Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak on an issue that affects the marine sector. We debate very many issues in this House and, to borrow a phrase from a well known broadcaster, this island nation does not deal with marine issues too frequently and it is often regarded as the Cinderella sector particularly when compared with the way we have treated agriculture since we joined the European Union, or Common Market as it was then, in 1973. The history of the issues we are discussing goes back to the early 1970s when the negotiating regime under which Ireland became a member of the Common Market basically short-changed fishermen here. In the following decades, successive Governments of all political hues have contributed to downgrade and prevent the proper development of the marine sector and the fishing industry.

In the early 1970s the fishing industry was very underdeveloped and the agriculture sector was much more economically important. To get a good deal for Ireland we ceded many fundamental rights to the other member states. We did not take the opportunity in further negotiations when very large maritime countries, like Spain and Portugal, were conducting their accession talks, to reopen the Irish issue. Over the three decades that have passed while the fishing sector has grown and developed, this has always been in a half-spancelled way and never to the full potential that an island with such rich fishing grounds in its hinterland would have expected.

The lack of regard for the marine sector in general and for fisheries in particular has remained a feature of the present Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Government. A distinguished former leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, Mr. Charles Haughey, wanted the marine sector raised to Cabinet rank. On the coming to office of the current Administration, it has been subsumed into a hydra-like Department with many heads. The marine sector is very much the poor relation in that broad-ranging Department headed by the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey. That the word "marine" was not included in the Department's title at its outset and needed to be grafted on when this was pointed out gave an indication of the worth placed on the marine and the fishing industry by the current Administration.

It is unarguable that the lead Minister in that Department, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has really abandoned this sector and views his job as dealing with the other broad areas of natural resources, energy, communications and the various semi-State bodies under his remit. He has not taken a hands-on or direct interest other than a destructive interest in the marine sector. While I do not say this simply because he is sitting before me — I had intended saying it in any event — the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is extremely knowledgeable on the sector. My constituency dealings with him have shown him to be incisive and caring. The truth, however, is that he has been shafted on this Bill. He may say what he likes when he stands up in the House, but I know his heart is not in it and that he does not want the Bill before the House in its current shape and form. He was given a poisoned chalice the moment he walked into the Department, being the recipient of positions negotiated in advance of coming into it and having to sort out difficulties not of his making, without the benefit of a seat at Cabinet to give him the leverage to tackle the jobs foisted on him. It is important to say that.

The Bill is surrounded by grand farce which continues. I listened to Government Members' contributions today and one after another they said they disagreed with the contents of the Bill. Having said that they do a little public wrestling with their conscience and a little sabre rattling, or rather penknife rattling, and suggest that if it is not changed in Committee they might vote against it. That is as likely to happen as lightning is likely to strike the dome of this building within the next two minutes.

It is farcical to have a Bill before the House that clearly does not command the support of the significant majority of Deputies. Dare I say it, since he cannot say it, I do not believe it has the support of the Minister of State. He must say what he must, but I know, even from his comments on Second Stage, that his heart is not in the proposals. The penknife rattling — Fianna Fáil version of sabre rattling — has been proven fatuous as the Members on the Government side of the House have already voted twice to introduce the legislation on 17 November.

I have the greatest respect for Deputies O'Donovan, Martin Brady and others, whom I believe know this Bill is so flawed it should not be before us. I have some sympathy with them that they were whipped through the lobbies on 17 November to support it because that is how the whipping system works. However, they should spare us the public wrestling of conscience on this matter and stand firm on their principles and ensure that what is flawed and wrong legislation is not introduced into the House to take up the time of the House inappropriately. I agree with colleagues on the Government side who spoke with regard to the urgency attached and attributed to the Bill by the Department. The view from Brussels and our Members of the European Parliament is that there is no such urgency. Why then must we deal with what is by common acceptance flawed legislation?

Let me give the House a backdrop to the legislation from the perspective of my home county, one I know the Minister of State is familiar with and to which he is sympathetic. It is a reality that needs to be spelled out. Kilmore Quay and its hinterland is on its knees. That phrase has been repeated to me again and again over past months. Five or six years ago the area had enormous potential to develop and expand. New vessels were being bought and owners wanted to expand the fleet. However, decisions made by Government have struck a range of body blows to the people of Kilmore Quay.

