fishing, which is now located in Vigo in Spain. A number of members of this committee suggested Killybegs, the fishing capital of this jurisdiction, as an appropriate location for the centre. It is extraordinary that the European Union has considered the fishing sector to be of such a derisory level of importance. I disagree with my colleague in this regard. It took 40 years for the European Union to give the sector its own Commissioner and establish a control centre. I also disagree with my colleague's reference to the word "we", meaning Irish fishermen. As he is aware, the guts of our fishing resources have been torn out, particularly by Spanish and French fishermen, but also by the fishing fleets of other EU member states. That is the problem. There has not been any kind of European mechanism in this regard.

Do the MEPs agree the Common Fisheries Policy needs to be reformed? As I said yesterday, negotiations take place on TACs and quotas on Christmas Eve every year. The scientific advice is examined and, as we heard yesterday, it shows that stocks of cod and other species have declined to disastrously low levels. I have been invigilating this annual process for several years on behalf of my party but it dates back at least as far as Charles Haughey's period in office. The former Minister with responsibility for fisheries, Senator Daly, who was present at the joint committee's meeting yesterday reported to Mr. Haughey. Do we need to seriously examine the manner in which this annual process takes place?

Incidentally, as our hard-working clerk continually reminds members, Ireland is responsible for 300,000 km2 or approximately 11% of European waters. In other words, we are one of the most important European Union states in fisheries terms. We have, therefore, a special responsibility in the fisheries area. What should Europe do in this regard? Is a much more long-term, sustainable policy required?

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, correctly pointed out that the consultation which took place in this area was ludicrous. The Chairman attempted to justify the lack of consultation by listing the various issues we dealt with in September. The joint committee did not have a single meeting on the Corrib in September and could have had many more meetings on this issue. As I noted in my speech on Second Stage in the Dáil, this legislation has been characterised by an element of circus, with Fianna Fáil Party backbench Deputies from maritime constituencies, whose seats are vulnerable because of the introduction of the Bill, trying to protect their backs. I voted against a Government in which my party was a partner when I believed its policy on aviation was wrong. I walked the walk by doing as I had indicated I would. I regret that Fianna Fáil Deputies who said a great deal in this committee and elsewhere, albeit, according to the Taoiseach, not at meetings of their parliamentary party, have not been prepared to take action. Why did proper consultation with all the stakeholders not take place?

Was the establishment of the new regime in agriculture, for which the MEPs present helped legislate, not preceded by lengthy consultations? Coming from a rural background, I am aware that we have made fundamental changes in agriculture. In the fishing industry by contrast, was it not the case that the stakeholders were presented with a fait accompli, which is the reason we have arrived at the current position?

I note the valuable point made by Senator Kenneally on criminalisation, which is the main concern on the west pier in Howth in my constituency and in each of our 12 or 13 great fishing ports. People are upset by the prospect of being criminalised. They will relate chapter and verse cases of being brought into port as a result of some difficulty, for example, regarding nets, which, under the legislation, would result in them being criminalised. As a number of members pointed out, the level of penalties is also a major concern. Many fishing businesses are small-scale and are hanging on by their fingertips. Their owners consistently ask Deputies the reason we have not tried to introduce measures to give them some kind of relief in meeting energy costs, particularly the cost of oil, as these costs are destroying businesses and the industry in general. The people in question are genuine, professional fishing boat owners who fish in a sustainable manner.

The point made on criminalisation is very interesting. Just before Christmas all the skippers of vessels in the English harbour of Whitby were lined up in court together and fined for what was said to be systematic over-fishing of certain species. The United Kingdom has already adopted a system of fines on indictment and so forth. What is the position in other countries? We know most European countries operate systems of civil law. Are they more inclined to use administrative approaches? Is it possible to amend the Bill to introduce strict penalties? Everybody present agrees that where there is blatant and outrageous flouting of the rules and laws, particularly as regards fishing stocks, people should be severely punished. As members are aware, the problem in the past has been that Ministers of this Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government and its predecessor have agreed to the inclusion of vessels of such a scale as to make sustainability impossible. The MEPs should be aware of that.

The Bill contains valuable elements. For possibly the first time, the fishery control manager will be a regulator for the industry. How would MEPs like to see this evolving in terms of how regulation is going in Europe? Do they believe it could be a fundamental way of getting the industry deeply involved in its own regulation on a sustainable basis? I thank the delegation for its valuable input today.

