Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

I rise to speak on a Bill of vital importance to the fishing industry of this country. I declare my interest in that, as the House knows, I live on a peninsula with one of the largest whitefish fleets based three miles from me in Greencastle. We could debate this matter such as Deputy Sargent did, who asked whether we were sold out in the early 1970s to the advantage of agriculture. Unfortunately, we cannot get a review of the Common Fisheries Policy that would readdress matters in a way we would like.

I am relieved that the guillotine to be applied to the debate has been removed. I thank the Minister of State and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, for the interest they have taken in what we as backbenchers have to say. When we in this Chamber deal with important legislation, we must have the opportunity to have our thoughts heard, especially on Second Stage, to ensure that issues of concern can be reviewed prior to Committee Stage and, ultimately, Report and Fifth Stages.

There was concern that this Bill was being hurried; there is no need for haste. We in my area do not want to repent at leisure. In the context of legal mechanisms being in place to address the issue of illegal fishing, there is no obvious reason for undue haste. This is contrary to what has been said in some earlier commentaries which described this reforming and consolidating legislation as being: "urgently required to ensure that Ireland could meet its obligations under EU law and sustainably manage sea fishing activity in its 200 mile zone".

I have listened to much of the debate over recent weeks and I agree with many aspects, although not the previous contribution. On mad ideas such as shooting into boats, I believed the age of technology had gone beyond the need for tactics that related to ages gone by. I trust that this was a red herring. It will not distract me from the more central messages of the proposed changes. Regarding guns, I am not sure that a sea fishery officer needs either an armed garda or soldier to accompany him or her, as the Bill seems to state. Do members of our traffic corps need to be armed when they deal with motorists? I cannot see a difference between that and boats. It is an area that should be examined.

Before I deal with those changes, I would like to make a fundamental point. For years our fishing fleet was the oldest in Europe. I listened to Deputy Sargent and his information is, unfortunately, out of date. In the first years after I was elected I criticised the then Government for risking the lives of fishermen by sending them out to sea in what were, in effect, potential coffins. When Fianna Fáil entered Government it took on this issue and developed, in conjunction with an input from the industry, the whitefish fleet renewal programme to modernise the fleet. The Government lived up to its promises and the fishermen rose to the challenge the grant aid offered.

My home port of Greencastle gained as much as any harbour and more than most. It was and is seen as a great success coupled with the decommissioning scheme for the older boats and, recently, the decommissioning and support packages for smaller boats, which Deputy Sargent seems to have overlooked. I look forward to the Minister improving the facilities, which the Government has done over recent years in places such as Greencastle, for the landing of catches. A decline in the quotas for the sector occurred almost simultaneously. This was linked to the declining fish stocks and the need for management and approaches that would yield a sustainable fishery in future.

The fundamental issue is that we have fishermen who have invested heavily in good, safe boats that will take them to the fishing grounds to which others had the capacity to go to safely. However, now that they have mortgages for their boats, we say they cannot fish. I understand the concerns of Deputy Sargent and others about the issue of sustainable development, which is an issue for fishermen as much as anyone else. I understand the concepts of preserving and protecting and that not everyone has been scrupulous in his or her approach to what size of fish has been caught.

I also understand that when fishermen in my area proposed closing off particular areas in the early 1990s that were known as spawning or juvenile areas to protect stocks, both fishing organisations and the Department gave the impression that because 15 states needed to agree to the measure, it would be impossible. Our fishermen were ahead of their time as closed areas and times are now becoming acceptable. We are now learning what those in the north west were talking about 15 years ago. As such, what is this Bill about? Is it a big stick or a mechanism to aid the fishermen by increasing fines for illegal fishing to extraordinary levels when they are already European leaders? Does it help in any constructive manner the management of our fishery or does it ensure that officialdom can point to how seriously we take breaches of quotas?

The man in his new boat with his crew is at sea for more than a week and has told certain species of fish to stay out of his nets as he is not allowed to catch them. He is concentrating on a box of one species and half a box of something else. What happens? The fish do not listen to him and when he pulls up his nets he has dead incursions, so to speak, from these forbidden fish. If he is boarded, he is brought to shore. Even though most of his stock is legal, he will be referred to the Circuit Court. By this definition, his gear and catch will be confiscated, his boat will be bonded and he will either lose days fishing or pay the bond. He must then get legal representation for the court case.

I have heard stories of people having in the region of €5,000 worth of illegal fish on board that they refused to throw out. Deputy Sargent spoke about wasting dead fish. Research suggests that these fish should be brought on board as part of the recognised catch.

The fisherman might have a small number of illegal fish on board. He pays his crew, for food and fuel, after which he must buy new gear, pay for the loss of catch, days at sea and legal fees apart from the fines. He is practically put out of business by the sheer multiple nature of the value of all that compared with the amount of fish concerned in the initial arrest. This may come across as anecdotal and perhaps it is, but the current punishment does not fit the crime and this is my fundamental point. Increasing the level of fine will no more add to the debate or address the core issue.

This leads me to say bluntly that a mechanism must be found to treat different breaches in different ways. If there are minor breaches of our road traffic laws, there should be a type of on-the-spot fine so that one can either pay or choose to fight the case in court. In traffic offences it is understood that if one admits one was in the wrong, one can get off lighter.

See this speech in context