Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Mar 2006

Vol. 182 No. 22

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

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

I commend to the House this major reform Bill, the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, as passed by Dáil Éireann on 22 February 2006. The Bill comprehensively updates and restates, in convenient format, the current statutory framework for sea-fisheries, which dates from 1959 and is spread over seven Acts. When enacted, the Bill together with the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003, which provides an independent licensing and appeals system for sea-fishing boats, will represent a very significant achievement by the Government in modernising the law to help secure a sustainable future for the vital sea-fishing sector of the economy and the local communities which depend on it. Sustainable sea-fisheries are dependent on best practices in fisheries management and control and the main provisions of the Bill have been crafted on that fundamental principle. I will return to the sea-fisheries aspects shortly and deal with them at some length. The Bill, as will be noted from its Title, also replaces in up-to-date terms the three Maritime Jurisdiction Acts, also dating from 1959, and provides a clear statutory basis for the exclusive economic zone of the State, which underpins the exclusive fishery limits of the State, in accordance with Part 5 of the United Nations Law of the Sea, as set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill.

With Dáil approval, provision is made in section 84, for the first time in Irish law, for a definition of "contiguous zone"— that is the area between 12 and 24 nautical miles offshore from baselines — in accordance with Article 33 of the United Nations Law on the Sea. This provision is being made to set the foundations for further legislation, by the relevant Ministers, for enhancing the power of the State to protect archaeological objects in the contiguous zone, as well as to prevent infringements of customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary laws within the national territory and territorial seas of the State, as specifically provided for in Articles 33 and 304(2) of the United Nations Law of the Sea. For the convenience of the House, I have had revised and published a detailed explanatory and financial memorandum to reflect the Bill as extensively amended and passed by Dáil Éireann on 22 February 2006.

The Irish sea-fishing industry has changed fundamentally since 1959 when small boats making short trips predominated. Nowadays, there are many multi-million euro businesses with large Irish boats operating in far-away regions, and there are large non-Irish boats fishing in the waters around Ireland and often landing their catch in Ireland. Sea-fishing is now substantially regulated at EU level through the Common Fisheries Policy. The Fisheries Acts need to be modernised to take account of those developments and realities and, in particular, to fill certain major gaps in the law, as identified by the Supreme Court in judgments in 2003 and 2005, as regards the detailed implementation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

As the House will be aware, the EU Common Fisheries Policy was substantially reformed in 2002 with increased emphasis on concerted actions to safeguard sea-fish stocks and to secure sustainable sea-fishing activity throughout the EU as well as beyond it. The Supreme Court impugned certain secondary legislation designed to give effect to EU sea-fisheries obligations for lack of cover in the current Fisheries Acts. Those judgments are far-reaching in their application and not, therefore, confined to the Fisheries Acts or the Department.

Section 14 of the Bill fills the gaps identified in section 224B of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 by enabling detailed ministerial regulations to be made to apply the full range of EU requirements throughout the whole area to which the EU Common Fisheries Policy applies, and not only within the 200 nautical miles exclusive fishery limits of the State, or only specifically against illegal fishing or attempting to fish illegally, as section 224B stands at present. Section 15 fills the gaps identified in section 223A of the 1959 Act by specifically enabling detailed ministerial regulations to be made to supplement the EU Common Fisheries Policy where the State has discretion as to the particular measures to be adopted as, for example, in the case of lobster fisheries in coastal waters. The current text of sections 223A and 224B of the 1959 Act is set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to the detailed explanatory and financial memorandum published with the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann.

In the interest of proper regulation, pursuant to the Government's 2004 White Paper, Regulating Better, sections 12 and 13 streamline the arrangements for allocating and managing the State's sea-fishing quotas and sea-fishing effort entitlements. Sections 74 to 80, inclusive, revise and bring together the law dating from 1894 relating to the registration of sea-fishing boats. Section 100 reduces unnecessary bureaucracy by exempting from compulsory registration as a ship under the Mercantile Marine Act 1955 any sea-fishing boat of less than 15 m in length overall which is registered in the statutory register of fishing boats or is formally exempted from such registration. Any other matters arising in regard to that Act are a matter for the Minister for Transport since 1 January 2006.

For the convenience of all concerned, section 97 contains the full up-to-date text of the law relating to sea-fishing boat licensing, incorporating the changes made by section 53 of the Maritime Safety Act 2005. As a further overdue clean-up of the Statute Book, section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill provide for the repeal of obsolete, spent or superseded provisions of 16 Fisheries Acts and seven other Acts, the earliest four dating from 1455 to 1516, long being obsolete but still on the Statute Book.

As I highlighted, best practices in sea-fisheries management and control are essential so as to safeguard the future of sea-fisheries. The sea-fishing sector has to act responsibly so as to protect stocks against overfishing and to maximise the value of catches through product and market innovation. The law must provide sufficient deterrence against activities which threaten the long-term sustainability of sea-fisheries and the communities which depend upon them. The EU Common Fisheries Policy specifically requires all member states to have dissuasive penalty regimes.

The Bill, as substantially amended by Dáil Éireann, represents a balanced approach to penalties for illegal fishing, with larger boats liable to higher fines than smaller ones. The automatic forfeiture of gear and catch on court conviction of offences, which is a feature of Irish law for decades, is a potent deterrent and must substantially stand. Dáil Éireann, however, on my recommendation, modified section 28(6) and the current law to the extent that it will be for the court to decide on summary conviction of a person for a sea-fisheries offence for the first time whether to order the forfeiture of fish and fishing gear; if forfeiture is not ordered the court is obliged to explain why.

I am committed to building sustainable sea-fisheries and to strengthening control of these fisheries and I believe it is necessary to support this with penalties that are dissuasive. I will commit to continuing to work for a level playing field in the EU so that penalties across the board for sea-fisheries offences are at levels that are a deterrent and dissuasive.

Section 31 of the Bill is an important new provision which aims to capture the ill-gotten gains arising from illegal sea-fishing and should effectively deter such activity. The court will decide the issue in any case, with the guidance of the detailed provisions of the section. The section is a necessary addition to the suite of statutory provisions for the imposition by the courts of fines and forfeitures and may be used even if it is not feasible to take court proceedings for an offence of illegal fishing. Measures such as these are needed to safeguard fish stocks and allowable catches for the law-abiding and should commend themselves widely.

Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Bill, and the related Schedule 3, provide for the establishment and functions of an independent statutory sea-fisheries protection authority to improve the enforcement of sea-fisheries law and food safety law relating to fish or fishery products. The comprehensive provisions were inserted on Committee Stage in the Dáil and are modelled on those for the Commission for Communications Regulation and the recently established Railway Safety Commission.

Novel provisions are included in Chapter 5 of Part 2 for the establishment of a statutory sea-fisheries protection consultative committee, representative of the sea-fishing and seafood sectors and other relevant interests. This will serve as a two-way forum between the sea-fisheries protection authority and those sectors and interests, and for readily-accessible complaints procedures to which persons aggrieved by enforcement action taken by, or on behalf of, the authority can have their complaints considered by an independent third party. The sea-fishing and seafood sectors in particular have welcomed these provisions.

The proposed sea-fisheries protection authority will be responsible for enforcing the EU Common Fisheries Policy in the State and I aim to proceed with its establishment as quickly as possible after the Bill becomes law. The authority will engage the current departmental complement of 38 sea-fisheries protection officers as well as the additional 45 now being recruited, and also such additional experts from other statutory bodies as may be required and available from time to time to meet particular seasonal or locational enforcement needs. This will ensure better, cost-effective enforcement arrangements.

There are other new provisions in the Bill relating to sea-fisheries matters, namely, the substantive sections 98 and 99 which are designed to clarify the law and benefit the law-abiding, in light of evolving needs and circumstances. Section 98 is intended to prevent competitive distortion due to non-compliance by some sea-fishing enterprises with taxation obligations. The section imposes tax clearance requirements for the grant of sea-fishing boat licences, because licensing provides access to a valuable public resource. Tax clearance is a requirement for the grant of taxi licences for that reason. The section will be commenced by ministerial order as soon as necessary consultations on the matter have taken place after the Bill is enacted.

Section 99 clarifies the scope of ministerial policy directives to the sea-fishing boat licensing authority or appeals officers, to include a specific reference to measures to control and regulate the capacity, etc., of the sea-fishing fleet and the rational management of fisheries. The detailed directives already in place have been duly presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas as the 2003 Act requires and are available on the Department's website www.dcmnr.gov.ie.

The Bill also makes important changes in the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997 for the benefit of well-run aquaculture businesses. I refer to section 101 of the Bill. There is a continuing significant development of aquaculture, within the statutory framework provided by the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, as refined by the 1998 and 2001 Fisheries Acts.

The period since the enactment of the 1997 Act has, overall, been one of significant growth and development for the aquaculture sector, and the value of its output in 2004 was some €98 million. It is now a key component of overall seafood production and is generally recognised as having the capacity to play a critical role in the economic life of many coastal areas. The objective must be to ensure that the sector's further development is on a sustainable and environment-friendly basis. The regulatory framework established by the 1997 Act is central to the achievement of this objective, and the proposed changes to that framework are designed to enhance its operational effectiveness.

