Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

They engaged in hypocrisy. If the Deputy examines my career he will find that one of my fundamental rules has been to walk the walk if I talk the talk. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party do not have the honour and integrity to do likewise.

Following the meeting of the joint committee, the Bill, which was due to be taken the following day, was withdrawn. On three occasions I asked the Taoiseach, Minister for Finance and Minister for Foreign Affairs, respectively, whether the legislation would be changed and when it would be reintroduced. It is the Government's duty to govern.

The Secretary General of the Department provided Members with a lengthy written submission on the reason comprehensive legislation on the new control mechanism was a legal requirement on the Irish Government and other European Union Governments. As I stated, I have concerns about this matter. We had an outrageous circus around the Bill involving the joint committee and now, I understand, a gaggle of MEPs from whom we generally do not hear from one end of their five-year period of office to another is also involved. This was a disgraceful episode which should never be repeated on any other legislation.

One useful initiative taken by the joint committee was to visit Killybegs earlier this year. The final words said to us on that two-day visit to the headquarters of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, which I remember well, were that our fisheries should be viewed as a sustainable sunrise industry rather than what they believed was the constant vision of a sunset industry in terminal decline coming from many political quarters and the media. We said to them that surely involves serious control mechanisms and sustainability. However, the Killybegs fishermen left Deputies and Senators with the vision of a vibrant, viable and sustainable industry, one that the Labour Party and I share and at which we will always aim.

The two Pádraic White reports, Proposals and Recommendations for the Review of the Common Fisheries Policy, published in 2000, and Decommissioning Requirements for Ireland's Demersal and Shellfish Fleets, published last July, lay out some of the key requirements for sustainable and dynamic Irish sea fisheries. In February 2005, according to the second report, 1,415 vessels were registered under the new licensing system, with a further 755 traditional in-shore vessels, all less than 12 metres long, then being incorporated into the fishing fleet register. The total capacity of the Irish fishing fleet at the time was almost 87,000 gross tonnes, of which almost 42% was represented by 23 vessels of the pelagic fleet. The recent White report shows that Ireland's demersal quotas declined from 60,000 tonnes to under 40,000 tonnes between 1990 and 2005.

Other important concerns raised in the report include the average age of vessels in the fleet, which was 26.5 years, the rising cost of fuel, and new safety standards, which were thankfully made mandatory for all vessels over 24 metres from 1 July 2005. On the basis of current trends, Mr. White was right to recommend the current decommissioning scheme to remove 25%, or almost 11,000 tonnes, of the whitefish fleet and the reduction of the scallop fleet to a level just under 5,000 kw.

The report was rightly very concerned to ring-fence residual fleet capacity, a matter that must be addressed. Those reports from widely based committees in 2000 and 2005 rang alarm bells regarding sustainability and mentioned two thirds of fish stocks in European waters heading for extinction, a grave and disastrous situation. It also made proposals for the involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process, something that certainly did not take place regarding this Bill or the farce surrounding it. Our visit to Killybegs and my knowledge of the other national fishery ports, including my own port of Howth, show that there has been no serious attempt to involve stakeholders.

As I mentioned in my introduction, today's debate takes place against the background of the recent letter of the Secretary General, Mr. Brendan Tuohy, which refers to ongoing serious allegations of illegal fishing and overfishing. An investigation is under way, led by the Garda bureau of criminal investigation, into allegations of very serious overfishing at Killybegs. Mr. Tuohy refers at length to other serious allegations made by Mr. Ciarán Crummy, who I believe was a skipper out of Howth. All that has taken place in the context of renewed international debate on serious overfishing, failure to observe quotas and fishing effort, as outlined recently in many important works, including Charles Clover's The End of the Line, which I recently read.

With 11% of EU waters and guardianship of 300,000 sq. miles of ocean, Ireland has a very special responsibility for marine ecosystems and fisheries management, and a well-regulated system of control is vital to its national self-respect. That is why I believe that our officials were right to address ongoing problems. I have said that I disagreed with some of the solutions, but their ambition to try to do something about matters was genuine, something that I also believe of the Minister.

A sustainable and profitable future for Irish fisheries is possible, but achieving it requires that all relevant stakeholders and the Government work together to tackle major challenges for the industry. It is clear that sustainability and profitability should be the two key guiding principles regarding the future direction of the Irish fishing industry. In the long term, it cannot be profitable if it is not sustainable, since it destroys the very stocks that it needs to function. However, an unprofitable industry will not be sustainable either, as short-term economic pressures will lead to overfishing and non-compliance with the fisheries management regime. Sustainability and profitability are complementary objectives to ensure an Irish fishing industry that is globally competitive and has a vibrant long-term future.

The issue of how to achieve high levels of compliance most effectively has been at the core of opposition to the Bill. It should have been part of lengthy discussions and consultations, in which I would have been delighted to participate. In many parts of the fishing industry around Europe, low levels of compliance with management rules have been a serious cause of unsustainability and the destruction of fishing stocks. It is clear from research carried out on the issue that enforcement alone will not guarantee high levels of compliance with management rules. Structural problems, including unprofitability, lack of trust in the current fisheries management system, a low probability of being successfully caught and prosecuted and very modest financial penalties also contribute to high levels of non-compliance.

