Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)

Coming from a coastal community, like Deputy Ferris, I am aware of the great dependence of my constituents on the sea for their livelihoods. The Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill's proposals are perceived by many as overkill. While I accept the Minister claimed that much of the Bill was drafted before he took office, it still cries out for some rationality. Many have expressed outrage at the proposal for the Naval Service to shoot at trawlers that fail to stop when requested. Section 18 allows fisheries protection officers to shoot at or into a boat that ignores warning shots and refuses to heave to or fails to comply with an order to port. I welcome the Minister's statement that this section will be amended to take the gun out, so to speak. I wonder will he take the gun away from the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, pictured in newspapers this morning pointing a gun at the public. While there is a great need for fish stock conservation, it seems the small operator will be hit more.

I recognise the efforts of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Deputies O'Flynn, Perry and others travelled to Brussels to discover the Bill's proposals did not emanate from there. The draconian elements were actually proposed by the Government. This was a useful fact-finding exercise. That boats can be confiscated sounds very heavy-handed. It must be examined if conservation can be enforced in a different manner with the same results. It must also be remembered that the fines from Brussels are not of a criminal sanction. The Bill's proposals are excessive with no consultation between the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the fishing industry. While it is important to keep an eye on proposals from the EU, it is equally important to keep an eye on what proposals are being made by the Government.

There was a great need to help those using drift-net and draft-net fishing methods. There was an expectation that they would be bought out. However, this cannot happen unless everyone is treated equally. An individual fisherman catching 50 salmon would have to pay the same licence fee of €325 as one catching several hundred salmon. If a buy-out was introduced, all operators would have to be treated the same.

The Government feels the best way to manage our fisheries is through quotas. However to single out the drift-net and draft-net fishermen to bear the brunt of the conservation measures is unjust. The Minister's comments on quotas further grinds the small operators into the ground, killing them off by slow strangulation. Lowering the quotas and reducing times allowed for fishing targets our coastal communities, depriving them of an opportunity to make a living. The small operator is getting the tough end of the wedge.

The set-aside scheme to conserve stocks was proposed under which fishermen would be compensated for fishing losses. The Government claimed it would introduce the proposal if there was some means to measure the scheme. The criteria for measuring the scheme and counting fish stocks in rivers were fulfilled. However, the scheme proposed by the Government depended on owners of private fisheries putting money into the scheme. This was promised to fishermen in 2002 but it still has not been implemented. The Government failed to act on its own scientific advice in this regard.

Moves are afoot to abolish the regional fisheries boards which must be properly debated. The review of the inland fisheries sections recommends the establishment of an advisory board. This centralisation of the fisheries board is akin to what happened with the abolition of the health boards, removing democracy from the whole system. Power is being taken back from the regions to central Government. We cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. We must ensure democracy is not removed from the system.

A review of the boards was carried out two years ago. Why is it only now that it is coming to light? Why is the Minister responding in this way without any adequate notice to anyone involved in the industry? It seems to be a fait accompli to have one board for the entire country with sub-boards which will have no real say like the Health Service Executive. They will be accountable only to central Government but not to the people.

While the fisheries boards are doing a good job in managing stocks, they do not have the adequate resources they need. If the fisheries go back to the stakeholers, will the resources follow to ensure the same protection of fish stocks? This is another example of increased centralisation, resulting in the reduction of local democracy. This will take away affordability from ordinary anglers. The fisheries boards appear to be underfunded. Their abolition is not panacea to address underfunding. This process will take five years. If all this comes to pass, what of the employment prospects of the fisheries boards' employees, particularly when there are barely enough resources to keep the show on the road now?

There needs to be continued protection of our fisheries with adequate resources. How will the IFA, anglers, the tourism industry and others affected have their say when the boards are replaced with the new authority? Will it be the same rationalisation process experienced by the health services at the expense of democracy? I would like the Minister of State to answer these questions if possible. The Bill is an over-reaction and I agree with the necessary amendments that are to be tabled to take the gun out of the legislation, so to speak.

See this speech in context