Deputy Keaveney

I welcome the Cathaoirleach's indulgence in allowing me to contribute as I am not a member of the committee. Twenty minutes in the Dáil went by in a flash in regard to discussion of the overall issue. Much of what I say is directed to the European fishery committee, as such. The Bill has been of value and as a backbencher I am glad it received that level of debate. I am pleased to have been involved in banging the drum to get the debate going. In many respects, the marine area is something that induces yawns and many Members choose not to get involved in debating matters relating to it. That is not true of this Bill and the debate has been of value.

I appreciate where Deputy Eamon Ryan is coming from. There is a belief that those who are committing offences have catches in the millions. I have seen cases where fishermen with illegal catches of thousands with no quota attached to them faced fines of ten times the value of their catch. In addition to that, there is the cost of paying for crews, diesel, food and so on. What annoys them in many respects is that when they try to tell the naval officer who boards them or the fishery officer when they come to the quay to check their mesh to prove they were not trying to target these species, the authorities are not interested.

Regardless of the Bill, a genuine difficulty exists. People are being sent before the courts, their catches are confiscated and substantial fines are applied that are not in proportion to the crime committed. It is a bit like the man who was caught stealing a television whose house was taken from him. That is what is happening here. In line with what Deputy Broughan asked, I would like an explanation of what is happening elsewhere in terms of administrative sanctions. At the moment the entire catch is being confiscated and the Bill would allow for the boat to be confiscated. The sanction must be in proportion to the crime. I agree that if the gains to be made are high then the perpetrator should be dealt with severely but currently the treatment of people involved in minor transgressions is disproportionate.

I often wonder if a review of the Common Fisheries Policy took place whether the percentage of waters and quotas would change. Few countries in Europe would like us to open up a review of the Common Fisheries Policy because Ireland would have much to gain.

Does the fishery committee look closely at the bigger picture, the reality of the cost of new boats, the size of quotas being applied to fishermen and how they can pay back what they borrowed for their boats? Is this reality considered in the context of sustainable fishing? Many fishermen want their children and grandchildren to be involved in this industry. Not everyone is out to exploit this resource. We must be realistic about the cost of boats and their upkeep and quota management. Have there been discussions in Europe on ways to secure extra employment for the fishermen and to keep boats actively engaged?

When I was researching this Bill I found out that as a result of global warming, plankton are dying and that cod are being caught at six years of age rather than 20, when they are more virile and their progeny is stronger. They are not getting the chance to evolve with the changes in climate.

Chairman

The orange roughy lives to an average of 180 years.

Deputy Keaveney

The cod were able to adapt to circumstances because they lived for a certain length of time but now they do not live that long because they get caught and plankton are dying out so their ability to adapt is reduced. When looking at the bigger picture, are we examining other reasons for stock depletion and what we can do about it? There are other reasons, not all the problems are caused by fishing. Does the EU fisheries committee spend much time looking at the bigger picture?

This issue is close to my heart, with criminalisation being a major issue. We want to see fishing in the future but we also want the stocks to survive. How do we marry those two aims?

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP, who has travelled all the way from Brussels to attend this meeting. We will finish members' questions, hear the responses and then Mr.Crowley can address the meeting.

Deputy Ferris

I welcome the MEPs and thank them for coming before the committee. I commend the committee on having the foresight to go to Brussels to meet MEPs, the Commissioner and his staff. That was a way to acquaint all members of the committee with the circumstances prevailing and the discrepancy between the position here and in other member states.

I come from an area where the fishing industry is important and as someone close to fishermen on the ground, I do not know anyone involved in fishing who is a criminal. They are hardworking, decent people who brave the elements. Most of them are making huge repayments on their boats and must pick out whatever days they can to meet their payments. They have families to maintain and provide additional on-shore industry.

I fully understand their frustration and anger when a Bill like this is introduced. It discriminates against Irish fishermen, no one else. It is a reflection of how out of touch the people who drafted this Bill and the Cabinet that tried to force it through are with the situation on the ground.

