John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)

As Deputy O'Flynn, who is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, has said, it would be like a third world war, or it could be like going back to the days of Queen Victoria.

We need a Bill that is progressive and that will be acceptable to stakeholders. At a time when the Irish fishing fleet is already suffering because of outside issues such as rising fuel costs, we do not need this Government bringing in a Bill that will make its problems even worse. The background to the Bill shows that legislation in this area was needed. The Supreme Court judgment in the Browne v.Attorney General case found that the order in question was made under the wrong section of the Fisheries Consolidation Act 1959. The effect of the judgment in another case, Kennedy v.the Attorney General, is more far reaching. This judgment provided for the following: a Minister of the Government may not, by statutory instrument, give effect to an EU policy or an Act of the institutions of the European Union using a power conferred by an Act, unless the Act contains an explicit power to give effect to the Act of the institutions of the European Union.

It is not disputed that these deficiencies in national legislation need to be urgently addressed. I fully agree it is essential that these matters are speedily addressed. However, the proposals contained in the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 are not the only means of addressing these issues.

There appears to be enormous haste on the part of the Minister to rush through this legislation. This is very surprising given that the matters raised in the judgment on the Browne case have been known to the Department for over two years. It begs the question as to why the sudden urgency. It is all the more puzzling when the judgment in the Kennedy case is considered. The Kennedy judgment surely impacts on the entire Government, not just the Minister of State's Department. There is a need to address the matters raised in a coherent and co-ordinated manner. The premise of the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is that this legislation must be consolidated, but the ramifications of this Bill affect the 14 other Departments. Why is the same type of legislation not being introduced by other Departments? Perhaps the Minister of State will answer that. The raison d'être for this Bill is based solely on the judgment. Why has the Taoiseach not told the Dáil this will apply to all Departments?

The Fisheries Consultation Act originally dates from 1959, but it has been updated and amended regularly since then to take account of changing circumstances. This includes Ireland's accession to the then European Economic Community. The development of the Common Fisheries Policy and the various enlargements that have occurred to the European Community are important developments within Ireland's fishing industry. Hearings were held by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, of which I am Vice-Chairman, at the beginning of October. It was critically important and correct that the Chairman of that committee should have met the interested bodies representing the fishing trade. I compliment Deputy O'Flynn for having held that meeting. Up to that point there had been no meeting with the representative bodies. He was also correct to have held consultations with the fishing industry. The overall thrust of these meetings was very effective.

The committee's Chairman was also correct in meeting all the representative bodies last week in Brussels. I want to put on record a letter to the committee signed by all the Irish MEPs, North and South. It says:

A Chathaoirligh,

Following the meeting last week in Brussels between the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources, cross party representation of Irish MEPs and cross party representation from all the major Political Groups on the Fisheries Committee in the European Parliament, we have been requested, by all those present, to convey to your Committee a number of observations.

Nobody condones violations of fishing rules and regulations in any manner. The MEPs believe that there must be sanctions for such violations. Without interfering in Irish National legislation, they believe that sanctions and penalties in all EU Member States must be proportionate and fair.

However some of the provisions of the Irish Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, as proposed, were met by the MEPs, without exception, with total incredulity. In particular they found that some of the draconian sanctions which only apply to Irish fishermen to be not only extremely discriminatory but also in total contradiction with the European ideal and not least to the spirit of the Common Fisheries Policy. They underlined that this type of double standard would be unacceptable and would be rejected with force in their own countries.

They found the general levels of "the excessively inflated sanctions being proposed", which would apply to their own fleets in Irish waters, to be totally disproportionate to the offences concerned, with no relation whatsoever to sanctions for similar offences in every other Member State.

The Members of the European Parliament underlined that it was totally erroneous and misleading for anyone to suggest that "Brussels" was directly responsible for the levels of sanctions being proposed. The sanctions aspect of the bill is the sole responsibility of the Irish authorities, on a proposal from their Civil Service.

The MEPs underlined that the European Commission have consistently indicated that they have a preference for these matters to be dealt with by administrative sanctions.

The MEPs are in full agreement with this approach and would like to see fisheries offences de-criminalised. They underlined that almost 90% of all EU offences in the fisheries sector are dealt with using administrative sanctions.

The non Irish MEPs underlined that their own fishermen were directly concerned by the proposed Irish legislation. Consequently they have decided to raise the whole question of sanctions, throughout the EU, in a number of ways in the coming weeks.

Party Parliamentary questions with debate in full plenary session will be tabled to both the Commission and the Council.

The Fisheries Committee will seek independent legal advice on the different systems applied in the different Member States.

The Committee will also undertake whatever procedure that is necessary to put this whole vexed question firmly back on the EU agenda.

We have been asked to request that your Committee keep the MEPs informed of the evolution of your draft bill. Furthermore were you to arrange a hearing on this issue, members of the European Parliament's Fisheries Committee, representing a number of EU countries, would be willing to travel to Dublin to testify.

