John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill. This legislation is an example to the nation of how legislation should not be introduced. It is symptomatic of the general mismanagement, lack of awareness and neglect that has been the hallmark of the Government's approach to the fishing industry for the past nine years. It has no policy for the industry and, because of this lack of direction, we spent many days in the Oireachtas joint committee discussing 222 amendments to the original Bill. The fact that more than 100 were Government amendments emphasises the ill-conceived and ill-thought out nature of the Bill and lack of concentration on the industry prior to the introduction of the legislation.

This could not contrast more with the approach being taken in the UK where they are considering modernising their fisheries legislation. There the Minister launched a consultation process, which was open to all interested parties, to assess the possibility of reducing the burden on fishermen, the courts system and all concerned by making minor fisheries offences subject to administrative sanctions. Here, however, we find none of this transparency and rational debate. Instead we have had to listen to Ministers engage in megaphone diplomacy and propaganda.

The substitution of legislation for action is a major difficulty. As Deputy Broughan stated correctly, if illegal activity is taking place, it should be dealt with. The legislation will not change this. The Minister cited the Browne case but I do not think it will have an impact. We have also had to endure the debacle of the changing horses scenario. While it was obvious that the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, did not support the Bill, he had to do so in public. He was then followed by the Minister who sought to influence the public through the media by attempting to discredit the entire fishing industry. It is appalling because the industry is a national asset. The perception of the industry which has been illustrated in the press may be of concern to those who may wish to invest in the industry, such as the banks and financial institutions. Unfortunately, the spin the Minister put on the issue has damaged the industry.

I want to make Fine Gael's position clear. It does not condone over-fishing. Where there is large-scale criminal behaviour, it must be tackled. Serious offences must attract serious penalties. However, it is also Fine Gael's position, and the position of the majority of Opposition Members and a large number of Government backbenchers, that minor offences should be dealt with by administrative penalties. Some 86% of European offences are dealt with in this fashion. The European Commissioner for Fisheries, Mr. Borg, indicated that he would prefer administrative sanctions. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, stated that if Europe issues a mandate, he will consider administrative sanctions. This is a cop-out because the Minister knows that no mandate will be given from Europe. This issue of administrative sanctions is a major issue which needs to be addressed. This is an ideal opportunity to address the issue.

The fishing industry faces considerable problems. Fishermen are required to be familiar with thousands of pages of EU legislation so inevitably mistakes will be made. This reality is accepted by the majority of other member states who deal with these infringements in a commonsense way by using administrative penalties. Ireland is now the only country in Europe not considering this option. I urge the Minister to come down off his high horse and consider this option which will save Irish fishermen from criminal records and costly court appearances. It will also save money for Irish taxpayers, about whom the Minister appears to be concerned, because we will not have to spend resources on court proceedings for every offence.

The Minister's arguments against the introduction of administrative sanctions are spurious. Not only did the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, seek to influence the public with a procession of half truths, the Ministers have attempted to do the same to Members of the Opposition and their own backbenchers. This is a serious matter when one considers the constitutionality of administrative sanctions. At a meeting of the Oireachtas joint committee of 12 October last, the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, said: "[L]egal advisers tell me that Article 34.1 of the Constitution poses a problem if I wish to introduce administrative sanctions". This was a clear indication to members of the committee and the fishing industry that there were legal difficulties. It was also reinforced to the committee on 26 January by Deputy O'Donovan, a supporter of the amendments to this Bill, when he said:

This is no secret. It has been published clearly in the media that the Attorney General's advice is that administrative sanctions are not possible in this country because of our Constitution. That has been put to us and we have discussed it at the parliamentary party meeting.

Last week at the same meeting, the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said he did not say it was unconstitutional. However, his junior Minister and party colleagues were of a different opinion.

It appears that the joint committee has been led on a merry dance and a significant amount of time and resources has been spent on the issue for no reason other than being led on a wild goose chase over which the Minister presided. It is nothing short of scandalous that there has been an attempt to guillotine the Dáil debate on the issue. Were it not for the intervention of the Fine Gael Party and the rest of the Opposition, this would have happened to the detriment of the Irish fishing industry.

The Minister is now claiming that administrative sanctions are unsuitable. How can a system which is suitable for the majority of countries in Europe be unsuitable for Ireland? It appears to be acceptable to have a Common Fisheries Policy but a widely different system of enforcing it. We must examine section 13 which allows the Minister to issue authorisations. These authorisations are pressure stock licences, which normally relate to quota stock management. They authorise the fishing of certain stock in a specific area at a certain time. For example, the Celtic Sea herring fishery is open at a certain time of the year and the Minister allows certain boats to fish there. As herring is a quota species, the Minister manages the fishery so that he can close it when the quota is finished.