It is proposed that licence renewals may be granted for the continuance of well-run aquaculture operations of long standing, without the renewal, in all cases, having to be formally effected before the licences in question have expired. It may not be possible in every case to have all the necessary site inspections, water and other analyses formally completed before a particular date. In such circumstances it would be unfair to disrupt efficient well-run operations on what would be something of a technicality. It is proposed, therefore, that a licensee who has applied for a renewal of his or her licence will be able to continue to operate, subject to the terms and conditions of the licence, until a decision is made on the renewal application.

Furthermore, I am relaxing the blanket provisions for terminating a licence if I am satisfied that the operations could not commence within two years, as currently required, or have been suspended for a continuous period of two years, for bona fide reasons, such as illness on the part of the licence holder, fish health or environmental conditions. This is not a charter for people to acquire licences speculatively in the hope that after some years they can assign them to a third party. On the contrary, where licensed sites are not being used, the licences will be revoked and made available to others who are willing and able to operate the sites more productively.

The opportunity is also being taken to facilitate the reduction of licensed sites and licensed production, and the use of novel or experimental equipment, subject to appropriate conditions. The problem mainly arises in bottom culture where substantial portions of licensed sites may prove to be unsuitable for cultivation. At present licence holders wishing to reduce the size of their licensed areas, and benefit from a proportional reduction in licence fees, are obliged to go through the licensing process anew. This is neither necessary nor appropriate, but it should be open to a licensee to request the reduction of the licensed area or the permitted production. Similarly, the activation of the full licensing process where a licensee wants only to use novel or experimental equipment for the purposes of the aquaculture allowed by the licensee is unduly onerous.

Accordingly, the proposal is that the Minister will be able to authorise this at the request of the licensee, but only where no greater environmental or visual impact would result. While these changes relating to aquaculture are essentially technical in nature, I hope they will streamline the licensing process and enhance its effectiveness. Aquaculture production is primarily intended for human consumption and food safety considerations must therefore prevail. I confirm that my policy will continue to be to ensure that all aquaculture operations are properly conducted.

Section 102 is an important new provision designed to safeguard Exchequer revenues, by preventing the build-up of arrears of charges for services provided at the five State-owned fishery harbour centres, and allow the fishery harbour centres to continue to meet customer needs which are not confined to the sea-fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

The core of the Bill is an important suite of provisions to strengthen sea-fisheries law and improve enforcement arrangements in order to safeguard sea-fish stocks for sustainable fishing and rational management. The Bill also usefully clarifies the law relating to sea-fishing boat licensing and registration, and aquaculture, for the benefit of those businesses. Additional safeguards are being provided in the Bill for Exchequer revenues and needed service provision at the five State-owned fishery harbour centres for the sea-fishing and aquaculture industries.

The Bill provides an up-to-date legal framework for the sea-fishing and aquaculture industries to develop their businesses properly and I wish them well. I am committed to working to deliver a sustainable sea-fisheries sector. The proposed new legislative framework I commend here will ensure that we have a strong fishing industry that guards against illegal fishing and will, in the long term, drive the delivery of prosperous, thriving coastal communities on a sound, sustainable foundation.

Looking to the future and following the delivery of the necessary restructuring through the €45 million scrapping scheme, there is every reason to be confident that fishing will continue to provide the economic backbone to many remote rural coastal communities. Balanced regional development will also be secured. The industry has potential and significant progress is being made on giving the necessary protection to the resource.

Stock recovery plans have been agreed for key whitefish stocks around Ireland such as cod and hake. There is a general determination to make inroads into the protection and rebuilding of stocks flowing from the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy in 2002. Recovery of such stocks is planned within three to five years generally and can then be the basis of a sustainable, vibrant and economically-sound fishing industry. I will continue to work at EU level for the degree of commitment and actions that we are delivering to ensure a level playing field and a sea-fisheries regime which guarantees sustainable fish stocks for the future.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire inniú. I welcome the Minister to the House. I was unsure whether I was listening to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources because there were many references to law and reform in the Minister's contribution.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill. Having listened intently to the debate in the Lower House I do not intend to cover issues which have been extensively debated by my Dáil colleagues. I wish to make some observations and ask the Minister to clarify some points. I was amused to hear the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Minister's party colleague, Deputy O'Flynn, refer to this Bill as a "Civil Service Bill from Fisheries Lane". While he paints an amusing picture, it gives rise to serious concerns regarding the drafting of this Bill. Consultation with those most affected by the Bill was not an issue during its drafting.

Coming from County Donegal, I fully appreciate and understand the critical role which fishing plays in coastal communities. Large areas of County Donegal would cease to exist if it were not for the fishing industry — I refer specifically to Greencastle and Killybegs. It is known only too well in County Donegal that viable alternative employment opportunities are decreasing by the year. In the opinion of a large number of my constituents, this Government appears to have written off the fishing industry. Some fishermen in County Donegal have referred to the Department as being the Department against the marine rather than the Department with responsibility for the marine. This does not reflect well on the Department but it is the Minister who must take responsibility for his Department and its civil servants.

We have witnessed the debacle of the pelagic weighing regulations in Killybegs in the past 18 months. It seems that interpretation of EU regulations by Irish administration has cost that town hundreds of processing jobs. This Bill is similar to the weighing regulations fiasco in that there has been reference to European regulations and misinterpretation of the same. This is a domestic issue and we cannot point the finger of blame at anyone else.

The crux of this debate has been whether minor offences should be dealt with by administrative penalties. This is when the issue of interpretation raises its head. A total of 86% of European offences are dealt with by administrative sanctions. The EU fisheries Commissioner, Joe Borg, has stated he would prefer administrative sanctions. The most recent report from Brussels on the serious breaches of the Common Fisheries Policy indicates over 9,000 serious offences committed across Europe in 2003. Those figures suggest a major problem across the EU in conforming with all the regulations as set out in the Common Fisheries Policy. The number of offences committed in Ireland was 100, a little over 1% of the European total. This is noteworthy considering the recent press coverage of the industry. These figures are indicative of what I know from personal dealings with fishermen, that our industry is no better or no worse than any other in Europe.

In the European context which is how this problem should be regarded, the question remains why fishermen are being criminalised for minor offences. These fishermen are dealing with thousands of pages of EU legislation on each fishing trip. I acknowledge that mistakes are made and deliberate mistakes must be punished. I reiterate the Fine Gael position in this matter as articulated by my colleague and party spokesman, Deputy Perry. Fine Gael does not condone over-fishing and it agrees that serious offences must attract serious penalties. There is a need to take a common sense approach but it is unfortunate that common sense has been lacking in this debate. Despite the fact that only 1% of EU fishing offences are committed by Irish fishermen, it seems now that Ireland will be the only country in Europe not to administer fixed penalties or administrative sanctions. I fail to see the logic behind this position in particular, for minor offences and valuable court resources could be saved by a reduction in the number of fisheries cases ending up in court.

As on previous occasions the Minister remains determined to continue regardless of what everybody else thinks. If newspaper reports are to be believed, up to 15 of his party colleagues made a desperate last minute plea to have him change his mind but this was to no avail. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy O'Flynn, and his colleague, Deputy O'Donovan, were eventually begging the Minister to change his mind. I wonder how much of their concern was for the fishing industry or whether they had one eye on the election. The reaction from coastal communities around the country at the next election will be very interesting.

This Bill is being pursued by the Minister in the name of conservation of fishing stocks. I have been informed by fishermen that there has been a fleet of ten foreign freezer trawlers catching up to 1,000 tonnes of mackerel per day off the Irish coast in recent weeks. I have also been informed that these vessels are discarding the same quantity of smaller grades of mackerel. These allegations merit a major investigation but I question whether such efforts are reserved for Irish owners. I have no problem with control and enforcement in order to protect our fishing stocks but I have a problem if that level of control is not afforded to everyone in our waters. I am informed that Irish fishermen witnessed up to six or seven Norwegian boats in Irish waters when Irish men were being told they were no longer allowed to fish in those grounds.

The submission to the joint committee by the Naval Service was very telling. Ireland is clueless as to the bottom line for quota restrictions pertaining to foreign vessels operating in our waters. We are also clueless as to the effort levels of these foreign fleets. This is proved when the EU Commission has initiated proceedings against the Minister's Department for failure to submit the required effort data. When my colleague, Deputy Perry, recently queried the former Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, on his knowledge of the effort levels of foreign fleets, the response was far from reassuring.

It is an outrage. Ireland has the most productive fishing grounds in Europe. As I stated yesterday in my contribution to the debate on drugs, I have been informed by a certain person that more drugs than fish are coming through our harbours. The Minister will quote statistics from the Naval Service regarding the boarding of foreign vessels but I am informed that these freezer ships receive nothing more than courtesy calls from our control resources. Recently quoted figures put the value of catch for Irish fishermen at €200 million and the value of catch by foreign vessels in Irish waters as €2 billion. I shudder to think what is the value of the illegal catch taken by foreign trawlers, given the quality rather than the quantity of the boardings.

A true assessment of the situation in Irish waters is required, to enable us know who is catching fish, what they are catching and what are they allowed to catch, which is more important. This assessment should be carried out and we will discover who are the main players in this fishing business. It may be as the Minister suggests that there is a small group of Irish fishermen but there is a larger group of foreign fishermen. The fishing industry must not be sacrificed because Irish fishermen are visible while foreign vessels continue to rape our waters with no control imposed.