The letter was signed by Mr. Brian Crowley MEP, Deputy Alyward MEP, Deputy Coveney MEP, Ms Avril Doyle MEP, Ms Bairbre de Brún MEP, Deputy Harkin MEP, Senator Higgins MEP, Mr. Seán Ó Neachtain MEP, Ms Mary Lou McDonald MEP, Ms Mairéad McGuinness MEP, Mr. Jim Nicholson MEP, Deputy Ryan MEP, Ms Kathy Sinnot MEP and Deputy Mitchell MEP.

The Minister indicated that all this is coming from Brussels, but the letter indicated that such is not the case. Discussions at the meeting showed the diversity of approaches there could be to fisheries management within the EU. There is no set approach within the Union to fisheries management. The level of fines imposed in different EU countries and how different countries within the Union deal with fisheries offences is extremely varied.

What is needed is a concerted effort by EU countries to adopt a similar approach to fisheries offences. We need to examine the efforts made in other countries in this respect. We need to learn from the policies of other Governments. We cannot be arrogant enough to presume we can write a Bill without examining the faults and failings of other countries. We need to examine the alternatives. The benefits to be offered by this approach make it even more disappointing when we see that the Minister did not take enough time to listen to the Irish fishing industry and examine policies abroad. It is not enough to restate existing laws, or to reinforce the current model of fisheries management without examining and considering alternatives. In many ways this Bill amounts to an outline of the law. Despite the fact that it is lengthy, it represents a skeletal outline of the law. In too many instances, the Bill delegates regulation making powers to the Minister. Sections 3, 9, 14, 15 and 44 all delegate regulation making powers to the Minister. In effect, we are being asked to debate and pass a law the true meaning and extent of which remains unknown. The Minister should not leave gaping holes in the Bill only to be later filled in by regulations. This sidelining of the Oireachtas is unforgivable. The regulation making power in the hands of this Minister is a dangerous weapon. This Bill should show support to Ireland's fishing industry. Instead, it will provide more hardship for the men and women who form the backbone of one of our most important indigenous industries.

As multinationals come and go, we must learn to support the industries which will always stay in Ireland. As an island nation we need to protect our fishing industry. In this way, we can learn from our EU neighbours. Across Europe the majority of member states deal with fisheries offences by way of administrative penalties. For example in Spain in 2001, only four out of 3,595 fisheries offences went before the courts. Under existing legislation all fisheries offences in Ireland are tried through the criminal courts. The subsequent fines imposed are significantly higher than anywhere else in Europe. This has been acknowledged by a number of EU Commission reports. The EU report on behaviours that seriously infringed the rules of the common fisheries policy, highlighted the following fines. For fishing without a licence the average fine in Spain is €1,463. In Ireland that figure is €21,400.

For a logbook offence in Denmark the fine is €393, whereas in Ireland the same offence will cost €8,455. In the UK, the fine for fishing for a species that is subject to prohibition is €2,328. In Ireland the same offence will result in a fine of €23,125. The list goes on and on. How this can strike anyone as an equal playing field is beyond me. This gives the impression that not only are we not supporting the Irish fishing fleet, but we are actually trying to stamp it out.

Representatives from the Irish fishing industry have campaigned for the implementation of a fairer and more appropriate system, with penalties that fit the offence. This campaign attempted to have existing legislation changed. However, instead of changing the legislation for the better, it has been made even worse. The implementation of the Bill in its current format will have an even more detrimental impact on the Irish fishing industry than did the existing legislation. There are genuine and serious concerns regarding the proposals in the Bill. The Bill provides for disproportionate fines for fisheries offences. These fines can reach up to €200,000. The average fine across Europe for fisheries offences was €4,600. As already stated, Irish fines for fisheries offences are already the highest in Europe. Nonetheless, the Bill proposes increases in the fines for certain offences. Fines for the use of illegal nets currently stand at €63,487. The proposed new fine is €100,000. Why are we raising a fine by more than €35,000 when it is already far higher than the European average? For those found guilty of contravening quota notices, they will face fines nearly €10,000 higher than existing legislation allows. One of the most dramatic increases is for those found in contravention of a licence. Those found guilty of that offence will face fines nearly ten times higher than those found in existing legislation. This Bill will raise the fine from €12,697 to €100,000.

In addition to these fines, there is also the issue of confiscation of catch and gear. Currently, there is automatic confiscation of gear and catch at Circuit Court level. However, this confiscation provision is only automatically applied to Irish vessels coming before the court. Why is it that in the case of foreign vessels the court has discretion on whether to confiscate catch and gear? Why do foreign fishermen operating in the same areas as Irish fishermen get preferential treatment? Yet again, we have a damning indictment of this Government's attitude towards native fishermen.

We oppose this Bill because it is extreme, excessive, unreasonable, unfair and undemocratic. We believe it is discriminatory and removes fundamental rights. It cedes far too much authority to unelected officials. Regardless of their individual calibre such officials must be accountable in law and to this House for their actions. It further exacerbates disproportionate penalties and criminalises the fishing sector. The vast majority of people working in this sector are decent, hardworking people of great enterprise, who are operating in an already impossible environment.

This Bill was considered in detail in its present form by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, where it was almost unanimously rejected. It was regarded by the committee as being deeply and disturbingly extreme in its overall tone and detailed provisions.

See this speech in context