Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

The current punishment does not fit the crime and increasing the level of the fine will neither add anything to the debate nor address the fundamental issue. I will state bluntly that a mechanism must be found to treat different breaches in different ways. For minor breaches, as in the penalty points system for traffic offences, there should be a choice between a type of on-the-spot fine which a person can pay or decide to fight the case in court. It is understood that if one admits the offence in the case of a traffic offence, one will receive a lighter sentence than if one unsuccessfully fights the system. A statutory instrument of 2003 exists for the imposition of administrative fines. If such an instrument exists for inland fisheries there should be an option to expand it. If administrative fines are imposed for motor offences why should those "driving" on our waters be different?

I refer to the current debate on the treatment of on-the-runs. Fishermen will be criminalised which could, for instance, jeopardise a person's access to the USA, while it is proposed that presidential pardons be given to people who may be regarded as having committed serious acts. If is not fair to criminalise fishermen.

One of the costs involved is the confiscation of gear and catch. This decision should not be regarded as automatic because the case is heard in the Circuit Court. Some level of discretion must be allowed. The Judiciary should be in a position to decide between the seriousness of one crime and another. The mandatory confiscation of gear provided for in the Bill will leave a judge hamstrung. The punishment should fit the crime.

I have an issue with the proposal in the Bill that a boat may be confiscated. I ask the Minister of State to confirm in what circumstances a boat may be confiscated and whether the offence is linked to the boat or the fisherman. It is obvious that if a warning is given to a boat owner and he decides to sell the boat, if the penalty is attached to the boat the value of the boat at the point of sale will be undermined. This may be a point to be reviewed. I would be interested to know if the Minister of State will table amendments on this point on Committee Stage.

I do not support blatant abuses of quotas. If fishermen cannot see that huge over-catches of a depleted stock will ensure less opportunities for themselves and their families into the future, this will be their loss sooner rather than later. Many people in my area wish to bring family members into the industry and they are therefore aware that depletion of the stock is not desirable.

I refer to section 14(3)(b) which is confusing as to the role of the buyer, handler, weigher and haulier. If a haulier transports fish that subsequently turns out to be illegal, he can be held responsible. While it may sound fine on paper to embrace all those who might collaborate in the breaking of a law, I wonder in practice how one can define whether a haulier was in a position to know that certain fish were over the quota or without a quota. Is this always to be a knowing breach?

In respect of sea-fisheries officers being given a special status, I question whether it is advisable to give one group of people immunity while denying it to other groups such as buyers, handlers, weighers and hauliers.

On the question of knowing one is over the quota, it is vital in the age of modern technology that a fisherman is communicated this message by electronic means. It is not good enough that a letter is sent out by post or delivered by hand to the fisherman's residence or place of business, as proposed in section 13. Letters may be delayed or mislaid. An oral and-or hand delivered message is vital with the back-up of electronic means. If breaches of quota are to be treated so seriously the fishermen must be advised in a fair and comprehensive manner of their authorisation. The case I have in mind is that of the by-catch scenario which is part and parcel of the whitefish and nephrops fisheries. Reports confirm that by the very act of trawling up to 80% of non-target species can be caught. To throw these dead fish into the sea would not be illegal but does not make sense. Recent reports in the UK seek to have the "discarding" policy reviewed and suggest the preference of landing the entire catch, in particular from the perspective of accurate catch data. Other Members have mentioned this.

The basic premise of my contribution today is that our fishermen are doing a difficult job in difficult conditions. Their families watch them leave for days and wonder if they will return. Last week we saw Wexford families grieve. I hope all those lost will be recovered. Greencastle knows that grief and the people of Donegal share it. We recently remembered those lost from the Carrickatine. Ten years on they have never been found.

The fisherman's job gets more difficult as the fish stock dwindles. We all have a role to play in this area, none more so than fishermen. This Bill will not do the industry justice unless it amends the issues of concern. The concerns have been well rehearsed here. We must work towards the gradation of sanctions and new methods of administrative sanctions that decriminalise offences that are not comparable to what one would normally think of as criminal offences. We must yet, in differentiating between serious and minor crimes, enable those committing serious offences to be treated in a serious manner. Following this, we must link the confiscation of gear and catch to a punishment fitting the crime scenario.