I refer to a point made about the scientific analysis about present stocks. I went to Brussels in 2003 with a delegation and met both agricultural and marine people. I met the agricultural officers and the marine officers who told me nobody actively engaged in the fishing industry had an input into the stock quota. Scientists worked to their own agenda and while I do not question the accuracy of their conclusions, I question the quota if no one actively engaged in the industry contributes to it.

Last year, Commodore Lynch from the Irish Naval Service spoke to this committee. He provided figures to demonstrate that Irish boats were the subject of the most serious actions, including citation and detention, by the naval services in Irish waters, yet 60% of the large vessels in Irish waters are foreign. In reply to a question about the illegal practices of foreign vessels, he said even when the naval service boards them there appears to be little it can do because not only is it difficult to monitor a quota given to foreign vessels but that is not the naval service's role.

If Irish fishermen are arrested their catch and gear can be confiscated and serious fines imposed on them, compared to those imposed in other EU member states. This Bill effectively criminalises decent hardworking men and their families who are trying to scrape a living in difficult circumstances and times. I am not interested in scoring points against any political party. I want our collective effort to achieve justice for our fishermen. These people put their lives at risk every day, braving the elements. At one time they went to sea for three or four days, now they make ten-day trips.

They exceed their quotas because the prices of diesel, gear and maintenance have soared. They were sold out in 1972 when they were given 11% of the waters and 4% of the catch. This Government is attempting to make criminals out of people striving to make a living. Everybody I know involved in fishing believes in conservation of the stocks because it is their livelihood. I see the efforts made at an oyster fishery in my area. Since being elected I continue to fish oysters. I have also fished lobster and salmon. I have poached salmon to try to make a living when it was a criminal offence to catch it. That is the situation around the coast. People who have grown up in the fishing tradition have effectively been criminalised.

Mr. Coveney mentioned the sanctions decided collectively. Is that an aspiration or is it the position? The Commissioner says it is for the individual states to administer whatever sanctions they propose. Mr. De Rossa said that without harmonisation of the sanctions effectively there is discrimination because the states will impose different and unequal sanctions. All of that must be dealt with. As presented, this Bill attacks a vulnerable section of our community to the extent that it attempts to demoralise people who are already struggling. That is wrong and immoral and must be fought in this chamber and in whatever other forum to which it goes. I appeal to Irish MEPs to use whatever influence they can to protect a section of our community, citizens who have traditionally been involved in a livelihood which has served the community well and has already paid a big price. As a result of the current precarious state of the fishing industry and the chances being taken by those involved in it, there is no year in which there is not a great deal of tragedy. I know that from personal experience.

Senator McHugh

I am conscious of the time and aware that another MEP is to contribute so I will be as brief as possible.

Regarding the fishermen's frustration, MsMairéad McGuinness may agree with me that farmers got the "poor mouth" label, and that is also happening to the fishermen. That must be nipped in the bud because fishermen are currently trying their best in terms of conservation and are even engaging in scientific experiments. For example, fishermen involved in the crab industry last November found that they did not have adequate hours at sea for fishing, and had to stop fishing for a period of seven days. Meanwhile the French and British fishermen had innumerable hours, which meant we had to go to the British fishermen to seek extra hours. This resulted from a decision made at central Government level in 2003, at a time when European exchequer funding and Irish Exchequer funding went into the rebuilding of the crab fishing fleet, although we did not demand extra hours at the time.

I am not in total agreement with Deputy Eamon Ryan but in terms of where we are going, or where we are at, do we know what the right hand and the left hand are doing at Commission level, at central Government level and at fishermen's level? It is not adding up. We are investing millions of euro in building our fleet but at the same time are not getting extra hours. That is what happened with crab fishing last November. I have contacted my colleagues about this issue at European level. This is not an easy matter to explain here in a minute or two but it is important that we push for extra kilowatt hours for the crab industry because the only people engaging in any scientific research regarding the crab industry are the fishermen. Neither Europe nor central Government is engaging in it. That is something on which we should keep a close eye.

In terms of the wider electorate, we should be instilling confidence in the European project. As citizens of the European Union, that is what we should always continue to strive towards. If we are trying to do so, the matter before us is simple. We have a very simple matter before us today relating to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. It is for the Cabinet to decide how to move forward with this legislation. If we continue to blame the European Union for decisions that can be made at Cabinet level, it will further erode already dwindling confidence in the EU.

