John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I have raised a legitimate question that the Labour Party Members should reflect on before they make any further attempt to berate my colleagues for their consistent and honest stand.

I welcome the Bill before the House in so far as it consolidates the existing legislation in this area. I refer particularly to health and safety regulations. I have spoken previously about the difficulties I have encountered in trying to implement the requirements of various Acts which have been amended on many occasions. I have had to examine three or four separate Acts to try to ascertain what is required. The first rule to be followed when passing legislation is to ensure it is clear, unambiguous and capable of being understood by everyone. One should not have to refer to three or four Acts to determine what is required. Deputy Howlin claimed that the House has not considered legislation on this topic very often, but I remind him that since the House passed the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, it has also passed the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1962, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1978, the Fisheries Act 1980, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1983, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1994 and the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003. We have other legislation affecting the marine area including Acts to implement the EU requirements, protocols and conventions referred to earlier, the Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2000, Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003 and the Oil Pollution at Sea (Civil Liabilities and Compensation) (Amendment) Act 2003. In addition, we are affected by many international and EU rules, including the Merchant Shipping Acts. I mention those Acts to illustrate the difficulty facing stakeholders, the fishermen trying to earn their living from fishing and those engaged in maricultural, aquaculture and various related businesses, in operating safely, complying with the law and regulations.

I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, on getting to grips with this and trying to rectify matters. We can considerably simplify matters. I welcome his efforts to that end in this Bill. He is repealing provisions in 14 Fisheries Acts and five other Acts. That sounds ludicrous but it is a fact. It is crazy to still have to refer to the Fisheries (Ireland) Act of 1845. We should get real about this business, move in the modern area and deal with it.

Many people have painted not so much a romantic picture but a picture of bustling quaysides and hundreds of people working in the fishing industry. It can be compared to working on the land. Those days are long gone. With the advent of modern technology, and handling facilities, there is a different way of doing the job and a more professional approach. There is not the same drudgery to the work and we will never go back to the manual input characteristic of this industry, any more than we will do in farming. That must be realised. It is grand to paint that picture of the industry 20 or 30 years ago but those days are gone and we need to move on.

I welcome the expression of the need to avoid unnecessary verbiage. It is mentioned several times in the explanatory memorandum. The dictionary definition of "verbiage", which I checked to be sure, is "the excessive number of words used to express an idea". It appears, and I mentioned this previously, that those working in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel must be paid by the word in drafting legislation or there must be some incentive for them to use 20 words where one would suffice. We get very complicated material here. The Bill is complex in many ways, probably because of the effort at consolidation but that must be dealt with.

I confessed to the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher that my preference is trout fishing in the lake at the head of the Black Valley or the Paps Mountains or on the Sullane River in Macroom. I have a son who has a 30 ft to 40 ft boat and fishes wrecks 30 miles or 40 miles out. Therefore I am fairly au fait with the industry particularly from the leisure side.

I am aware of the dangers associated with this industry and the need for safety provisions. Several speakers mentioned the horrible tragedy that was resurrected recently by coverage of the court case. I heard one or two Deputies comment on it and it occurred to me that they did not take much notice of the topic because it had already been acted upon here. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, enacted 18 of the 20 recommendations of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. The only two outstanding issues relate to the insurance of small boats under 40 ft and to compiling a register of small boats. The Minister of State has dealt with the fines issue and the need for floatation devices and so on. There was considerable grumbling by some stakeholders at the introduction of those measures. I recall my son complained about them when they were announced. I also heard him complain about the requirement to spend 12 weeks in the inner harbour with his boat before he got his skipper's licence or was officially allowed to take it out further. However, I welcome all these requirements. It is essential to have safe practice and procedures in place.

I appreciate that commercial fishing is a hazardous job. The wearing of safety gear at times can almost be a hazard in itself in the same way as the wearing of a safety harness when aloft on a construction site can be an impediment at times, but that must to be worked around. I welcome the commitment to safety and to moving forward in that respect.

The importance of our fishing industry is beginning to be recognised. I agree with Deputy Howlin's suggestion that the industry was not as such sold off as traded off for benefits in agriculture. We are only beginning to realise that. There was a reluctance on the part of members of the older generation to eat fish because of the religious requirement that it should be eaten on Fridays. The industry has had to cope with considerable baggage that was a disincentive in terms of selling fish but that has all changed. It is now recognised that this industry is an important asset. Too often we hear people say that we have no natural assets; we have some of the best rivers and the best seas and we must exploit them in a responsible fashion. That is what much of this Bill is about.