Better enforcement is necessary for a more effective fisheries management system. However, trust and profit levels should also be addressed. Research undertaken by the strategy unit attached to Prime Minister Blair's Cabinet office found that in the UK, even if levels of fines and successful prosecutions were "10 to 20 times higher than they are at present there would still be significant illegal landing of fish." It is also true that many fishermen and fishing communities in general do not see non-compliance with fisheries management systems as criminal. The criminalisation of fishermen has been a major issue with fishermen's groups in the wake of publication of the Bill.

While I am bitterly opposed to any illegal activity that endangers the fish stocks of this island, in the international experience, the most effective route for implementing a workable and successful means of control seems to be to impose harsh criminal penalties only on the most persistent and extreme offenders. Other breaches should be dealt with by mechanisms such as administrative penalties, on-the-spot fines, and a transparent and predictable points system on licences similar to what happens to owners of motor vehicles found to be transgressing the law.

Fisheries enforcement agencies should establish more capacity in forensic accounting and more concentrated targeting of high-risk vessels. Tracking catches from the initial landing to production and through the distribution chain would prove a much more effective way of deterring illegal activity and encourage compliance. I acknowledge that the Bill addresses some of those issues. Such traceability throughout the entire system would bring about more profound changes in fisheries management and ensure greater accountability regarding declared catches and production.

Repeat and unrepentant offenders must be dealt with in the harshest terms, and criminal proceedings used in such instances. A key factor in establishing a fisheries management system with a high level of compliance is that there be a significant level of consultation and participation on the part of the fishing community itself and that it generate greater levels of trust among fishermen in management. It is in that area that we have failed most of all, since we have not involved stakeholders in the Bill before us.

Turning to the Bill itself, I welcome the Minister's comments on section 18(6), which allowed for shots to be fired directly at or into a boat by officers attending the scene. That clause was quite unusual in the powers granted to officers, which went well beyond the normal capability that officers have to fire warning shots or use force proportionate to the situation, especially when defending themselves from attack. It gave carte blanche to officers to fire live ammunition at or into vessels, which could have had grave and potentially fatal consequences. I welcome what the Minister said and note that Mr. Pichon, who came to us from Brittany, told us that under the French regime, if a vessel steams away from the French navy, it is never allowed back into national waters, also a very serious penalty.

In even a cursory reading of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, the levels of indictable fines and penalties in chapter 4 seem disproportionate and out of kilter with other EU regimes. I am aware of the high value of hauls made by large pelagic vessels, but fines of up to €200,000 for a contravention relating to capacity plans of much smaller trawlers seem excessive.

During the debate in the Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Mr. Jason Whooley of the South and West Fishermen's Organisation pointed out that, in the current era of high operating costs, a fine of €50,000 is sufficient to put many fishing operations out of business completely. Mr. Whooley also made comparisons between penalties for licence offences in Spain and Ireland. In the former, it was €1,463, and in the latter it is currently €21,400. Log-book offences in Denmark carried a €393 penalty, while in Ireland the figure was €8,455. Conservation offences carried a fine of €2,398 in the UK and €23,125 in Ireland. Mr. Whooley and the fishing organisations made reasonable points regarding why sanction regimes throughout fishing countries should be reasonably standardised. Fishing industry representatives have raised the issue of graduated sanctions, with on-the-spot fines followed by more serious sanctions, culminating in a major deterrent fine, forfeiture and even imprisonment for recalcitrant repeat offenders. I stress that the industry itself has asked for that. It would be worth examining a points system, as proposed for the United Kingdom, and perhaps an automatic administrative penalty system where the costs of infringement are well known and transparent.

A common criticism of the Bill in the fishing community since it was published is that fishermen would be criminalised for relatively minor offences and that this compares unfavourably with the civil law European Union states which have a system of administrative penalties for lower type business and competition regulatory offences. Section 40 makes a major change in the prosecution of sea fishery offences where provision is made for the transfer of prosecution from the Attorney General to the Director of Public Prosecutions. There have been significant discussions of administrative fines regarding the powers of regulatory agencies in recent times. The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, for example, has powers to levy administrative fines of up to €5 million under the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act.

