John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)

Similarly, if the consolidation and streamlining of the legislation passed since the 1959 Act was the intention, this would have been a sensible move. The issues pertaining to the imposition of fines could have been dealt with differently and the Supreme Court case could have been dealt with. This should have been applied in all Departments. However, this Bill uses these pretexts to enshrine a staggering increase in criminal sanctions. This will result in Irish law being even more out of kilter with EU-wide systems, and will discriminate against Irish vessels to boot, which is deeply troubling.

The current Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, has sought to distance himself as much as possible from this Bill. He told the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources that it was drafted before his time. Nevertheless, despite having major difficulties with this Bill, he has come before the House to promote it. It is wrong to introduce legislation on which there was no consultation with any of the representative bodies. I must compliment the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy O'Flynn, for holding a public hearing on this issue. He was completely correct in inviting representatives from the Naval Service as well as an EU official who appeared before the committee and asserted that this Bill did not originate in Europe. We must have honesty in this respect. Who is driving this Bill? What are its origins and justification?

The Minister of State has claimed that this Bill was drafted before his time. What are Members to make of that? I note from evidence presented by fishing industry representatives to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, that there was no attempt to consult them in respect of this Bill. I have met the fishing representatives. They are sensible men who represent a vast industry and, as an island nation, one should consider its growth. Such people have invested millions of euro in vessels and are supported by the banks. It is astonishing that they should have been ignored and that a Bill with a potentially far-reaching impact on their livelihoods could have been introduced without any consultation. I am astonished that the civil servants and the Minister of State would agree to that. The lack of consultation is obvious when one reads the Bill. This morning, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources came before the House and stated that the Bill was necessary in light of legislation and penalties from Europe. That is untrue.

I commend industry representatives on their reasoned analysis of this Bill. They are all businessmen who will apply the law and operate the system efficiently. As I have stated from the outset, this Bill will be amended when Fine Gael is in Government. We will not criminalise fishermen who are not drug barons peddling drugs but people who make a livelihood processing fish. Were they drug barons and not fishermen, the proposed legislation could not be more stringent. This Bill is designed to increase the severity of criminal sanctions in Ireland far beyond those pertaining in other EU jurisdictions. Under the existing legislation, the existing Irish sanctions are already far above the norm. In stating this, I repeat that Fine Gael is as determined as anyone else to stamp out illegal practices. No one should misrepresent our position.

However, as I have already noted, a graded system of sanctions based on administrative law for all but serious offences, should be introduced. In this context I propose that sections 28 and 29 of the Bill, dealing with levels of fines and legal procedures, must be reconsidered in their entirety. I am not convinced by the argument that levels of fines up to €200,000 are merely the maxima and are of little significance. The Judiciary will, not unreasonably, take their cue from the legislation and determine fines accordingly.

I am concerned about section 15 which allows for further provisions over and above those required by EU law. What is the purpose of this except to have Ireland on an even more uneven playing field? Any sane person must surely reject subsections 18(5) and 18(6) which make provision for the firing of live ammunition into fishing vessels. This Bill must be redrafted in its entirety. While I suspect that this clause is intended to distract from other objectionable parts of the Bill, it cannot be left stand and must be withdrawn.

As I have stated, I am also unhappy with the composition of the proposed new position of seafood control manager and the relegation of the role of the Minister in section 41. This entire area requires re-examination. I am not in favour of reducing the oversight of democratically elected people, namely, the Minister and this House, in such vital matters. If the seafood control position is required as stated, the manager should be independent from the Department and everyone else. Regardless of their individual calibre, which I do not question in any way, the sweeping powers provided by this Bill to officers of the State are not balanced by the rights of citizens aggrieved to seek redress if they wish. This must be changed.

The areas of concern I have highlighted are only a few of the critical issues which Fine Gael will oppose in this Bill. We are concerned by the proposed immunity from legal action of the registrar of fishing boats. The conditions for notifications to vessel owners are simply unacceptable and the discrimination between the treatment of Irish and overseas fishing vessels is another area of concern. We will not be fobbed off by promises to have the Minister of State's officials examine the Bill's deficiencies. While that tactic is employed constantly in this House, Fine Gael will not be fobbed off and will fight this Bill all the way.

We ask that this Bill be withdrawn in its entirety and, failing that, we will vigorously propose sweeping and detailed amendments. It is a pity that Members should be holding this debate about such unacceptable legislation. We need to engage in a real debate which tackles the realities underlying the failure of the Common Fisheries Policy. We must make it a national priority to seek fundamental reform which will obviate any impetus towards over-fishing or non-compliance. We must also, as the scientific advisers to the EU, ICES, put it in their recent advice to the European Commission, "break out of the vicious circle" in which we find ourselves. We are at this juncture because this Minister of State fails to lead and has failed to direct his officials in pursuance of the real imperatives in the fisheries debate. In this Bill, he has turned his back on any emerging sense of reality or partnership, as evidenced by the development of industry-led regional advisory councils at EU level.

This Bill is the antithesis of any sense of giving responsibility and a real role to fishermen in sustainably harvesting a resource whose health is of more importance to them than to any stakeholders. This Bill is a wasted opportunity to engage in the real issues and is a one-dimensional, knee-jerk response to the real difficulties besetting our fishing industry. It is regrettable that this Bill has been brought before the House without any real debate on the possibilities and enormous opportunities that could be taken.

The proposed Bill does too much and too little. It does too much to address the Supreme Court judgments and possible non-compliance with national obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy and certainly does too little with regard to fisheries management and a vision for the fisheries industry in the coming years.

It is well past time that this Government and the Minister of State who sponsors this Bill stepped aside to allow a fresher, more vigorous and imaginative approach to be taken by others if we are to do any proper justice to the coastal communities of Ireland. They need a real vision of the opportunities.

One should consider the disappointing manner in which the Department handled the lost at sea scheme. It was not advertised transparently and raises questions as to who runs the Department. Is it being run solely by the departmental officials or by the Minister of State who has been delegated to so do?

While I genuinely congratulated the Minister of State on his appointment, I am disappointed that he felt obliged to bring this Bill, which runs counter to his fundamental beliefs, before the House. If possible, this legislation should be withdrawn. If not, substantial amendments must be included to facilitate a vision of the development of Ireland as an island nation and of the enormous development opportunities, which extend for 200 nautical miles.

We are at a crossroads in the development of the fishing industry. The Government has missed a major opportunity to hold a debate on the industry's potential. Instead, it has introduced draconian legislation which, as Deputy O'Flynn noted at our committee hearing on the Bill, is ill advised, ill judged and unwarranted. The Fine Gael Party will fight every section of the Bill and table a raft of amendments to change its ethos fundamentally. In Government, we will repeal this legislation which proposes, without foundation, to criminalise fishermen.

See this speech in context