Perhaps I might use another example. When an environmental health officer visits restaurants, hotels and so on to check whether there are proper facilities, we are the first to give out to the EU, which we blame for imposing sanctions and draconian laws and rules regarding how we handle cleanliness and health needs. That is wrong, since it is the Government, at central level, that is accountable to the electorate and that makes those decisions. The same is true of this very simple measure before us today; it is a decision for central Government. This rests squarely with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. I am not being political, since I am aware that this forum is not intended to be such, but if we are to instil confidence in the European project, we cannot always blame the EU for decisions made in Dublin.

Chairman

The final speaker from the Oireachtas side will be Deputy Tony Dempsey, after which we will take a few responses and hear from Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP.

Deputy T. Dempsey

Beidh mé an-ghairid. I will keep my remarks short, since at 12 o'clock I left Spain, where it was much warmer than here. I do not know if the heating has been turned down to keep temperatures low or for some other reason.

I have no electoral interest in discussing fishing. I used to teach three or four miles from Kilmore Quay, after which I taught in Duncannon. I am very conscious that people in the area are still searching for the body of Mr. Pat Colfer, whom I taught at school. We in Wexford have been very successful at scallop-fishing; I believe that we are responsible for approximately 80% of catches nationally. However, 50% of fishermen are ready to get out of it and forget about it for ever. They will accept whatever offer the Government makes.

I have been involved with hurling and football in Wexford for years. I have yet to see a fisherman tog out for the county in Croke Park, at least at senior level. The life they lead is so tough that they never get a chance. If surveys were conducted on how many children of fishermen go on to sit the leaving certificate, I expect that they would show a level of achievement lower than the national average. It is a very tough life, and my brief political experience suggests to me that every political party has sold out on fishing over the years, particularly when we joined the EU.

I am glad that the MEPs are here, since I have a few questions for them. I know that most were once Deputies, and even if that is not the case, they represent fishing communities, as do members of the other parties. The fishermen in Wexford tell me that we are too zealous in protecting species, contrary to what Deputy Eamon Ryan would say; he would preach from a different hymn book. The fishermen tell me that large quantities of crab and scallop are left, and I am surprised to hear Deputy Eamon Ryan saying that the scientists cannot state whether that is the case.

The MEPs meet colleagues from other countries every day in the European Parliament. Are we stricter than the Spanish or the French regarding quotas or health and safety? I would like to know how important is the fishing industry to them as a Parliament. I have no doubt that it has been transcended in importance by agriculture, and I am also privileged to represent farmers. However, the attention that every party and the Independent Members have traditionally paid to farming is infinitely greater than that paid to fishing. I am not trying to be political, but I would like to say to Deputy Broughan that I picked Wexford teams to play in Croke Park, but I have yet to see him in any position, be it full-back or corner-back. Fianna Fáil are the same, since we play as a team. We have argued at parliamentary party level, but one does not walk the line. If I was to walk out because I did not get my way on who was to play full forward there would never be a team picked.

Mr. Ó Neachtain, MEP

I thank the committee members for their expressions of concern. We deal with common fisheries policies rather than just the substantive issue of the sanctions. I hope that in the future, we will be able to deal with the wider issues. Deputy Keaveney asked us to look at the overall picture. We constantly look at the overall picture in the European Parliament when dealing with European issues. We would not have dealt with this aspect at all were it not for the visit by members of the committee, as the issue of sanctions does not involve the European fisheries committee.

Senator Kenneally asked whether the other MEPs on the fisheries committee were surprised at the level of sanctions proposed by Ireland. They were very surprised. I was surprised at their reaction. They could not understand why we were so out of sync with the rest of Europe with the sanctions we proposed, especially the criminal aspect. Of the 1,700 offences that occurred in Spain last year, approximately 90% of them were treated as administrative offences. In Portugal, only three out of 1,600 cases were dealt with by the criminal courts. In Ireland, 20 out 26 instances were dealt with as criminal offences. We should try to correct the proportionality of the situation.

I agree with much of what Deputies Eamon Ryan and Broughan said about the overall damage being done to the stocks. I was very vocal on that when I presented a report on the management of fish stocks in western waters and in the Irish Box during the previous European Parliament sitting. We succeeded to a large extent in combatting the efforts of Spain to fish more in Irish waters. We have a budget of around €100 billion in the EU, of which 46% goes to agriculture and 2% goes to fisheries. We should not, therefore, mix up the importance and the responsibilities of both industries as they are very divergent.