Last year, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, asked his officials at the time to try to model a penalty regime for ComReg on powers similar to those of IFSRA. Some legal commentators have asked whether the IFSRA administrative fines are compatible with Article 38 of the Constitution which confers the administration of justice in criminal matters to the Judiciary. However, as the Labour Party leader noted in a letter on the matter to the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, on 6 October 2004, there may well be a category of administrative penalty which can be imposed by a lay regulator, as is done at EU level, without breaching the Constitution. The Taoiseach replied on 1 December 2004 to my party leader that there is already provision in our legislative code for the imposition of sanctions that arise in administrative proceedings, and the Taoiseach quoted the Stock Exchange, the Law Society, the Medical Council etc., with a right of appeal to the High Court. The Taoiseach appears to confirm, therefore, that a system of administrative penalties could be imposed, perhaps through the seafood control manager.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the recent appearance of the Naval commodore at the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was the questions that arose over the monitoring of non-Irish vessels. More than 57% of vessels with hulls of more than 15 metres operating in the Irish zone were foreign vessels. There were 1,700 boardings of vessels by the Irish Navy so far in 2005, which led to 94 warnings and 33 detentions. Of those, 68 warnings were given to Irish vessels and 18 of the 33 detentions were of Irish vessels. Commodore Lynch noted, however, that there were significant difficulties in monitoring the quotas of non-Irish vessels. Many of those, for example, the Spanish vessels, belong to co-operatives where quotas were shared in a complex manner only the vessel's home government could hope to understand and monitor. In any event, Commodore Lynch said that the Naval Service "does not have the means to police the quotas of other countries". He further stated: "That is not our role".

The problem revealed by Commodore Lynch's very detailed and helpful exposition to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is not addressed in this Bill, and perhaps it should be examined. Irish fishermen and fishing communities have a legitimate, long-standing complaint about the cavalier manner in which foreign vessels can over-fish with impunity, devastate pressurised species and simply steam off home. We believed the establishment of the EU fisheries control agency at Vigo — the Minister of State will remember I advocated that it should be located in Killybegs — would lead to a level playing pitch throughout EU waters but the reality until now appears to discriminate severely against our fishing industry. Surely it is possible to give the fishing monitoring service at Haulbowline a wider role in this Bill to liaise closely with the agency at Vigo, when it is up and running, and other EU navies to provide clear and transparent monitoring of all vessels in the Irish zone. Perhaps we should have a section in the Bill referring to that, something our civil servants might examine.

Section 41 introduces a major new development with the introduction of a seafood control manager who will be appointed by the Secretary General of the Department and whose job will be to inform the prosecutor of any contravention of the Sea Fisheries Acts of 2003 and 2005 and any other food safety law breaches. The seafood control manager is also charged with the promotion of compliance with the Sea Fisheries Acts and the provision of policy advice to the Minister and the Secretary General of the Department.

As the Minister of State is aware, serious concerns have been raised about the independence of this office. The appointment is made by the Secretary General and is responsible to the Secretary General and while I have no wish to cast aspersions on our hard-working civil servants, the seafood control manager will be appointed and be responsible to a non-elected official. Where is the accountability in that regard? The Minister of State mentioned earlier an independent agency but could we not use this Bill for that? Why come back to the Dáil? Why not use the Bill as it stands to make the seafood control agency a type of independent regulator for the industry which would do its job in trying to protect stocks, manage the industry and be fair to everybody. At the meeting of the Select Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources I raised with the Minister of State the possibility of the role of the seafood control manager evolving into a regulatory-type body and, therefore, I welcome his references this morning.

I want to refer briefly to other areas of concern which I hope to address also by way of amendment on Committee Stage. Section 11(1) refers to contravention of an obligation imposed by an EU regulation but given the Vincent Browne Supreme Court ruling, surely there is an obligation on the State to ensure that such a regulation is also codified in Irish law. The impact of the Vincent Browne case and the creation of indictable offences under statutory instruments that were struck down is the major reason the Secretary General of the Department gave for the urgent necessity to introduce this Bill. The Department maintains that no regime is in place currently but having spoken to fisheries leaders who came before our committee and who have been around the House in recent days, the reality appears to be that there is an ongoing regime of hearings, cases and serious punishments, despite the infirmity of the regulations as revealed in the Vincent Browne case.

Concerns have also been expressed about the notice of the expected port of landing under section 12 and the notice of the revocation of an authorisation to fish by the Minister where unexpected difficulties arise for a master or owner, for example, if they must go to a different port because the boat is in difficulties or whatever. We may need to insert a clause to that effect in the Bill. The provision for destruction of fish in section 17(3) seems unnecessarily wasteful and problems may occur in future with the immunity provisions for sea fisheries protection officers in section 26.

Section 28(5) appears to refer to the forfeiture of catch and fishing gear for Irish vessels. Again, that appears to be very unfair. Under section 41(6), the seafood control manager should also be required to report periodically to the relevant Oireachtas joint committee, which currently is the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. There is also a criticism that section 42 is too restrictive on the directions the Minister may give to the registrar general of fishing boats.

I warmly welcome Part 3 on the maritime jurisdiction of the State, including the exclusive economic zone and exclusive fishing limits. Section 54 incorporates Part V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 — Articles 55 to 75.

We discussed yesterday the short Bill the Labour Party has brought forward, the Mercantile Marine (Avoidance of Flags of Convenience) Bill 2005. That legislation seeks to insert section 91(1) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea into Irish law. The key point is that any vessel reflagging to the flag of another country would have to be able to have a genuine connection with the country to which it was reflagging. On a point of clarification, did the Minister of State say yesterday that he would support that Bill on Second Stage?

See this speech in context