Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

In the view of almost everybody who examines it, the process in which certain large vessel licences were allowed stinks. The massive transfer of good public money to individual fleet owners in this regard was an utter scandal. The proposals we pushed through in the Oireachtas to separate the licensing and control from what could facilitate political corruption is welcome. All sides of this House would surely agree on this.

It is remarkable that this Bill is required. We are spending a fortune on fisheries protection. Taking into account just the naval and air service and leaving aside court, administrative or departmental costs, we are spending approximately €100 million per annum on fisheries protection. This is to land a fishery stock valued at the quay at approximately €200 million. Half the money we receive from landing the stock is spent on protection. It makes sense to use such money correctly. Everyone will admit unofficially that there is a free-for-all in the industry for various reasons. There is no regulation or proper control and we must introduce it.

The public wants this although certain individuals may not. The majority wish to see this money well spent. We spent the last five or six years spending about €55 million in public money building up new vessels at a time when we knew the service would have to contract. We also issued licences for specific stocks at the same time. We have recently spent €45 million decommissioning vessels. This is indicative of the madness afoot in our fisheries policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. The sooner this is recognised and addressed rather than having certain vested interests protected, the better. We would do the public a favour by doing so.

The Vincent Browne case is an important issue and I am concerned this Bill does not address that issue in a manner that will stand up legally. I am told that the case has significant consequences in the fisheries and a range of other areas. It may require a referendum if we are not able to unpick in a legislative manner the problem analysed by the Supreme Court. I am concerned about the mechanism used in sections 14 and 15 which in a sense replicates the conditions under European fisheries regulations into Irish regulations. These are claimed to be supplementary measures. Perhaps the Government's lawyers are contending that these mechanisms will work in a clever legal way. I am concerned whether this will be so or whether further action might be needed. This is one of several concerns I have about the Bill.

I agree with issues raised by some Deputies and would look to amend the Bill. However, in principle I support it. One change I wish to see made is a move to administrative sanctions. It makes sense to remove lawyers from the equation and I would like to remove lawyers from many aspects of the way in which society is run. There is much cost and difficulty involved in this and it makes sense to move towards administrative sanctions in some way. Article 31 of the European regulations on the issue state that: "Member states shall ensure that appropriate measures be taken, including administrative action or criminal proceedings, in conformity with their own national law". It lists in some detail the ability to impose fines, seizure of vessels etc.

The Minister of State has contended that Article 34 of the Constitution requires us to turn to European law as it supersedes the Constitution and directs us that administrative sanctions can be applied. I do not believe the European Union will do so as European regulation is consistent in being subject to national law. If the Minister of State is willing to take a legal route in solving the issue brought about by the Vincent Browne judgment, he may take a legal risk on this issue. I am interested to see details of the judgment on the matter from the lawyers in the Office of the Attorney General.

The provisions of Article 34 of the Constitution state that justice should be administered by judges in courts established by law except in special and limited cases that may be prescribed by law. Our job as legislators is to set the law and I would be happy to set a legislative precedent stating that we see this case as legally special where it is more appropriate to have administrative sanctions. This is supported in some detail by European regulations. I would like to hear the view of the Supreme Court judges that would argue that they are the only people who could possibly make judgment or allow forfeiture, fines, etc.

It is about time that we as politicians took responsibility for leadership. It is difficult for us to do so in committee because of Abbeylara and other judgments but we can do it through legislation. The Supreme Court can then decide if our remit is being exceeded. Our actions would be backed up by European legislation. My colleagues in the committee and I believe this change would make sense as we must speed up the process and make it more definite, cheaper and easier to administer. Rather than having a representative go to Brussels to plead for a special case to go to Irish courts to impose administrative sanctions, we should instead try the legislative route. If it fails in the courts, so be it.

Another loophole needs to be addressed in the European arena. We have a free-for-all in the fishery world where larger boats can travel long distances. It is almost impossible for national regimes to know the individual quota of a boat or the allocation it has. This system allows a Spanish boat off the south-west coast of Ireland effectively to fish at will. The only sanction it may have is if the net mesh is the wrong size or some similar issue. This will not cost it, and it will get away with massive overfishing that it may land off Ireland and in the boat's native waters.

Until this loophole in the Common Fisheries Policy is addressed, we will continue to have a free-for-all. This does not just apply to Spanish boats. One hears stories of large new pelagic trawlers which could be taking a load of fish worth up to €2 million in their cargo hold. We need fines of up to €200,000 to impose some type of sanction against these boats. I have heard stories of these boats sailing from off south-west Cork, bypassing Killybegs as they head to land in Norway or Scotland. The people in charge of these boats know they can circumvent the quota management system there. This is why the Minister of State's home port of Killybegs is quiet at the moment. We should address that issue and our own housekeeping.

The Commission is currently taking action against Ireland on seven infringements of European fisheries legislation. The French Government was recently fined up to €57 million for a similar infringement of regulations. We are facing such penalties here. The people will see us as doing no service if we ignore this issue and do not ensure that we have the very best of legislation to implement European laws. The greater and more important long-term issue is that the people will see us as having utterly failed if we allow the continued plundering of stocks that must be nurtured for the fishing community in the long term and also the Irish, European and international populations. I intend to support this Bill subject to the amendments that might be tabled on Committee Stage and others.

See this speech in context