I was the author of another European Parliament report in which we put forward regional advisory committees, where fishermen and scientists would be at the same table, pursuing the best way forward for European fisheries. Two or three of those committees, including the committee which involves Ireland, are currently up and running. I hope these developments will be positive in the future. I am preparing another report for the European fisheries committee on in-shore fishing, which is of more importance to Irish fisheries than to other countries. We want to pursue support for that sector that has not been there historically. The outlook is more positive than some of the negative vibes would suggest.

The "we" in Deputy Eamon Ryan's phraseology concerns me. It is not Irish fishermen doing the damage as they do not have the wherewithal in terms of quota and TAC to do it. We must consider this issue with a degree of fairness and proportionality. While I agree that much damage has been done, the problem is much wider than Ireland. Níl aon rud eile le rá agam, ach amháin go bhfuil an-áthas orm a bheith anseo, agus tá súil agam gur féidir linn oibriú le chéile ar son dul chun cinn agus maitheas iascairí na hÉireann.

Deputy Coveney, MEP

I agree with Senator Kenneally with regard to the post of seafood manager, although it is not a European issue. The post should be a ministerial appointment so there will be ministerial responsibility for the actions of the seafood manager. If that person is not performing, the Minister must take action. The person should not be appointed by the head of a Department as the move away from ministerial responsibility is a dangerous trend.

Following the committee's visit to the European Parliament, there was a strong reaction to the legislation within the group of the European People's Party, the group of which Fine Gael is part in the Parliament. Ms Carmen Fraga Estévez from Spain is the fisheries co-ordinator for the group. We had a long discussion within the group in regard to the implications of this legislation for fishermen fishing in Irish waters but also with regard to the precedent it may set across the EU, given that one country is going in a different direction from the rest.

I can understand Deputy Eamon Ryan's frustration with regard to fish stocks going in one direction. Despite our talking every year about the need for conservation measures, many people feel they do not go far enough. We should not suggest that because Irish fishermen only catch 5% of fish in Irish waters, they do not do any damage. If Irish fishermen breach the rules, they do damage and they should not breach the rules even if times are hard. Having said that, as with any area that requires enforcement legislation, the punishment must fit the crime. We could not have a situation where people were jailed indefinitely for speeding in cars in an effort to slow drivers down. There must be proportionality. Mr. De Rossa rightly said there is no such thing as fair sanctions, so any sanctions must be appropriate.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

May I make a brief response to the points made?

Deputy Coveney, MEP

Yes.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

When I say "we", I mean "we" as Europeans — I mean everyone. I am not sure what I should call an MEP. There is a management system in Brussels and an enforcement system at national level. The flaw becoming apparent is that, as the Naval Service admitted to the committee, it does not know whether a Spanish boat is at or below quota and, therefore, there is no enforcement of a quota regime on a real time basis. Equally, when an Irish boat is stopped in Scottish waters, the British navy does not have a clue whether the boat has quota or not. The total allowable quota system is meaningless because no-one knows on a real time enforcement basis who has a quota. That is the flaw in the system. However, Brussels does not understand this flaw because it is only concerned with the lovely central conservation management system. That is meaningless if quotas are not applied.

Deputy Coveney, MEP

I do not accept that Brussels is quite that naïve.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Does the Deputy accept that is the situation on the waters? No one can enforce the quotas.

Deputy Coveney, MEP

If one discusses this important issue with the Naval Service, which has responsibility for enforcement, it will refer to significant technological improvements in respect of accessible information on those boats which it detects or stops.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

However, the flaw in the system is that Naval Service does not know whether a boat is above or below quota.

Deputy Coveney, MEP

It does not know without going aboard.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

No. Even if the Naval Service boards a boat, it does not know.

Deputy Broughan

It would not have a clue.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Representatives of the Naval Service came before this joint committee and made it clear that it does not know. How can we enforce this without going to Portugal or Spain to ask the relevant fishery producer group? The system is flawed and is not working. The MEPs must bring back to Brussels the message that the entire system does not work.