Every time an issue such as this arises, some groups will take a stance against it. I speak as one of the few politicians who publicly said at the time, when I was the chairman of a trout fishing club, that I agreed with introduction of the rod licence. We all know the history of that. I was trying to foresee what might happen. In hindsight I was correct in saying what I thought would happen. Because the State did not have money to plough into buying fisheries and to improve inland fisheries people fought against that proposal. It was mainly well established club members who led the protest. There were 150,000 casual anglers and the vast majority of those have no place to fish because of the stance that was taken at that time. Irrespective of where one travels in the south west throughout Cork and Kerry, and I am sure this is also true of other regions, one sees signs displayed with the name of an angling club and the words "fishing preserved", and even if a permit is available it will be only for fly fishing. That was the outcome of the decision not to pursue the introduction of a rod licence where the State would have a great input, could buy up the interests and facilitate anglers by making banks of rivers available and so on and compensating the landowners. It was shortsighted and we made mistakes.

Any legislation will give rise to conflict with the primary stakeholders. It is evident in terms of the most endangered species, the salmon fishermen. I work very much with the landlubbers, the salmon anglers. I understand where the sea fishery people are coming from and that fishing is their livelihood and that they could be put out of action in the same way as beet growers who were mentioned earlier. The same could happen in terms of fishing but there are conflict points. We must be courageous at times and admit that a proposal is the correct decision, that we must take it and support it. In doing so, we might offend some constituents from time to time, but we must be conscious of the need for preservation. Anglers were the first people to become conscious of that. Traditionally, after a sea angling competition there would be boxes of, not so much ling as they would be taken but, conger, dog fish and so on and tonnes of them would be dumped into the river after the weigh-in competition. That was the practice seven, eight or nine years ago, but that has all changed. Conservation officers were appointed in every club and now everything is weighed and returned to sea. That does not happen in commercial fishing unfortunately and despite the best efforts, undersized fish are caught and die before anything can be done about it. We all need to work together in that regard.

I refer to Deputy O'Donovan, Deputy Martin Brady and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. They are on the side of people involved with the sea. They are working with these people and they know the background, history, culture and dangers involved. I would listen very carefully to their comments on this matter. I will add my comments as well. Our fishing assets are in the ownership of all the people, not just the fishermen or consumers, and we have a right to say what should be done with them. Even if people are landlubbers, so to speak, they have a right to add their comments, as long as it is done in a fair way.

The correct use of this asset is becoming more important every day, especially, as has been said, with the demise of employment in agriculture. The sea can also be used for leisure and tourism purposes. There is enormous potential in this area, particularly in regard to inland fisheries, which was a shambles. Some ten years ago the Central Fisheries Board was examined in the Committee of Public Accounts. It was the worst organised group that ever came before us. I am pleased to say the employment of a central fisheries officer and other measures have changed things for the better.

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, has another Bill in hand that will deal with this area. I do not wish to focus too much on inland fisheries but I am sure the Minister of State would be the first one to tell me that inland and sea fishing are inextricably linked and that we must deal with them as a single topic. In the past we have dealt with the matter in a piecemeal fashion. Inland fishing is divided among coarse fishing, pike fishing, carp fishing, salmon fishing and trout fishing. They are all separate groups that are fighting their own corner and vying with each other to some extent, which does nothing for the overall good of the industry. We have a great asset and it will be diminished if we do not deal with it properly. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to encourage people to do the right thing.

The constituent to whom I referred is Tom MacSweeney, who presents the "Seascapes" programme. He has done marvellous work that has raised people's awareness, particularly in the context of Cork Harbour. Modest people that we are, we describe it as the second best natural harbour in the world. We have not tried to claim the first position as we have with so many other areas, for example, sport. I disagree with Tom MacSweeney to some extent over the siting of industry in the harbour. There is plenty of room for everything. I earned my living on an island in the centre of the harbour for a long time before I was elected to the House.

A second person to whom I wish to briefly pay tribute is Matt Murphy of Sherkin Island. The Sherkin Island marine station has done more to educate young people than any other single establishment or group, including the State. This facility is very much a voluntary effort. He has done Trojan work at a time when there was very little awareness of the need to protect species or the environment. The Minister of State referred to the intention to make the centre more prominent and to give it more facilities. Research on the potential of shellfish has been particularly important. He was doing this work before the rest of us bothered to get involved. We just kept catching the fish.

It is not all doom and gloom. I referred to the experience and commitment of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. With him in charge there is hope and potential for the industry. He will be caught in the firing line between commercial fishermen and rod anglers and in other areas. His knowledge will come to the fore. People of all parties accept what he says because of his expertise in the area. It has been said that he might be riding to orders on this one but I do not know if that is the case.

I will not refer to section 28, other than to say in passing that nobody referred to the fact that the two largest fines have been reduced by at least 50%. Two fines are being reduced from €500,000 to €200,000 and from €127,000 to €100,000. Previous speakers may not have noticed this when reading the Bill. I do not have the expertise to comment further on this section nor do I have sufficient knowledge of the industry to discuss it in greater detail. I will leave that to Deputies Martin Brady and O'Donovan. I will pay great attention to their comments. We must work together on this matter. I will finish as I started by expressing comhghairdeachas leis an Aire Stáit, Deputy Gallagher, for the effort at consolidation in this Bill which has been ignored by so many people in the past, and his commitment to fisheries in general.

See this speech in context