The one positive element derived from this debate is that many more people now realise that fishing is a very valuable industry for coastal communities. These communities face harsh challenges and they need our help and political support. However the Minister and the Government have failed to provide that support. Fine Gael when in power will provide that support and is committed to having a full Department of the Marine.

Given the very public debate that has raged, it is amazing there was no consultation with the stakeholders prior to the drafting of the legislation. Lessons can be learned and if we are to introduce laws that will impact on people's livelihoods we must take their views on board. How more serious an impact could legislation have than making a criminal out of someone? I find it particularly troubling that nobody saw fit to discuss this Bill with the fishermen before it was drafted. It could have saved everyone a huge amount of energy and resources. It is no wonder there were 220 amendments to the original Bill, over 100 of which were tabled by the Minister.

For future reference let us take a leaf out of the United Kingdom's book. The British authorities are also examining the possibility of modernising their fisheries legislation. The relevant UK Minister has launched a consultation process which is open to all stakeholders and which will result in the drawing up of a list of offences to be covered by administrative sanctions. I would welcome a response from the Minister, particularly on the perceived scale of fishing activities by foreign vessels off our coasts.

There is a perception among our fishermen, their families and fishing communities generally, that the Department is not working for them. They feel it is intent on working against them by introducing restrictive regulations that will forcibly drive them out of the industry. There is a feeling of fear among our fishing communities. As a Donegal man from the coast I am only too aware of what is going on in Greencastle and Killybegs, including hard work, personal investment and large mortgages fishermen have taken out to upgrade their vessels. In addition, they received grants from Europe and from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara only to be told that tonnage quota reductions were to be introduced down the line.

Fishermen put together comprehensive business plans, forecasting how much fish they would be taking in, to show the banks they could repay mortgages on boats. Some fishermen are currently not in a position to pay back their mortgages. One fisherman told me yesterday that his blue whiting quota will only extend to four months this year. This is a complete anomaly because the same fisherman is watching Norwegian vessels passing every day with fewer restrictions and, consequently, larger quotas than their Irish counterparts. The same can be said for many UK fishermen who have bigger quotas.

One of the main points of contention fishermen have regarding this legislation is that their fishing gear can be confiscated for small offences. This ridiculous situation is equivalent to drivers having their cars confiscated if they travel at 85 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. That is the case in the fishing industry where minor infringements will be punished by confiscating fishermen's gear. It is not good enough. The Minister is not in tune with fishermen who work day and night at sea trying to earn a crust, while the Department does nothing to ease the hardships they must endure.

As a member of the Opposition, maybe I am missing something and have got it all wrong. Perhaps my hearing is impaired but those are the arguments I have heard from members of the fishing industry. They say that interaction between the Department and fishermen is poor and communication is non-existent. That serious problem needs to be addressed. If one positive thing has emerged from this debate it is that fishermen are willing to stay in the industry but they need support, assistance and encouragement in order to do so. That is the cry from fishermen and their families in coastal communities.

Just before leaving his previous portfolio, the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, announced a massive injection of money for infrastructural improvement at Greencastle pier, which is to be welcomed. Is it not anomalous, however, to invest in such infrastructure when ultimately we will not have the boats to land fish stocks? It does not make sense to impose further fishing restrictions when fishermen have millstones around their necks having invested in upgrading their vessels and the State is investing in infrastructural projects along the coastline. That is the crux of this debate.

I know I have digressed somewhat from the main picture but the Bill does not amount to good regulation of the fishing industry. I will continue to voice my concerns and opposition to the ethos of criminalising fishermen who are trying to earn a living for their families and their communities. The legislation is a contradiction in terms when it comes to planning the future of the industry.

Three weeks ago, every local newspaper in Donegal was carrying an average of 20 reports on criminal activity in the county, including burglaries and shootings. A range of such activities is occurring in the county but all this Government is concerned about is criminalising fishermen who want to earn money and reinvest it in order to keep coastal communities alive.

As the Minister is aware, Donegal is different. We came up with the tourism logo "It's different up here". It is different in terms of infrastructural deficits, labour market anomalies and the lack of jobs. The only thing that is keeping us alive in Donegal is the construction industry. The Minister referred to sustainability but everyone in Donegal knows that the construction industry is not sustainable in the long run. We are seeking alternatives, one of which is on our doorstep and staring us in the face — it is the fishing industry. The Minister does not come from a coastal community and, being a Meath man, he may not be able to empathise with such communities, although I mean no disrespect to Meath people. The Minister should commence a proactive, open line of communication with fishermen from Castletownbere to Greencastle.

I also wish to welcome the Minister to the House. To date, this measure has prompted widespread debate at the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Many stakeholders have attended that committee to give their views on the proposed legislation. The Bill has been extensively aired in the Lower House and there has been much media coverage. It has provoked a wide debate within the fishing industry itself. It is not often that so much publicity is afforded to a piece of legislation, although the Finance Bill does attract a large number of speakers, albeit for a short period. The Bill before us, however, seems never to have been out of the public eye. That must tell us it is controversial legislation and I believe parts of it are flawed. I have no problem with the Bill per se and the necessity for it but I am deeply unhappy with some sections of it. I have already made it clear to the joint committee and I repeat now that it appears to me there are elements in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources who want to wipe out the fishing industry and force people off our waters and away from their livelihoods. Why this should be so I do not know; they have no feel for what is one of our oldest trades and sustainers in this country.

The computer sector for instance is cosseted and comforted at every turn, but there was little talk of that particular industry when fishing was keeping body and soul together in this country as far back as famine times. In one area of my own constituency, up to 3,000 people were employed in the hake fisheries two centuries ago. Let us not dispense with all our history just to satisfy a few city-bound civil servants.

One of the most extraordinary measures I have seen in any legislation since I became a member of the Oireachtas in 1989 was in section 41 of the original Bill, which referred to a seafood control manager who would be answerable not to the Minister of the day but to the Secretary General of the Department. This was a blatant attempt to sideline the Minister as much as possible. I know this measure has changed since, because of comments and suggestions I and others have made about it, but it tells us something of the mentality of the people we are dealing with, who could draw up such a piece of legislation in the first place. It was totally undemocratic and I am terribly unhappy with the mindset of some of the people involved in the Department.

We were told originally that this legislation had to be enacted by 31 December 2005 or we as a country would be in deep trouble with the European Union and would face even greater fines than at present. This is because of the outcome of the Browne and Kennedy cases, but we must remember that those particular cases have implications for other Departments as well — to which the Minister referred — and I do not see them getting as worked up as this Department.

Any EU penalties to be imposed will relate to what went on beforehand and are only arising because of the mismanagement of the Department for many years. There was no effective control on the fishing fleet at all by the Department and it was grossly inefficient in supplying data to the European Union. Essentially it was not doing its job. However, the Department was very effective in one area, namely catching the small fisherman, and the kindest thing which might be said about that is that the Department was choosing soft targets. It was taking the easy way out.

When the commander of the Irish Naval Service came before the joint committee, I took issue with him because I was aware of an incident that had happened a few days previously at Portally Cove, a few miles from Dunmore East. A man there was hauling a few lobster pots and not only was he approached by the fisheries officers in their own vessel, but an Irish Naval Service ship was there too. That was overkill and the Naval Service would have been much better employed out at sea catching the people who were doing real and substantial damage to our stocks.

I put this to the commander and he said that if the Naval Service is requested to assist, it will. This is total nonsense, as the fisheries officers would have been more than capable of dealing with what was obviously a minor incident. It appears to me that in official circles there is no real will to go after the real culprits who are wreaking the greatest damage.

This piece of legislation is an attempt by the Department to cover up the inadequacies within its system for a long time. The bigger boats and the super trawlers are causing the damage, not the individual small boat owners who take what can only be described as a handful of fish in a season. The Department and its agents out on the water need to get their priorities right, but as in so many facets of our lives, it is the weakest and most vulnerable who take the hit, those who can least afford it financially, or who have the least advice and defence available to them. I hold no brief for the big boys who are visiting as much wrong on the small operators as they are on the fishing industry as a whole across Europe.

There has been a great deal of debate about the constitutionality or otherwise of the introduction of administrative sanctions. The position is that the punishment for commercial fishermen does not fit the crime, whereas the punishment for angling and other leisure fishing does fit the crime. I should not use the word "crime" in that context at all because one of my biggest concerns is that we are making potential criminals of honest, hardworking small-time fishermen, when it is the bigger operators who are at fault.

Not too long ago, a person could go through life without ever attracting the official attention of the Garda or other law enforcement agencies. Now we have to look over our shoulders every day of the week as more and more simple acts have been made criminal offences. Now it seems taking a handful of fish from the water can turn a law-abiding citizen into a criminal and a bankrupt overnight. That cannot be right. There seems to be something very basic about this, particularly in the year when we are about to celebrate the anniversary of our first steps towards freedom, self-determination and the principle of cherishing all the children of the nation equally. Perhaps it is only a pious aspiration after all. Certainly some fishermen might be led to believe that.

I know of one fisherman who, a couple of years ago, was found with a couple of salmon which he had caught illegally. Tough luck — he should be dealt with for that — but what was his penalty? He was fined €300, his nets were confiscated and he lost his licence, which deprived him of his livelihood and income for three years. After the three years, when he applied to the fisheries board to have his licence restored, he was refused as there is a limit of 173 such licences in the Waterford district. All of those had been taken up and his only chance of getting his licence back in the future is if someone is caught in a similar situation. It is like the sub on the sideline hoping the centre-forward will break his leg so that he can get a place on the team.