Mr. Ó Neachtain, MEP

Has the Deputy based his comments on the Naval Service statements?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

My statements are based on both the Naval Service observations and those of others with experience in this area. The system has a central flaw, namely, that no one knows which boat has a quota, which effectively leads to open fishing.

Deputy Broughan

Deputy Coveney might be interested to know that the French navy appears to have a simple rule whereby if one misbehaves and steams away in French waters, one does not ever return. There appear to be completely different regimes in operation.

Chairman

I will allow Deputy Coveney to respond. Is he aware that the Fine Gael party has nominated two people to this joint committee, Deputies Perry and Durkan, to replace him?

Deputy Coveney, MEP

I am not quite sure what the Chair means by his comment.

Chairman

It demonstrates the amount of work he did while a member of the joint committee.

Deputy Coveney, MEP

Thank you. While I wish to discuss this issue further, I will answer some of the other questions first. As for Deputy Broughan's remarks, the European fisheries control authority is being established in Vigo. However, some uncertainty remains as to its remit and powers, as it has no say in the actions of individual member states in respect of sanctions.

In response to Deputy Ferris's question, the Commissioner has left me with the impression that he wants to see a convergence of the approaches taken on sanctions by different member states. Perhaps, as Deputy Eamon Ryan has suggested, a tougher approach is required across the European Union. However, it is unacceptable to have completely different approaches in different parts of the European Union and we must try to move away from this. While relief on the cost of fuel is a decision for the Government rather than for Europe, other European governments have provided tax relief.

Deputy Broughan

I thought the MEP had called for a common energy policy.

Deputy Coveney, MEP

While I would like to see a common energy policy, it is not yet in place. Deputy Keaveney asked whether the committee looks at the bigger picture. It does, but one of the astonishing things about the committee that I found in the build-up to the debate on TACs and quotas, time at sea and so on before last Christmas, was that our fisheries committee has no say in this respect and did not even debate the issue last year. While this year we tried to remedy that to a certain extent, I am not sure how or whether the committee's deliberations affect the decisions taken by the Council. While this is somewhat frustrating, I hope the regional committees to which Mr. Ó Neachtain referred will have a greater impact in this regard.

In respect of Deputy Ferris's question as to whether sanctions are decided by the European Union, they are decided by individual governments. However, the Commission wants the Council of Ministers to formulate a common approach regarding the convergence of sanctions, so that everyone plays on the same pitch.

As for Senator McHugh's remarks, I am familiar with the problems for crab fishermen in his part of Ireland, arising from the days at sea regulations. While the problem was solved eventually, it gives an indication of the frustration of Irish fishermen who are often tied up on the dock watching foreign fishing boats catching what they want to catch but cannot because they do not have the days at sea to so do. This echoes Deputy Eamon Ryan's point concerning how we know who is catching what and what quotas they have.

My final point concerns the collection of scientific data and landings in Irish ports. The vast majority of fish caught in Irish waters are not landed in Ireland and even a very large proportion of fish caught by Irish fishing vessels in Irish waters sometimes are not landed in Ireland. It is very difficult to measure what is being landed and match it with our national quota because much of this quota is landed elsewhere, whether Scotland or somewhere else in the EU, if the price is slightly higher or the landing gear is better. The figures are not being falsified, as some people suspect. Much of the quota is not landed in Ireland which makes it almost impossible to measure how many fish are being caught in Irish waters and how many are being caught by Irish fishermen. There is no central system capable of measuring this at European level. This makes a farce of the quotas policy.

Ms McGuinness, MEP

I will be brief. I have gained more from the discussion than I have contributed to it. I know more about fishing than I did when I arrived here. There are similarities between fishing and agriculture. Sustainability is easier to preach than practise. In general, those who preach sustainability have no idea of its implications for those trying to eke out a living. If we consulted more with these people and brought them with us instead of fighting against them, we would do a better job with both fishing and agriculture.

I am concerned about some of the statistics and points raised by scientists and would like some information about them. The least we can do is ask the Commission about it in Strasbourg when we can address questions about whether we are working from the right statistics. I know from past experience how difficult it is to get statistics on livestock in fields, which at least have some tagging, so it must be almost impossible to accurately count fish in the fishing sector. However, it can be done. If systems need to be tightened up, we can raise the matter at European level.