We also need an alternative manner of dealing with the seafood control regulation, whether through an independent office or some such mechanism. I know some people worry about the creation of more independent offices with regard to accountability to the House. We are in a situation where if we put a question to the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, it will be referred to Fáilte Ireland. If we put a question to the Minister for Public Transport, we will be told it is the responsibility of the NRA and if we put a question to the Minister for Health and Children, we will be told it is the responsibility of the HSE. Therefore, I sometimes worry that we may create too many independent structures. One other change we need to make is to remove the threat of the use of guns, both in terms of firing at vessels and in terms of their presence on vessels. The main request made to me by fisherman is for a level playing pitch. They want to be on a comparable level to other nations and to have a future for their industry.

I would like the message to come clearly from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources that fishermen, like their Ministers, are presiding over a progressive industry with a future. The concept of control and management has been well aired and debated in many documents at which I have briefly glanced. There are some things we can do in this age of technology to help the industry and we should put some options back on the table with regard to how to manage our fisheries and support our industry. These positive messages may yield more positive reaction from those at the heart of the industry and encourage them to use peer pressure on those who want to abuse and not use the potential of the sea.

Recently I read that in 2003, Denmark, Spain, the UK and France were amongst the highest offenders. On the other hand, in 2005, the UK was graded 19.5 out of 20 on the current implementation of the cod recovery programme, which aims to preserve stocks. The need to work with the industry to not only use its expertise, but also give fishermen days at sea to do constructive work in conservation or observation is clear and has positive potential. We need a proactive and collaborative approach that is grounded in science to kick off policy development that will manage fisheries as an ecosystem and not as a single focus on any individual species or any individual player in the marine sector.

I will digress slightly. Earlier this month I attended the British Irish Interparliamentary Body in Edinburgh. As part of Committee B, the committee dealing with European Affairs, I and others looked at the co-operation programme, specifically at the opportunities that lie ahead for co-operation between places like west Scotland and north east Donegal. Representatives from the Inishowen rural development Leader group, IRDL, and ICBAN attended. Continuing changes in the fisheries policy of 2003, which helped with the setting up of regional management bodies and gave control back to national governments for the area within the 12 mile zone, give a potential boost and offer the potential to do some co-operative fishery management, particularly as Inishowen Head to Islay is only 33 miles. If we work together on 24 of those 33 miles we could have some say on how that small section is managed properly. Perhaps this may expand into greater opportunities or have important results in terms of supporting that ecosystem.

Recently, we had a Private Members motion on global warming. It is worth putting on record that global warming is having an effect on our fishing stock. As the seas warm, the plankton stock that is vital for fish larvae survival is affected. Global warming also results in fish moving northwards. This is important information for future consequences. A cod used to live for 20 years, getting more successfully productive as it aged. The current rate of fishing ensures that cod are caught younger, usually by the age of six. This creates a hidden difficulty of ensuring that we cannot confidently predict how they will adapt to their new environment, namely their new climate or change in their supporting ecology. If fish are caught younger they do not get the extra years to enable them adapt to new circumstances. What stock will we have left in a number of years if the global warming effect continues as it is? We must consider the ecosystem and not just blame the most convenient source, the fishermen.

The message is clear that future policy must be a co-operative venture for it to succeed. The comparison between the price of success and the price of failure is so great that the issues must be well thought through. This Bill, while necessary, needs to be amended. It also needs an associated positive focus on how to support our industry. We should not just figure how much harder we can make this most difficult job.

I welcome the fact that we have decided to take this Bill more slowly rather than put it through Report and Final Stages in the House this week. That would have been a terrible injustice to maritime interests around the country. I congratulate the Minister of State and the Minister for taking on board the issues we have raised and the points we have made. I ask that the Bill be given considerable time on Committee Stage. I know the Minister of State is anxious to address as many of the issues as is practicable. I hope the time given on Committee Stage will yield a better Bill.

Now that I have the opportunity, I will be parochial and wish the Minister of State well with the development of Greencastle harbour. People have invested in new boats, supported by this Government's modernisation scheme, and it is great to see that people in the industry still have enthusiasm for it, despite the difficulties they face, both on and off the sea. There is to be a massive injection of infrastructure at Greencastle. Given the great support recently for marine infrastructure around the country, I know the Greencastle development will be a priority for the Minister of State.

I wish to raise two final issues. Are fishermen entitled to postal votes? Fish farmers currently have an exemption from payment on their stores or sheds for holding fishing gear. Should this be considered for fishermen also, not where they are working from commercial premises, but for sheds for storing gear? The Minister of State knows they are under many pressures.

I have aired the main concerns of the Bill. We want fairness and we want punishments that fit the crime. We also want the Department to look as positively at the future of the industry as do the fishermen.

See this speech in context