Even a lorry driver caught drink-driving will almost automatically get his licence back after a year or two. This is not exactly equality, is it? One can compare that unfortunate professional fisherman to the angler who caught a similar few salmon illegally. He received an on-the-spot fine of €80, but he did not lose his job as a carpenter, fitter, doctor or, as we are told, one of those buying up stretches of fishing water, the legal profession. We can almost compare the treatment of those unfortunate fishermen with the starving peasants in the middle ages who had the temerity to hunt the king's deer to feed their children and were lodged in prison for their efforts to maintain their families.

SI 297 of 2003, a copy of which I have with me, was introduced to bring in administrative sanctions for inland fisheries. The Attorney General who approved that document at the time is the same Attorney General who, according to some reports, says that cannot be done today. I cannot understand why there should be a constitutional problem about this today. This is not just a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, it is that the left hand does not seem to know what the left hand did a short time ago.

We already have administrative sanctions in the fisheries area. I realise that the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said at the joint committee that a constitutional issue was not involved, but some of the statements that have emanated from his Department and elsewhere have cast doubt on the matter and we need to have this clarified. The fishing industry faces major problems. We must create a sustainable industry while protecting vulnerable stocks. Nobody condones over-fishing or has a problem with severe measures being introduced for those who are severely flouting the law, nor do I. The Department has been aware of these people for many years and has done nothing about it, but those fishing in a small way are the ones who are hardest hit because they are the easiest to catch.

There should be a proportionality and fairness in this Bill but, unfortunately, there is not. I realise an attempt has been made to bring in graduated penalties and that has to be welcomed, but we need to go a step further. I will give some further examples of recent occurrences. I am aware of a fisherman who had a couple of boxes of fish over his quota a few years ago. He was dragged through the Circuit Court, convicted and given a criminal record. The whole exercise cost him in the region of €30,000. Before he went into court, he had a clean record, but the judge had no discretion under our laws and the man emerged a criminal.

I usually agree with mandatory sentencing, particularly in the case of those thugs who tried to take over Dublin city centre last Saturday. I am concerned judges will be too soft with them because they are not subject to mandatory sentencing. However, that is a subject for another day. If mandatory fines in this matter were listed on an administrative basis it would solve this problem.

I am aware of a letter sent by a member of the legal profession to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy O'Flynn, in which details were given about a fisherman who operated out of Howth on a particular occasion in extremely poor weather conditions and, unfortunately, whose wife was ill at the time. He was also short a member of the crew and was fishing in a relatively small 50 ft vessel. Everything about the man's nets and catch were legal and everything else was totally above board. However, on his return to port on the day in question the vessel was boarded by fisheries officers. Unfortunately, due to his difficulties he had failed to fill out his log book fully. While some log book offences can be very serious, this was a minor technical matter. However, the case had to be taken to the Circuit Court. The State brought in its solicitors and barristers and this man had to do the same. He was convicted and, as a result, his gear and catch were confiscated and a heavy fine totalling €50,000 was imposed on him, which did not include the cost of the State's legal team.

The solicitor pointed out to the Chairman that on this occasion, the judge's hands were tied. The Oireachtas had sent out the message that the judge must deal with the man in a non-discretionary fashion, which meant the penalty imposed on him exceeded his net income for the previous year. That cannot be right. I am reminded of feudal days when the king's deer were as inviolate as a handful of salmon in the hands of a professional fisherman today. Our hands are not tied. We make the law and it is essential to take the right action when we have the chance to do so on this occasion.

Picture a situation in any other facet of Irish law where a man gets what amounts to €100,000 punishment. He would have to be a major criminal and a danger to society. I know many fishermen who could be subject to those penalties and who are otherwise the most law-abiding people one could find. Attempts are being made to bring some of these offences within the ambit of the District Court. However, there is an upper limit to what the District Court can deal with and the confiscation of gear means that almost all of the cases would be above that limit, and we are back to the Circuit Court again.

Administrative sanctions are used throughout almost all of Europe and the British recently published a proposal for their administrative system. As a member of our committee, I travelled to Brussels a couple of months ago to discuss our proposals under this legislation with interested parties and get their views on it. Commissioner Borg is on record as favouring administrative sanctions. We met with his chef de cabinet who made it quite clear that is the preferred option. We were also told the Commission could not impose its will on Ireland and it is a matter for ourselves.

I raised with him the situation we have at present, whereby Irish fishermen are treated differently to foreign fishermen in our ports, in that a judge must confiscate Irish fishermen's gear if they are found guilty. This is not the case for foreign fishermen. He told me that was a matter for our domestic legislative process, which is fine. However, when I put it to him that we reverse it and confiscate the gear of foreign fishermen and not Irish fishermen, he told me the EU would have to intervene and could not allow it to happen. This proves our regulations, as currently designed, are weighted against our own people.

The Minister indicated that once this legislation is enacted, he is prepared to sit down with fishing representatives and draw up a list of administrative sanctions. However, he has not given any commitment that they will be implemented. He promised to give it serious consideration and that is to be welcomed. The Minister has the opportunity to do so now, as he could meet with representatives of the fishing industry between now and either Committee or Report Stage. Part of his reluctance to do so may be that he would have to return to the Dáil with any changes made. However, he would have cross-party support in the Dáil for any alterations agreed with the fishing industry and little time would be needed to put through the amendments.

I am unashamedly on the side of small fishermen in this instance and if there is any humanity in the departmental officials and the Minister to whom they are supposed to be subject, this situation will have to change and the entire area of criminality in the fishing industry reviewed forthwith. I hope the Minister will take on board some of the points I made and both right a serious wrong and prevent further abuses.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I know the Bill has been discussed at length inside and outside the Houses and everywhere else. I accept the changes made in the Dáil are an attempt to move in a particular direction. I put my hands up and state I come from a biased position. I remember in the nights of my youth watching families of fishermen stand along the quay wall in Dingle wondering whether they would return. I remember major drowning incidents occurring every couple of years.

Something has gone wrong and I want to go back to the root from where all this came. I was in Dingle last August and I spoke to a friend who was in my class in school. He owns a boat which was tied up. The Minister knows why it was tied up, which was to do with the quota. As we were there, two big Spanish trawlers came in to land a catch. One would want to see and feel the way it affected the fishermen to whom I was speaking. They were not able to fish while the Spanish trawlers were able to come in with large quotas.

Two weeks later I was standing in the fishing village of Port-Vendres in France, approximately 10 km north of the Spanish border. I was trying to speak with two French fishermen who had two large half-deckers. We could see a large fishing boat in the harbour. I tried to ask some questions about it and the French man shook his hands and stated it was Spanish. It was exactly the same in France as I had seen a week earlier in Dingle. Huge Spanish trawlers come in and scoop up everything while the local fishing industry is destroyed.

When I was going to school there were approximately four times more local boats in Dingle than there are now. That is the reality. Why does it happen? We have a duty to understand the culture of these people. I want to put it in that frame rather than go through the detail. The point made by the Minister on criminalisation is correct. The point made by Senator Kenneally is equally correct. What level of crime do we mean by this big word?

I regret and object to the way this matter has been personalised against the Minister. It does not help anybody. It is not right and I have objected to it in arguments on this issue. I am sure that when the Minister was growing up in County Meath he and his brothers may have gone into the wrong orchard and come home with a lot of apples. Children would not do so now. The same thing happened in Dingle, although there were not that many orchards. However, there were a good few places where a fellow could tickle a salmon and take it home. It might be looked forward to. Looking back with wisdom 50 years later, was it a criminal act? I did not think of those people, myself among them, as being criminals at that time of our lives. I want to examine the attitude which we are discussing.

I disagree fundamentally with the point debated over and back about the constitutionality of administrative sanctions. The Minister made reference to it in his speech. I will point to other matters in our legislation, such as the way a doctor, lawyer or teacher can be struck off and penalised professionally and the way in which members of the accountancy profession can be penalised and fined by their profession without going to court. This is because it is done by a domestic remedy or process which has a legislative base and which in some cases has an appeal access to the courts. This should have been dealt with in that way. I note the Minister's point that in summary cases a District Court judge must explain why her or she decided not to forfeit the gear. I wish the Minister luck. He may be the only man in the history of the State who can tell District Court judges what to do. What will the Minister do if they refuse? I cannot see how that would work.

My sympathy is with the fishing communities of which I am part. I recently cast a wry smile over a comment by Mr. Ken Whitaker, a national icon who is rightly held in the highest respect. I had this discussion with him some 30 years ago. The question is why we are in this mess. It did not begin on the watch of the current Minister or his predecessor. We have been trying to cope with this problem for 40 years. We lost the game in Brussels in 1973 and every Minister for the marine and agriculture since then has been trying to win back some ground. In my 20 years here I have time and again defended Ministers who have tried to do that.

Where did it go wrong? Mr. Whitaker might look back at some events. The deal we did in 1973 was negotiated during the 1960s and early 1970s on the basis of the first and second programmes for economic expansion, which were put together by the Minister's illustrious former leader Mr. Seán Lemass and his equally illustrious Secretary of the Department of Finance, Mr. Whitaker. I suffered through those two programmes for economic expansion during my first year of economics at UCD with Dr. Garrett FitzGerald many years ago. These superb programmes covered the development of every aspect of Irish life and Mr. Whitaker was part of that.