We need to ask what the objective of this legislation is, what is broken and whether this legislation will fix it because it appears that it will not. We may not catch the large fish we are trying to catch but we will penalise the smaller fishermen trying to eke out a living. This debate has not concluded. However, I thank the committee for inviting me here and for everything I gained from this discussion.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I will also be brief. As Ms McGuinness noted, this discussion has been very instructive. I certainly found it instructive as it is not an area with which I am directly involved, although as an inhabitant of an island, I am interested in the issue.

I will clarify an issue to which Deputy Ferris referred. We must be careful about the language we use in terms of matters such as harmonisation. I did not mention harmonisation and I did not wish to imply that the absence of the harmonisation of sanctions across Europe would cause discrimination. My point was that Ireland cannot apply a legal regime to Irish people which differs from the regime we would apply to non-Irish people in Ireland. We cannot apply a law to a Spanish fisherman in Ireland who is caught illegally fishing that differs from that applied to an Irish skipper. We cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality, a principle embedded in the treaties which applies in all areas.

From listening to the discussion, a problem seems to arise in so far as the Naval Service, for example, is not in a position to establish the facts when Spanish, Portuguese or French fishermen are found with fish in Irish waters or determine whether they are within their quotas. This is clearly a failure that must be addressed. We are making a mockery of the law if it cannot be applied. Regardless of how severe it is, if we cannot establish the facts, the law does not make much sense.

Deputy Broughan referred to the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I have a vague recollection that there were a number of recent reforms. I am not in a position to say whether they went far enough but it is an issue I will examine. I will also examine the matter raised by Deputy Eamon Ryan, namely, what he considers to be a flaw in the management of the quota system at European level.

I disagree with Mr. Coveney's comment that it is not acceptable to have a regime that is significantly different in Ireland than when applied in other member states.

Deputy Coveney, MEP

Sustainable.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I am not sure that is the case. Given the nature of our location and the fact that we receive significantly more money from the European Union to defend our waters than other member states, if we are serious about maintaining the sustainability of stocks in the Irish Sea, we must ensure that the law applies equally to everyone regardless of nationality. It is reasonable for the State to take whatever proportionate measures it deems necessary to defend the sustainability of that resource. Other states may not take the same approach. We should not tie ourselves into having common approaches to sanctions unless they are sufficient to do the job we want them to do.

I have every sympathy for those who feel obliged to over-fish their quotas to survive but we must find other ways of supporting them instead of turning a blind eye to their breaches of the law. They are not just breaking the law, rather they are putting at risk their future and the future of a valuable resource. We must try to find a balance.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Crowley, MEP, for making the arrangements with the committee in Brussels, Mr. Michael McGreal and his staff for their help and Mr. Kevin Leyden for his help when this committee visited Brussels. Mr.Crowley, MEP, may make a statement for five or six minutes, after which we will conclude with the agreement of members.

Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP

I have nothing different to say about the situation at European level from what my colleagues have already said. I apologise for my late arrival. Flights were delayed over London and I was caught coming back.

Deputy Eamon Ryan spoke about a key element, namely, conservation, utilising scientific evidence and so on. The biggest difficulty I have discovered over my 12 years in the European Parliament when dealing with the committee on fisheries is that pure scientific evidence never stands up to scrutiny on its own merits. Too often there are agendas for more conservation measures or fishing measures stemming from the scientific evidence produced over a different period of time. From my experience of our successes in conservation, a key element is the involvement of fishermen or their taking the lead. It worked well in those areas. On the south coast non-fishing agreements for certain areas and regions allowed for the replenishing of cod stock during a seven year period and worked extremely well. French and Spanish fishermen voluntarily agreed to stay out of those waters for a period of time.

Irish fishermen and fishing organisations came together and presented the European Union with plans to conserve stocks and extend the time periods. The first group to make a presentation to the European Parliament's fisheries committee in 2001 or 2002 was the quota review body established by the Government under BIM, which comprised representatives of all of the fishing organisations, as well as legal and conservation organisations. It made a presentation to the European Parliament on conserving and preserving fishing stocks. In saying that, nobody can condone illegal acts where fishermen break the rules and breach the law. There are reasons for the structures in place, bad or difficult as some of them may be to impose or implement. If good faith is sought at European, governmental or Naval Service level regarding the implementation of rules and regulations, equally there must be good faith on the other side about the issues in which some fishermen are involved.