The amendment proposes that the Minister should issue an order which would delegate these authorisations to a body specified in the order. Such a body, which would be made up of producer groups, could then issue the authorisations. The legislation is about subsidiarity which is promoted in Europe by many countries. It is not the Minister or his Department who fish illegally, it is the fishermen. This amendment would allow the Minister to make the producer organisations responsible for the actions of their members.

The amendment to subsection (2) proposes that a person who fishes must enter into a bond, as must the body which will be made up of producer groups. The amendment proposes that the bond will not be less than twice the value of the fish estimated by the Minister that the sea fishing boat to which the authorisation relates may catch pursuant to that authorisation. The amendment proposes that the bond should not be less than twice the value of the stock in respect of the delegated functions in subsection (1). The amendment dictates that the bond will be forfeited where the infringement is detected. However, if the body decides that the breach is technical in nature or minor, a percentage of the bond may stand to be forfeited. Section 6 allows that the sea fisheries protection authority may appoint a person to exercise the functions of the body when it is deemed that the body has failed to perform its functions.

Subsection (9) of my amendment No. 23 states that when the bond mentioned in subsection (4) is forfeited, the authorisation to fish will be void for a period of 30 days for the first infringement, 60 days for the second and 100 days for the third. While this may seem harsh, anybody who continues to offend must be treated in a strong manner as their actions could impose severe penalties on the Irish taxpayer from the European Court of Justice. The period in which the authorisation is void begins on the day of the forfeiture and continues for days when it would have been lawful to fish.

Subsection (9) also deals with an increase in the size of the bond after a first and second infringement, respectively, have occurred. If a fisherman infringes once, the bond will increase to four times the value of the fish that the sea-fishing boat may catch pursuant to the relevant authorisation. If the fisherman infringes a second time, the bond will be not less than six times the value of the fish. Subsection (10) provides that if the bond is forfeited three or more times in a five-year period, neither the fisherman nor the boat may participate in fishing the stock or groups of stock to which the authorisation relates for a period of one calendar year.

The Bill as it stands seems to be all about criminalisation. Section 28 sets out the proceedings and sanctions in regard to the offences outlined in the tables included in that section. Amendment No. 23 provides for an approach of natural justice rather then criminal proceedings. Subsection (5) proposes that the body to which the Minister has delegated his or her functions shall notify the person concerned of the proposal and the reasons thereof. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the implications of this amendment in regard to administrative sanctions.

As Deputy Broughan said, this Bill has been debated to death. The Minister has said the taxpayer will be exposed to fines of millions of euro if we fail to implement this legislation, but that is not the case. It is merely another false justification from the Minister. The example was given of the French Government having to pay €20 million with additional fines of €57 million. This related to a case dating back to 1991 and there has been a complete failure since then by the French Government to answer or even attempt to answer concerns. A report in last Monday's edition of The Irish Times relates that an EU official said "Ireland does not face any multi-million euro fines over CFP breaches". The impending fines we face relate to the failures of the Minister in providing catch and effort information as required under EU law. Would the Minister support automatic criminalisation of those who fail to comply with data regulations? If so, a number of his officials would find themselves in hot water as several proceedings have been initiated against us in this regard.

The Minister has alleged during this debate that there are high levels of criminality within the fishing industry. The effect of this was to blacken the name of the entire industry. When pressed on this, he was quick to point out that this alleged criminal activity involves a small number of vessels, but the allegations have done untold damage to the industry by drawing conclusions based on the activities of a minority. All these issues are being pursued by the Minister in the name of the conservation of fish stocks. People in coastal communities, however, are reasonable in asking about the fleet of ten foreign freezer trawlers currently fishing thousands of tonnes of fish per day only 20 miles from the south coast. Is the Minister aware that the second largest vessel in the world has just arrived off our coast to fish for mackerel? Will this receive the same level of attention from the Minister and our control resources? I know it will not.

The only positive element arising from this debate is that many more people now realise that fishing is a valuable industry for coastal communities. This was highlighted by the dignified protest by the sector in the ports in January. These communities face harsh challenges on a daily basis and need our political support. We have failed to provide this support and there is now need for a comprehensive plan. In supporting these amendments, I ask the Minister to seriously consider, in light of the major debate that has taken place, the introduction of administrative sanctions for minor offences.

See this speech in context