The year after he retired he wrote a book in which he told how he took up fly fishing when he retired from the Civil Service at 65 years of age. When I met him I said it was a pity he had not taken it up 20 years earlier because fishing is the one aspect of Irish life that is ignored in the first and second programmes for economic expansion on the basis of which we did our negotiations for Europe. That is the source of the problem and only by returning to that point can we resolve it. Our fishermen have been hammered since then.

The Dublin attitude to fishing is rightly based on book learning. I must query some of the statistics I see, for example this year's mackerel quotas. Fishermen on the west coast told me there was an extraordinary run of mackerel from Scotland down to the Blaskets. Why can we not have up-to-date figures? Can the Minister rely on the figures he receives? Either they are not factually based or people are dreaming. We must examine this issue. In terms of Ireland's background and coastline the quotas are destroying us. We must take action on this and give space to fishermen.

I grew up among fishermen and went to school with their children, some of whom went on to fish, and I can say they are the most awkward people in the world. I am not saying I would be any different if I was reared in a milieu where I had to listen to the weather forecast to know whether I could go to work. Would any of us be any different? Generations have lived with their lives and work continually at the mercy of the elements. Although they do not take kindly to people interfering they have to put up with it and have shown a willingness to change, perhaps not as quickly as people might like them to, and have accepted the need for regulation and quotas.

Part of the problem is that fishermen are not sufficiently involved in the decisions. In other countries the fishermen are involved in the policing of salmon stocks, regulation and the fishing period. Although regulation and restriction is required, stopping fishermen at sea from netting salmon is not necessarily the way to deal with the salmon issue. In Canada a certain number of salmon are required up-river to replenish stocks and feed wildlife. Rather than having quotas, which are cumbersome and difficult to police, or dates which are taken out of the air, people may not fish for salmon until the agreed stock level is reached. Why could we not trust the fishermen and do that here?

As most salmon go up the smaller rivers, could the Minister have these rivers examined? Could people examine the second run of salmon in the year when low levels of water in small rivers prevent many salmon from swimming up-stream and replenishing stocks? Practical action must be taken. We do not need an involved argument about what is happening with the salmon run in Kilkenny. Action must be taken on small rivers all over the country.

We should ask the fishermen how this can be done with a certain level of administrative penalisation and summary conviction as in the legislation for those guilty of serious crime. The examples the Minister gave on the airwaves were criminal acts. I have no problem with doing what must be done to deal with those people and nor do Senators Kenneally and McHugh. If we put the word "serious" before "crime" we have serious crime producing serious criminals. I agree with the Minister on that but we must help the smaller operators and those working day to day and week to week for a living.

I am glad the Minister has simplified the registration process although I have not examined the details. Previously it was a nightmare and many people will welcome the change. Before now it was as easy to register the QE2 as a half-decker, so that will help.

There is not enough technical support on new species for the deep-sea fishing industry. I recently read about the various species and despite my reasonable knowledge I saw fish whose names and shapes were unknown to me. Is enough work being done to present new opportunities to the fishing industry? Aquaculture, which the Minister mentioned, needs a push to make sure fishermen fishing at sea can also have aquaculture interests. That has not happened to date but we need to promote it to add consistency to fishermen's incomes.

We must examine the green wellington and tweed brigade. While aspects of fish farming may not appeal to people from Dublin 4, it is a real opportunity and must be progressed. There are developments in places, such as Oileán Cléire, and fish farming for species such as turbot is being researched. There is a future there as well that needs to be looked at. Senator Kenneally and I were talking about the buying out of licences issue, which I find extremely sad. I do not want to see the industry die. I want to know how we can make it work. I know the Minister is motivated by that, as well. There is a certain block in this regard, however. I am upset by what is happening to fishermen. I do not deny the Minister is well motivated, but I believe the projected outcome is wrong. My thinking on this is along the lines being advocated by Senators McHugh and Kenneally. Can we find the right balance? I believe we have missed it.

This is a difficult ministerial brief and it should not be personalised. People must accept that the Minister is doing what he believes to be right in this. I ask him to soften his approach, as well, to see how we may ensure that people working in fisheries as well as the industry itself are protected. We also need to look at what may be put in place to help them. Proactive steps are needed to put additional opportunities in place. Can we do that? How can we make it work? Numerous people cannot get through the bureaucracy. Senator Kenneally gave an example as regards legal costs, etc. In the last Seanad, Senator Tom Fitzgerald, who was born and reared a fisherman, had stories every week about matters that were annoying him in this regard, about somebody going into the wrong port, for instance. If one is on the wrong side of the Dingle peninsula in a "sou'wester", it is much easier to go into Fenit than Dingle, or wherever. If someone goes into the wrong port, however, suddenly he or she is in breach of the law. There is a lack of consistency and flexibility in dealing with this matter.

Finally, the Minister will not be short of support as regards bolstering the fishing industry. I believe the industry is getting the wrong end of the stick from this piece of legislation. I appeal to him to soften his view on it and to approach it from three levels rather than two. He has achieved something good in softening his approach in the other House. Another step is needed, however — the introduction of an administrative process that has a legislative base and which facilitates access to the courts by either side, if that did not work out. I believe this is possible and there is parallel legislation in place to facilitate such an initiative. I ask the Minister to consider it.

I join with others in welcoming the Minister to the House. As I do not bring any pioneering aspect to the table in terms of this legislation, I shall be brief. I am in agreement with Senator O'Toole in disagreeing with the manner the debate on this matter has been personalised against the Minister. That is wrong. In general I admire the conviction with which the Minister goes about whatever aspect of legislation he is putting through the Houses of the Oireachtas, in this Department, indeed, as with others. That is to be admired. I recall effigies being burned outside houses and sub-machine guns to protect against rioters etc. over the years as regards somebody to whom I am quite close. I have seen all of that. The conviction with which the Minister goes about doing things should be admired and acknowledged rather than condemned for the sake of it.

In the context of this Bill there is much that can be welcomed. The debate has not focused sufficiently on such issues. There is much in the Bill to do with the basic and most important aspects of the fishing industry, conservation and sustainability. These are two objectives to which all Oireachtas Members are committed. Anything that enhances conservation and sustainability is to be welcomed. In general terms, if one is doing nothing wrong, one has nothing to fear. That is a fair statement to make. However, while I understand the Bill had to be introduced and certain matters had to be refined, and while I acknowledge penalties must be put in place, I find it hard to understand why they must apply for the most menial of infringements — I will not call them crimes. Senators McHugh and Kenneally, as well as Members of the other House, have mentioned that the book should be thrown at the person who is systematically involved in abuses or consistently over-fishing. With the legislation as it is, however, I do not believe we have had any regard for basic human error or the fact that for the smaller fisherman there is a huge cost to compliance with regulations. Senator Kenneally gave a very good example with the half-decker man whose wife was ill, who was a man down and did not get the log book filled out. As a result he was €50,000 down and out of commission for three years. We have a responsibility to people such as this, whom we are neglecting somewhat in this legislation. While the Bill is introducing much that is necessary, to resort again to the cliché, there is more to do. When we look at the rest of Europe and see administrative sanctions being applied, it is difficult to understand why this cannot be done here. I have yet to have someone explain to me why it cannot be done. I have read the transcripts of this entire debate in the Dáil and I am as confused now as to the answer as I ever was.

I appeal to the Minister to revisit this issue. Senator Kenneally has suggested that it might, perhaps, be done between Committee and Report Stages in this House and I would welcome that, if possible. The approach generally to legislation such as this should, and can only be done, successfully with the appropriate level of consultation. While I cannot agree with Senator McHugh that there was no consultation, clearly more was needed, because far too much of this debate has been carried out through the media and I do not believe anyone has benefited from this. It has led to misinformation on all sides and the personalisation of the debate; which is highly regrettable for everybody.

Consultation between Committee and Report Stages with the introduction of appropriate amendments at this point would be very welcome. Deputy O'Flynn referred to the proposed legislation as a real Civil Service Bill, without practical application, clearly designed by somebody in an office rather than someone who knows the industry. As somebody who spent many years in the beef processing and export business, which is similar in a way, I witnessed an enormous amount of post-tribunal regulations being introduced where abuses were found. In my opinion this was over-regulation. Is this a similar example of major overreaction where the maximum possible penalty is imposed for any wrongdoing? Like the speeding ticket, it is easier to catch a person with a camera on a dual carriageway where one could land a jumbo jet than the serial speeders who are involved in accidents and getting killed in the middle of the night.

I am concerned that many smaller operatives such as the half-decker fisherman we heard about earlier, are being penalised because of administrative and small infringements whereas the big guys are getting away. These are the people we want to get and we should certainly throw the book at them. I appeal earnestly to the Minister to look at the introduction of administrative fines rather than staying with a one-size-fits-all solution, which is not necessary. I was interested in Senator McHugh's point as to the causes of the scenario we have today, where he intimated the problems went right back to 1973. That is certainly interesting. One wonders if we might have a better system today, if the clock could have been turned back.

In terms of the establishment of the independent authority, will the Minister please clarify the situation as regards its appointment? It is a good idea and its independence is important. Will the authority be staffed by Department officials and how will they be appointed? I appeal to the Minister to clarify some of these issues and, if possible, to revisit them.