One of the difficulties when discussing these topics is that much of the time we do not have full knowledge or understanding of what is involved. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the issue of quotas has become so heated in this room.

One of the key elements is that European regulations provide for different types of offences such as technical, non-technical, quota and non-quota offences. Examining the list of offences for which individuals have been prosecuted or fined under administrative or criminal sanctions, more than 80% are for technical offences, not quota offences. The sanctions are not necessarily imposed for overfishing but for matters such as log book offences, fishing on a day the boat should be tied up or being in waters in which it is not entitled to be. The only way to manage quotas is after the stock is landed. It seems a retrograde step to state a quota is imposed on the amount for which one can fish because the amount caught can only be judged after the catch has been landed. One of the ways this difficulty can be overcome is through introducing individual boat quotas instead of giving quotas to sectors.

I know some of my friends in fishing organisations may not agree with me on this. However, individual boat quotas would have a threefold effect. The Naval Service would know exactly what quota each boat should have when it lands or when it is boarded. It would allow that boat to determine the best way to get an economic return and value from its fishing as it would know its quota it and could decide to work two days, come back in, and then work another five. Individual boat quotas would also guarantee the processing industry a regular supply. For certain species where a quota extends across an entire sector, during the first 14 days after the quota is opened and distributed across the sector, everyone is out fishing and approximately 90% of the quota is caught during that time. The fishery could be extended for a three or four month period. It does not make sense because a bigger and faster boat has a quicker turnaround time and can catch more than smaller boats which lose out. That is another issue which can be examined in the future.

To return to the point of sanctions, the discussions that took place in the European Parliament were mentioned. Commissioner Borg was quite plain when he responded to the oral question the committee had put on special sanctions. His preference is for administrative sanctions, except for the most serious offences where criminal sanctions could be applied. Administrative sanctions could be imposed and the matter resolved easily and quickly.

I see some difficulties with regard to the current regime of sanctions in Ireland and the proposals of the amended sea-fisheries Bill. Fisheries offences are driven into court as opposed to ways being sought to resolve the matter quickly. Discrimination exists in terms of the differing impacts on Irish and non-Irish registered boats. From my reading of the Bill, which may be incorrect, the judge does not have any leeway with regard to mitigating factors when determining what the sanction should be. There are set offences with set penalties and no mitigation is allowed. If that is introduced, it will be the first time in Irish criminal law that the right of mitigation and of hearing what the defendant has to say is taken from a judge's control.

The Attorney General and certain other legal experts believe that represents the only means to implement the law in Ireland. With all due respect to my learned colleague, the Attorney General, and his advisers, they may be wrong in their interpretation. As an implementation of European regulation, it does not have the same restrictions as a law adopted by the Oireachtas under Irish law and for Irish circumstances only. There is an expanding viewpoint within legal circles on the rights and protections of individual fishermen in terms of the regimes in which they are forced to operate. We have moved away from the idea of having all prosecutions taken by a single office because, not only in fisheries but also in the areas of criminal and civil law, it is easier if the power to take prosecutions is handed to other agencies by statute.

The visit by a delegation of this committee to Brussels was a wonderful event, not only in persuading our colleagues to become involved but because it gave Irish MEPs an opportunity to work together on a matter which we considered to be of benefit. I hope the visit represents the start of a process that will continue for this and other committees because we all miss home and it is good to return occasionally to make our contributions.

Chairman

A similar proposal was made by Seán Ó Neachtain, MEP at the start of the meeting. I thank MEPs and members for their attendance. Today's contributions and interactions will be invaluable to this committee when the debate begins in select committee. Although we were prepared to take the Bill in the first week of January, it will instead be taken on 26 January because the Department has asked for additional time.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I understood it was to be introduced on 24 January.

Chairman

That changed because the Department will introduce a Financial Resolution in the Dáil.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Has there been any indication as to when we will receive the amendments?

Chairman

I am advised they will be available on 19 January. Obviously, Deputies will also be submitting their own amendments.

We have had a healthy debate and I thank all for their contributions. A note will be sent to other committees with regard to biannual visits, which might involve one visit to Brussels each year by Oireachtas Members and one to various committees by MEPs.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.35 p.m., sine die.