People may be familiar with the scallop fishermen fiasco when the Sea Fisheries (Conservation and Rational Exploitation of Scallop) Regulations 2005, SI 245 of this year, was introduced into the House. It has been a devastating blow to the scallop fishermen of Wexford. The scallop processing industry was established 30 years ago in the south east. It is not a multinational industry in receipt of massive IDA grants and subsidised to bring in jobs, nor is it an industry that moves on somewhere else when it can get cheaper labour. It is an indigenous industry harvesting a natural resource. It provided valuable local employment on ship and on shore in processing. The industry was worth €50 million, a not insignificant sum to a coastal community.

On account of the decision taken in July 2004 in Brussels, an agreement made by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, without consultation with the fishermen or processors involved, we faced a situation earlier this year where people's livelihood was simply taken from them. I will not go into the details of that because the House has heard them from me on the Adjournment debate and elsewhere. In fairness to the Minister of State, he recognised the calamity facing the sector and brought in Padraic White to review the decommissioning process that could be used, because we could not wind back the clock on the calamitous decision made when the scallop fishery was sold out in Brussels. He has negotiated a support package for the boat owners, but we now need a package for the crewmen of those boats who have been left high and dry.

Within my community I deal with the banks that are foreclosing on some of these families and these proud hard-working dedicated men who have never known unemployment. One skipper, with his skipper's ticket, skippered a boat with several crew members and earned a decent living. Now, however, he works part-time in a local firm on a salary slightly above the minimum wage. That is the calamity facing and being endured by scores of families in County Wexford. Their case needs to be heard and addressed.

We deal badly with fishermen in legislation. They are deemed by the Revenue to be share fishermen and, therefore, self-employed. I dealt with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act when it went through the House. Under that Act the same individuals are deemed employees. I asked a parliamentary question of the Minister of Finance asking him to explain why the same individuals should be treated differently for different legislation. The response was that they are deemed to be what they are appropriately deemed to be by any individual legislation. Therefore, they can be relabelled at will. On account of the fact that these men are deemed to be self-employed, they are not entitled to capital allowances. The boat owners can get those allowances, but they cannot. They are not entitled to social welfare and some of them are in deep trouble because of how they are dealt with and treated. The whitefish men and the processors also feel the pinch. This is an economic crisis that is squeezing the life blood out of people who a few short years ago envisaged themselves as economically prosperous and with a great future. We have a responsibility to do something about the situation.

That is the backdrop to this legislation. Talk about adding insult to injury instead of asking how we can assist a community under enormous pressure because we have to make some decisions. I know from my background in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that we must have sustainability and I am as in favour of that principle as anybody. We must protect a resource that cannot be overfished because otherwise it will not be viable in the future. However, we can do this in a rational way. Above all else, we can do it in a way that shares the burden equally. Irish fishermen should carry the same burden as their EU colleagues and friends. They should not have to carry twice the burden because they comply with the various regulations, or because of a psychological attitude that the marine sector is of less value than other sectors. It would be amazing for such an attitude to exist among an island race.

Before I discuss a few aspects of the Bill before the House, I would like to use some of the time available to refer to the issue of safety, which is close to the Minister of State's heart. We need to put in place safety systems which will prevent a recurrence of a crisis and tragedy of the nature that was inflicted on a community in my constituency of Wexford following the sinking of the Pisces. The terrible calamity that was endured by the victims' families, to whom I extend my absolute sympathy, was revisited this week. In one case, a family was tragically bereaved by the death of people from three generations of it. We cannot do anything to restore those who died in that incident to life, but we can provide to the best of our ability that a regime is in place to ensure such a tragedy does not happen again. This House is accustomed to introducing strong laws in circumstances of this nature, but it also needs to ensure that the laws are enforced so they are complied with. I hope the assurances which were given in this regard by the Minister of State earlier this week can be fulfilled. An adequate inspectorate needs to be established to ensure an awful tragedy like the sinking of the Pisces — I am aware of the depth of pain that continues to be endured by the families directly involved in that case — is not visited on another community.

Given that we do not know what the final shape of the Bill before the House will be, it may be somewhat vacuous to speak about some aspects of it. In his opening speech, the Minister of State resiled from some of the Bill's most contentious principles. Should Deputies refer to the Bill, as published, or would we be better advised to consider the potential amendments to it? I used to think such an approach, which involves introducing a Bill but then altering it substantially on Committee Stage, was the unique preserve of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who seems to graft new sections into legislation on the hoof, as ideas occur to him. I did not think other Ministers shared the level of brilliance of the Minister, Deputy McDowell, which enables him to amend legislation on an hourly basis. I was under the impression that more normal Ministers like to have the completed legislation in reasonable shape before they present it to the House.

See this speech in context