I welcome the Minister to the House. When I was my party's Dáil spokesman on the marine, the former Minister for Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, was described by the Marine Times as a hero in County Donegal because of his plans for the expansion of the fishing fleet. At that time, fishermen were encouraged to fish for deep water species in order to sustain the expansion of the fleet and provide opportunities to upgrade vessels. Since then, some 25% of the fleet has been decommissioned. Therefore, we spent money on the scheme’s expansion as well as on decommissioning the fleet. I often wonder at the level of logic within the marine sector.

I met with fishing organisations on many occasions and consider them responsible in their approach and in the way they represent their membership. They must be frustrated with lack of consultation by the Minister in advance of this legislation because these organisations know the industry better than many in his Department. Staff of the latter are more familiar with the various regulations that emanate from Brussels and the complexity of the Common Fisheries Policy. The situation here is in contrast with the UK, where fishermen were closely consulted on legislation.

This Bill should be recognised as flawed and hurried legislation. Subsequent to its introduction, 222 amendments were tabled, of which 100 were from the Department. The Minister was profiled favourably in the media on this issue because of the sins of a small minority in the marine sector who made it easy for him to advance the Bill without having to heed the vast majority involved in what we all know is a hazardous and expensive occupation.

I closely followed this Bill as it passed through Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil, where representatives of marine constituencies empathised with fishermen and reflected their concerns. To a certain degree, the members of the Select Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources demonstrated independence of mind in articulating their concerns on the criminalisation of fishermen arising from this legislation.

Fishermen have a right to be disappointed. I will not rehearse a history lesson on the late 1970s, when fishermen believed themselves sold out at EU level. Every December, a charade takes place wherein conservation people recommend acceptable quotas to the Minister and horse trading ensues in Brussels. In fairness to the industry, its representative organisations show solidarity with the Minister at EU level. However, the quotas continue to shrink.

I have seen the sophisticated naval system in operation in Haulbowline. That system and the way in which Irish fishermen are penalised cause frustrations because the Naval Service does not board the vessels from Spain and other countries which fish in Irish waters. I empathise with that frustration, understand the difficulties of fishermen and fear that the costs and degree of control involved in modern fishing will drive people out of the industry.

I have before me a letter from the Foyle Fishermen's Co-op in County Donegal, which believes the Department to be anti-fishermen and, when I look at this legislation, I agree. Many Fianna Fáil Deputies have also spoken strongly on this matter, including one representative of a constituency in the south west who expressed his difficulties in voting for the legislation. While I understand the difficulties that arise from breaking the Whip, I was surprised that Members did not risk them. Ironically, two people who were put outside the party because of Shannon related issues are now Ministers of State. Therefore, as one is not necessarily cast into oblivion for breaking the Whip, Members who wanted to take a principled stand on this issue should have adopted that approach.

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, had extreme difficulties with this legislation, as he might, given that fishermen in Killybegs and Greencastle are his constituents. For many years, fishermen in Killybegs saw great potential for the town if a decent harbour could be constructed. They have the harbour now but I am not sure whether they have still have a fishing business.

Fishermen feel they are being criminalised by this legislation. Deputy Perry contrasted the fines in other European countries, which suggest that we are top-heavy in the penalties applicable here in that they often do not reflect the scale of the offence. The Department described the situation in France but we should put that in context. The fines faced by the French Government result from its complete disregard for a 1991 ruling, which forced the European Union to flex its muscles. The spin placed in the media is that we will risk heavy European fines if we do not introduce this legislation but, given that Ireland faces no multi-million euro fines, I am interested to learn from where the Minister is coming. His Department could be criticised for not presenting annual information to Brussels. A considerable amount of marine legislation has been passed but it is the first time in all my years in this House and the other House that I have seen such bitterness, resistance and concern in respect of legislation.

The Minister of State has set his face against those who oppose this legislation and is determined to persist with it. He knows the concerns voiced by members of his own party. I know of the concerns of fishermen in respect of this legislation, about which they are rightly worried. This legislation will not be favourably regarded in the future. It is a bad day for the Department.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and wish him well in his new post. I had a very quick read through the Bill, which represents a voyage of discovery for me. Practically every page of the Bill mentions an authority, a consultative committee, a vote registrar or a complaints officer. The appeals mechanism set out in the Bill for those with grievances is not very clear. Overall, I support the Minister's efforts to conserve fish stocks. It is in the long-term interests of fishermen to work with the Minister in this regard. I wish to put on record that the vast majority of fishermen do not wish to see the law flouted. They are unhappy about people indiscriminately breaking the law and exceeding fishing quotas because, ultimately, they will suffer, while the individuals who are guilty of these offences will probably have left the industry at that stage.

The legislation is slightly confusing. It proposes to create an authority. I will not dwell on the fines and prosecutions. Prison sentences have not served to deter fisheries offences. I cannot recall an instance where a fisherman was jailed for fisheries offences, although I can recall an instance where a fisherman who was due to be prosecuted refused to sign the bail bond and was imprisoned as a result. However, there is very little evidence of fishermen being jailed for breaching the law. I am not sure prison sentences work as a deterrent and I do not know whether they are used. It would be better to remove prison sentences from this legislation and introduce a regime based on co-operation between fishermen and the enforcement authorities to ensure fish stocks are protected, conserved and managed for the future and the long-term benefit of the fishermen themselves.

Under this legislation, the authority is to be composed of one person, with the possible addition of two other members. However, one person could be responsible for dealing with these very complex issues. The authority should not be comprised of between one and three members. The number of people on the authority should be far in excess of this. It would be far better if the authority comprised the same number of people as that found on the consultative committee.

The relationship between the consultative committee and the authority appears to be contradictory in almost every section of the Bill. What is the purpose of having a 14-member consultative committee and an authority comprised of between one and three members and a situation whereby it is unclear as to which body directs the other? Is it the authority or the consultative committee which has the final authority?

Overall, the situation is very confusing and administratively inoperable. It is an attempt by the Department to push responsibility away from itself and the Minister and onto the consultative committee, which comprises 14 members, and the advisory committee, which has between one and three members. The staffing should be reversed. It would be better to have a small consultative committee and a large authority with the latter dealing with the issues involved in this affair.

There has been an attempt to move responsibility away from the Minister of the day and place it on an administrator, who already appears to have a position and is named in the legislation. The organisation of the succession is very complex and the Minister would do well to re-examine the matter. Amendments to this provision will be tabled on Committee Stage unless it is dealt with.

I am disappointed that an opportunity has been missed to establish a training regime for the fishing industry. Such a regime would involve training in the handling of fish, the management of catches and training in new technology, equipment and facilities available throughout Europe. The establishment of an expert training committee to be attached to the authority should be included in the legislation. Very little training has been provided, particularly in the handling of catches from the point where a fish is caught to when it is landed in port. Fish caught by Irish fishermen have been landed in ports in other countries but have commanded a very low price because they were badly handled up to the point where they were put on the market. We need a proper training facility for the handling of fish and to teach people, particularly young people, how to get maximum benefit out of available technologies. This is extremely important for the development of the industry. New technology is present in every area, including fishing. The provision of training in new technology should be included in this Bill.

How does the Food Safety Authority of Ireland dovetail with the new arrangements? The Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act was introduced in 1998. What will be the relationship between the people designated under this legislation as having responsibility for food safety and food safety officers, and others with responsibilities under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act? There is the potential for conflict between two separate agencies. Will the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act be amended to take account of this Bill? The responsibilities relating to food safety provided for in this legislation represent an unnecessary duplication as responsibilities for food safety are already provided for in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act.

I will deal with several other points on Committee Stage as they are technical matters which must be clarified to avoid future conflict and indecision. I see the need for this Bill as traditional fish stocks are now under severe pressure and a management regime must be established. The primary responsibility for the management of this country's fish stocks lies with fishermen, rather than administrative officers, authorities or consultative committees. The responsibility lies with the people who benefit from fishing and whose future and livelihoods depend on it. If we continue along the road on which we are travelling, fisheries will be closed, as happened in the 1970s and 1980s, and jobs and incomes will be lost in the fish processing industry.

I support the concept of conserving and managing fish stocks. The vast majority of fishermen are fully conscious of their responsibilities. Some technicalities in the Bill, which represent a minefield of confusion, should be clarified.

I wish to share time with Senator Norris.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I welcome this Bill.

The fishing industry has changed totally in recent times. Most of the fishing is not carried out from small wooden hulled boats, with a handful of men going out on short trips, but from multimillion euro vessels, some of which are fishing as far down as the African coast. These enormous vessels are the ones that are causing the damage. The small vessels had to go to the wall a long time ago and exist in much smaller numbers than was the case in the past. While it is still a dangerous occupation for the men who work on these boats, it is not the same for those fishermen who work on large seaworthy vessels, which is welcome. The people who are causing the trouble are the ones who have disregarded the rules for decades. People who have false holes in ships are landing in other ports and do not mind in the least that there must be confiscation of tackle, the fish catch and gear if they are found to be in breach of the regulations. They are so well off, they can afford to do the same thing all over again.

Senator MacSharry said that it would be great if we could turn back the clock. Indeed, that is the case. However, we would have to turn it back a long time to when Irish fishermen were disadvantaged during the negotiations for entry into what was then the European Economic Community. At the time the Common Agricultural Policy for farmers gained at the expense of fishermen with the Common Fisheries Policy, which has been recognised for a long time.

