Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I listened to this debate with great interest. The major question that occurs to me is: who is in favour of this Bill? I have seen the most half-hearted presentation of a Bill by any Minister in the presentation from the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. Clearly his heart is not in it.

At some stage I thought I detected from the Opposition benches behind me some strong semblance of support for this Bill in the contribution of Deputy Eamon Ryan of the Green Party. Despite his strong rhetoric in favour of the Bill, he spoiled it all by stating that he was very much against the fact that there was not provision for administrative sanctions as that is the central issue in the Bill. While I understand that, coming from the green corner, he had to make those noises, even he voiced a strong objection to a Bill that does not contain the central feature that anybody with an interest in this industry wants and that he also wants.

Then we heard the main contribution from my colleague, Deputy Perry. On behalf of the Opposition, he set out clearly and unequivocally that Fine Gael is utterly opposed to the Bill in its present form. Fine Gael, in Government, will repeal this Bill. That was largely supported by the spokesmen from the Labour Party and from the Technical Group. Then we heard possibly the strongest criticism of the Bill so far from the Fianna Fáil Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I also am aware, from comments made locally in my constituency, of the opposition of Fianna Fáil backbencher and constituency colleague, Deputy O'Donovan.

Who is in favour of this Bill in its present form? Why are we debating the Bill as it is presently formulated? My first simple message to the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is to go back to the Government and tell it nobody in this House, which is the supreme Legislature, is in favour of this Bill as presently formulated. We will adjourn this debate shortly. There will be an opportunity for consideration. I suggest that opportunity should be used for two purposes: first, to withdraw the Bill; and second, to come back to us with a reformulated Bill.

No doubt anybody with an interest in this industry recognises there is need for a Bill. As the principal Opposition party, we accept that. We want a sustainable fishing industry. We want a legal framework which will work and to which our fishermen can give adherence. We accept that following the Supreme Court judgments there is a need for a Bill. We want a Bill with some vision about the development of the industry. We do not want a Bill that crucifies our fishermen, which really is the effect of the Bill as presently formulated.

I accept that the Minister of State speaks reasonably about his willingness to consider amendments. Since he has been forced apparently by the Government to bring this Bill as presently formulated before this House, his reasonableness is not what counts. What counts is the willingness of the Government to take on board the major issues that arise in the context of this Bill and the proper way to do that is for the Government to withdraw the Bill and allow the Minister of State to come back to this House with a new Bill that takes those provisions on board.

The Bill contains a chapter on restriction, a chapter on licensing, a chapter on penalties, a chapter on forfeitures of catch and a chapter on forfeiture of vessels. One can sum it up under the headings of restriction, penalty, confiscation and forfeiture. That is not the message that should come from this House to our fishing industry.

In the few minutes available to me before we adjourn I will focus on the central feature of the Bill on which all parties are agreed, the Bill does not provide for administrative and graded sanctions to decriminalise fishing offences and it must do so. That is the central issue on this Bill and I do not think anybody in this House will disagree with me. Why does the Bill not include that?

The Minister of State quoted the provisions of the Constitution. I accept that under Article 34 of the Constitution, "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution", but while it provides "save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law," that is more to do with the issue of hearings in public. Currently in many instances we have a system whereby, with the consent of an offender, administrative sanctions can be applied. Why can we not have a similar system for our fishermen? Why is the message "please stop treating us as criminals" that comes loud and clear from Mizen Head to Malin Head not taken on board by the Government in the context of this major fisheries legislation?

No doubt this legislation hardens and fastens the criminalisation rules as far as fishermen are concerned and in some instances it is utterly draconian. Despite the expressed good intent of the Minister of State, surely he does not think he can convince this House, let alone the fishermen, that increasing a fine by 800%, from approximately €12,000 to €100,000, is a minor matter. What thinking gives rise to that kind of approach in the Bill?

As has been pointed out by colleagues in this House, we have something to learn from the other members of the European Union. There is a natural long-standing tendency for us to follow the UK system of legislation. I accept we are part of the common law system and on independence we inherited a corpus of legislation. Our system is much the same and there is an understandable tendency to follow on with that system. At the same time, we have been long enough in the European Union to know that there are benefits from the European system. The European system, the old Code Napoleon or the continental law system, has major advantages in many ways. It has particular advantages in the way it deals with fishermen.

Like everybody else in this House, I will not proclaim that all our fishermen are angels as far as the law is concerned. I do not think anybody will suggest that. There needs to be a legal framework to ensure that when they err and stray over the legal line they are dealt with, but let us ensure that it is reasonable. I will come back to that matter.

I am stunned by the following issue that has emerged here and has been touched on by a number of colleagues. How can we justify a system which discriminates against our own Irish fishermen as opposed to fishermen from other member states of the European Union? Often I have seen cases where nationals of other member states of the European Union bring to court a claim that they are not being treated as well as we are being treated, and sometimes with justification, but I have never come across the opposite situation where the Government brings before the House a provision, which I accept may be a continuation of an existing provision that should have been challenged previously, that we treat our own fishermen worse than fishermen from other member states.

See this speech in context