There will be no fishermen if there are no fish. I do not know if Members read a book called Cod on the situation that developed on the Labrador Bank off Nova Scotia. These were some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. For hundreds of years, fish came even to Ireland and down into the Caribbean from the Labrador Bank, where many Irish people had settled. They had abundant fish supplies until approximately 40 years ago when the overfishing began. The cod were gone from the bank about 20 years ago and they have not returned. It has not been restored. The fishermen in that area have no fishing and the situation in Newfoundland is almost the same. We could end up in the same situation if legislation such as this is not introduced.

It would be great if we could get our other EU partners to be as serious about enforcing their legislation, because it is a problem in our waters. However, it would be very difficult for us to say that they should enforce their legislation when we have not done so with our legislation. As I have never been a fisher person, I find it difficult to understand why all the small and under-sized fish which are caught here must be thrown back dead into the Atlantic and the Irish Sea, whereas they are thrown back alive from fishing vessels in the Baltic? Perhaps the Minister will clarify the issue in his reply. I welcome the Bill and I will support the vote on it.

I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Henry, for making some of her time available to me. Like her, I am not a deep sea fisher person. One of the benefits of the Seanad is that we can listen to speakers. During one of the first debates to which I listened here, former Senator Tom Fitzgerald from Dingle spoke very effectively and knowledgeably about the issue, and just now, we listened to Senator Daly, who was a Minister in this area. It is always worthwhile listening to people in this House who have this kind of expertise.

I agree with Senator Daly that prison is not a good idea. The reason is that I do not think prison is a good idea, full stop, except for people who need to be contained because of the damage they do to society. I do not see why criminals should get a berth at the expense of taxpayers. I use the word "criminals", even though some of the people operating in the fishing industry do not like the word, but that is what they are. I will put some of the evidence on the record today. I welcome the fact that tax clearance certificates are required. The Minister said in his speech that taxi drivers are required to have them so why should trawlermen not have them also?

I would be very much on the side of the trawlers I saw out in Howth and in Greystones when I lived there. They were family operations and the kind of boats described by Senator Henry. However, I was in Greystones 30 years ago which was a different period. We then had the depredations of the Spanish, but we can no longer blame the Spanish fishermen. As Senator Daly said, it is our own people who are causing the problem.

I would like to draw attention to a letter from the universally respected Dr. TK Whitaker. He wrote to The Irish Times on 9 February as follows:

The Department's quota/tagging system enables it to limit the annual catch of wild salmon in line with scientific advice on conservation requirements — a responsibility it has failed to discharge in each of the past four seasons. Commercial quotas have been appointed well in excess of scientific advice.

I made this point but the Minister brushed it aside. He did not accept it, but it is the truth. Dr. Whitaker closes his letter by saying:

Continued disregard of scientific advice must, however, lead inevitably to such a depletion of stocks that, as has happened when other species of Atlantic fish have been threatened, a total ban on fishing has to be imposed for a period, no compensation being payable.

Further procrastination can only hasten the disappearance of a unique national resource.

This is not a partisan person scoring political points. It is someone who has proved that he has the welfare of the citizens and the country's economy at heart.

I said I would put on record some information about criminality. We had a series of cases within the last year, probably one of the worst in Scotland. As a result, we may be facing fines of up to €40 million, because of greedy people with big trawlers. I recall when some of the huge trawlers were being built. The Celtic Dawn was a good example. Everyone welcomed it because it showed that we were in line with new technology and so on, but it was banned from European Union waters. It then skedaddled off to the coastline of western Africa where these types of boats ruined the fishing trade, and we complain because we have people from these countries whom we describe as economic refugees. We helped to make them economic refugees.

The landings in Scotland were at Peterhead. It is believed that Irish vessels illegally landed 6,000 tonnes of mackerel last year and up to 35,000 tonnes in 2003 and 2004. This is not just individual little trawlers, it is the big boys, which is selfishness, greed and an utter lack of regard for the resources. This did not happen just in Scotland. There was another illegal landing of fish, believed to be worth €500,000, in Rossaveal, County Galway. Gardaí stated that they believe 15 trucks were used to cart away this ill-gotten booty. While they were doing so, two of their number were on the quayside trying to disable the closed circuit television cameras which had been installed by the fishery protection regime to prevent precisely this type of occurrence or, at least, to ensure those who are engaged in this illicit trade were apprehended and charged. The fisheries officers who took part in the follow-up investigations the following day had to get Garda protection in broad daylight. Is this not criminality? How can we say it is anything else? Let us not defend the indefensible. Luckily, the attempts to sabotage the CCTV cameras and destroy the video tapes were unsuccessful. This evidence is with the Garda and I sincerely hope these people are brought to court and treated severely, but I do not think it is in the taxpayers' interest to send them to jail.

It is worth noting that, if the European Union judges that there has been a breach of our quota, we will be penalised. There is a strong possibility that the mackerel quota, for example, which is 48,000 tonnes this year, will be reduced by 40,000. Who will be damaged by this? Again, it is not the pirates but the ordinary decent fisherpeople and trawlermen who will suffer.

The Minister is right to introduce this legislation. In the light of the Browne and Kennedy cases in the Supreme Court, it was inevitable the law must be amended. Criminality is taking place and I urge the Minister to adhere to the severe provisions in this Bill and not to be abashed at using the word "criminality". Such behaviour is criminal, it should be labelled as such and the perpetrators should be shamed. They are damaging our resources and the livelihoods of decent, honest fisherpeople.

I did not initially intend to speak in this debate. I defer to the far greater knowledge of those who have handled fisheries policy or live in constituencies where fisheries are a major issue. I decided to contribute because it seemed, in the course of the debate, that the Minister, who is now represented by the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, needed more political support than he was getting. I have an admiration for the Minister's willingness, in several capacities and Departments, to take tough, necessary and unpopular decisions. One calls to mind, for example, Part V of the planning and development legislation, which was unfortunately watered down in application by many local authorities. It needs people of courage like the Minister — I have come across some such in the local authorities — to insist legislation is applied and to take on vested interests. Similarly, it was he who took on the issue of the dual mandate, an action that was unpopular with many politicians but correct for our democracy.

Hear, hear.

That decision was implemented by his successor.

Today's edition of the The Times of London informs us that France has been fined £40 million “for years of ignoring the club rules”. This relates to the punishment applied to that country for its continual disobedience of EU laws against catching undersize fish. Much of the debate on this legislation seems almost to take place in a vacuum, as if we are not members of the European Union and need only be concerned with tailoring the legislation to suit the interests of the fishing industry. It is an industry I greatly respect, particularly its presence in Senator McHugh’s county of Donegal.

The Government must accept its responsibilities in this area. When one is in Government and there is the prospect of heavy fines if the correct action is not taken, it is not simply a question of doing what will maximise one's votes. It is sometimes necessary to take actions that are unpopular and may cost votes. In practice, however, people who take the correct action tend to be respected and do not lose nearly as many votes as one might believe.

In my would-be constituency of Tipperary South, all the representations I have received are in the other direction. I have had much correspondence on the need to stop salmon drift-net fishing and the potential of such a change for tourism. In an e-mail I received today requesting a meeting, the author observes that a "rehabilitated river shore would be a great asset to local tourism interests". The e-mail goes on to state:

It is no use just stopping the offshore interceptory fishery whose arrest can be blamed on the EU. Having stopped the offshore drift-nets, we then need to mind the rivers, and in my view, as a major part of this, we need to have a national salmon rehabilitation scheme heavily involving second level gap year students in a science environment project under the auspices of the Department of Education and Science.

There are other interests which have not been heard much in this debate. The Government must strike a balance between different and conflicting interests. It cannot simply side wholesale with one interest and abandon others. This is what governance is about.

Much has been made in this debate about the EU negotiations in the early 1970s. The reality is our fishing industry at that time was underdeveloped. Even though one can argue that we, in common with Britain, gave away, or were forced to give away, some of our expansion potential, the reality is that the fishing industry has expanded and modernised hugely in the last 30 years and is now far more productive. The notion of a fishing industry that is stymied and stagnant does not fit the statistics.

In debate, I deprecate attacks on civil servants and Departments which suggest their interests and corporate identity are somehow separate from and possibly even opposed to their Minister. There is a good convention that the Government takes responsibility, not for every last detail but in matters of strategic policy. The Government and Department are one and the same.

I support the Minister in his endeavours. I accept from listening to the debate that there may well be scope for further improvement and refinement on Committee Stage but I have no doubt the legislation is necessary. Senator McHugh will find as his political career progresses that nettles must be grasped sooner or later.

I welcome this necessary Bill. Fishing is an important part of the economy but for many years it has not received the same attention from Government that was afforded to other sectors. This harks back to the time of the negotiations with Europe when our catches were calculated on the basis of historical catch. We seem never to have seen the light of day since.

Much discussion has centred on the fact that if we do not pass the Bill in its present form, Ireland may be faced with multi-million euro penalties. Some members of the fishing industry have dismissed this premise. Today, however, we discover France has been ordered by the European Commission to pay a penalty of €57 million for failing to comply with a ruling to upgrade its fisheries control system. We must upgrade our laws and keep them in tune with developments.

There is no doubt some fishermen have been guilty of overfishing. However, the majority of fishermen I have known over the years are decent, honourable people who work hard and obey the law.

The Minister has the experience of advice from experts but the only experience I have is growing up in a fishing town, Killybegs, which used to be called Ireland's premier fishing port. Sadly, due to over-regulation of all kinds, it is no longer the town it used to be. Many people have been laid off from the fishing industry. People outside the industry think a boat goes out, catches fish and that is the end of it but it is not. There are spin-off industries, including fishing processing, fishmeal and so on. Catching the fish is only part of what is involved; it is a large industry. All of south west Donegal from where I come depends on the fishing industry. There have been many job lay-offs in the county, north and south. If the fishing industry goes, we will be completely finished. That is a fact.

There are so many rules and regulations governing fishermen that it has become almost impossible for them to operate. I refer to rules of landing at night. Does one think for one moment that a boat laden with fish off the Faroe Islands or elsewhere can steam into Killybegs and arrive at a particular time? That is not the way life at sea works. I invite the Minister and others to go aboard a trawler and go out to sea to see just what it is like.

Despite what Senator Mansergh said, I believe there are some in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources who seem to more interested in oppressing the fishing industry rather than promoting or fostering it. Most people have no idea of the difficulties of fishing life. There is always danger when a fisherman puts to sea. Tragedy can occur even in calm weather but in heavy weather, the danger becomes very real. Fishermen are not like farmers, teachers or accountants; they do not have soft jobs. They are more like soldiers or firemen who put their lives on the line over and over again. When they go out, or are caught in heavy weather, life becomes difficult. I have known many people over the years who have sailed out from Killybegs on a calm day never to sail back again because they were lost at sea.

There are two issues, and perhaps they were settled during the debate in the Dáil. If not, we can deal with them. It should be possible for a system of graded sanctions to be put in place. The punishment should fit the crime. Such a system appears to exist in the UK and in other countries of the European Union and I cannot understand why we cannot implement one here. Does the Minister really believe that an automatic consequence of a conviction in the Circuit Court should be the confiscation of gear? That is a heavy penalty for a fisherman to pay. I am not sure if that has been modified but if it has not been, there is no doubt it should be.

Fishermen face other difficulties as well. Large foreign vessels fish in our waters, some of which supply the Japanese market. They cast the smaller species of fish overboard which is a terrible waste. The Government seems unable to do anything about this. Do we have any control over foreign vessels fishing in our waters? Senator Norris mentioned huge landings of fish in various places.

Another difficulty fishermen face is that for many weeks during the winter time or when there is bad weather, boats lie tied up in the harbour. When the weather improves, they go out but at that stage they must work around the clock to try to catch up. It is not like a five day per week job — fishing does not work like that. These people work hard and they face enough regulations to keep them going for a month of Sundays.

The Bill is necessary and I believe it is generally welcomed by the fishing industry. It does not matter what area of life one is in, one cannot break the law. If we continue to overfish, as has been done all over Europe, stocks will become depleted and there will be nothing left for future generations and we cannot allow that to happen. I welcome the fact the Minister is prepared to meet members of the fishing industry once the Bill is enacted to discuss ways in which the industry can develop into the future, which is important.

This Bill is not the be-all and end-all; it is a start. It has been modified slightly since it was published and will perhaps be slightly modified further. It will provide a blueprint for the future. If the Minister meets the members of the industry, he can, in many ways, help to develop it. If we over-regulate this industry out of existence, we in Donegal — I do not know much about Waterford, Wexford or elsewhere — we will end up with no jobs. That is an important issue.

The Minister had to leave as he has a meeting with the EU Environment Commissioner, otherwise he would be here to respond. I thank Senators for their contributions. Although I was not in the House, I listened to some excellent and some fiery contributions. That has been the tone of debate since the Bill was published. There has been 20 to 25 hours of debate between the other House and this one.

The Bill has resulted in a discussion which is, in many ways, welcome because the fishing industry effects us all. I come from a coastal county in the south east next to Senator Kenneally's and I listened to Senators McHugh and Lydon and other Senators who come from coastal counties. It is important that they put their views on record. At the same time, the Minister had a job to do in introducing Bill. As Senators will see, he has made many changes along the way and has accepted many amendments.

I wish to deal with a few of the issues raised. Senators Mansergh and Norris raised the issue of inland fisheries and the salmon tagging system, the operation of which Senator Norris questions. When the tagging system started four years ago, the quota was 230,000 tonnes while this year, it will be down to 106,000 tonnes. In fairness, the Department has moved towards achieving the figures in the scientific advice but at the same time, we must strike a balance between anglers, the importance of tourism and the livelihoods of families living on our coastline. Some decisions will be taken in the next couple of weeks in this area. No matter what decisions one makes on an annual basis in regard to the salmon tagging system, people are generally not happy with them. We have, however, given a commitment that we will achieve the figures contained in the scientific advice by 2007 and that remains our aim.

Senator O'Toole talked about his childhood memories and the different types of boats, including the smaller ones. Generally, the smaller boats have been replaced by a number of larger ones. This has tended to be the case not only in fisheries but in agriculture, retail and so on. Larger boats are now part and parcel of the fishing industry. When Senator O'Toole was young, the national catch was approximately 20,000 tonnes while today quotas are ten times that level at 200,000 tonnes. We have moved on and we have a reasonably modern fishing fleet which bears no comparison with that in the past.

I would like to think that during my term in the Department over the next 15 months until the general election, we will look at the operations of the fishing industry. The EU is reducing quotas all the time and it is important we have a system in place in regard to decommissioning so we would reach a system whereby the number of people involved in the fishing industry would match the quota and families would be able to make a viable living from fishing. We cannot have quota reductions while the fishing fleet remains the same size. I hope that, through dialogue and discussions, the Minister and I, together with representatives of the industry will be able to sit down together in the coming weeks and months, far away from any agitation or disharmony, and make decisions on how best to develop our fishing industry. It is still an important industry in terms of job creation in rural Ireland and we want it to ensure it develops.

Senator Henry referred to the large vessels operating in our waters. However, many of them operate outside our waters in the coastal waters of Mauritania, Morocco and Peru and in other far distant waters. Enforcement of the legislation was raised by a number of speakers. The Minister and I met the Commissioner a few weeks ago and we strongly pressed the point that if we are to get our house in order in terms of our industry, it is important that the EU would also get its house in order in terms of ensuring that if other member states break the law, they would be called to heel by EU and we would have strict enforcement of law in this area across the EU.

The proposed sea-fisheries protection authority was raised by Senators MacSharry, Kenneally and McHugh. Three people, including the current sea-fisheries officer controller, will be at the helm of that authority. The authority will engage the current departmental complement of 38 sea-fisheries protection officers as well as an additional 45 personnel, which will bring the total complement to almost 100. Furthermore, additional experts from other statutory bodies will be brought in, as may be required and available from time to time, to meet particular seasonal or locational enforcement needs. This proposed authority is to be welcomed and we will ensure it is adequately staffed. It is no secret that the lack of staff and resources in the Department down through the years has caused some of the problems we face. The provision of an increase in staff from 38 to almost 100 is welcome and will ensure that the authority will be able to deliver a proper service in this area.

The issue of discards was raised by Senator Lydon, in particular, and others. We should not delude ourselves that this practice is only happening in other fishery waters, it is happening here. However, Ireland has pressed at European level for an observer programme for all larger pelagic vessels, which would require observers to be placed on these vessels. We are pursuing this matter at European level and will continue to do so. We will also take it up with the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, to ascertain what further actions the Naval Service or the Air Corps can take in this regard.

The Bill represents a major updating and consolidation of sea fisheries and other laws dating back to 1959 and, in some respects, to some time prior to that. By clearly providing comprehensively for the implementation of the requirements of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, the Bill signals the need for proper conservation and management of sea fisheries which are under serious challenge.

The Bill has been developed significantly since it was initiated in Dáil Éireann and now comprises 104 section and three Schedules compared with 71 sections and two Schedules initially. The largest addition relates to provisions for the establishment and functions of the independent statutory sea-fisheries protection authority.

The Department is committed to seeking the sustainability of sea fisheries, particularly in terms of the coastal communities who depend on them. We again call on the sea fishing industry and its representatives to work closely with us in developing appropriate strategies to achieve this. Nearly all the Senators who spoke made the point that sitting down with the representatives and engaging in dialogue and discussion is the way forward.

I regard the attacks on civil servants as unacceptable. Ireland is threatened with the imposition of serious EU fines. We have had incidents of illegal fishing and there were Scottish incidents involving 40,000 tonnes of mackerel, which if it had been processed here would have created a significant number of jobs in Donegal and in other parts of the country. The evidence exists that some fishermen are operating outside the law. It is unfair to make attacks on civil servants. We want to bring about a situation where we have a viable fishing industry with fishermen operating within the law.

I thank all the Senators who contributed and I look forward to working with them on Committee Stage.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 13.

  • Bohan, Eddie.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Callanan, Peter.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hayes, Maurice.
  • Henry, Mary.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kett, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lydon, Donal J.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Mooney, Paschal C.
  • Morrissey, Tom.
  • Moylan, Pat.
  • Norris, David.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • Walsh, Kate.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John.
  • Terry, Sheila.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Dardis and Moylan; Níl, Senators Cummins and McHugh.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 7 March 2006.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 March 2006.
Barr
Roinn