Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

I congratulate Deputy Jim O'Keeffe who has taken a great interest in this area since before the 2006 legislation was passed and followed its implementation. He has consistently argued on a legal basis that this is a flaw in the earlier legislation and, with his professional training, he is better equipped that many to do this. That view was shared by those with forked tongues. It is worth noting the comment of the Minister of State's predecessor, Deputy Killeen, on the new regime that will be implemented by the European Union. He welcomed it on the basis that we had "already moved substantially to a culture of compliance." That is important. It might not always have been the case, but it is the case now and that is the context in which to place this debate.

It is right and proper to remedy the defects in the 2006 legislation. The point has been well made by Deputy O'Keeffe that whatever the previous Attorney General's or even the current Attorney General's reservations might have been about adopting a similar regime as that in place elsewhere in Europe with regard to administrative sanctions, the proposals made in Deputy O'Keeffe's legislation are rooted in the Irish legislative experience and precedent. Under the penalty points system, there are fixed notice penalties, with a right of appeal to the District Court. That is an established principle. If one parks one's car on a double yellow line and is given a ticket, one can either pay the fine or take one's chances and go to court. That is the essence of what is contained in this Bill.

Deputy O'Keeffe's presentation was as non-confrontational as is possible in these Chambers. To an extent, the Oireachtas is on trial. Can we rise above the knee-jerk, traditional party political positioning and posturing, allow the Bill to be debated in committee and deal with it in the context of what is happening at European level? That also appears to expose a weakness in the Government's argument. The new regime which has come into being, the detail of which must still be worked out but which was provided for in law on 1 January this year, appears to suggest we can move to a system of administrative sanctions. Therefore, why not remove minor administrative misdemeanours from the criminal code and deal with them in an administrative fashion? That is the essence of this Bill. It would be welcome if we could rise above the knee-jerk reaction, whereby this side of the House can do no right and the Government side of the House can do not wrong until we get onto the Government side when we will have the monopoly of wisdom and the Government parties will be fools sitting on this side of the House. Regrettably, that is how the system works. With the collective wisdom of Members, we should be in a position to deliver a better law.

We are in no way advocating a charter for law breakers, cheats and those who put the livelihoods of their fellow fishermen at risk by driving a coach and four through laws, be they administrative or criminal, and fish illegally, plunder stocks, take no cognisance of conservation measures and undermine the entitlement of their fellow fishermen to make a reasonable living. That is not our objective. Our aim, as Deputy McCormack said, is to remove the fear for fishermen that if they go out in their boat and are a couple of kilograms above their allowed quota in a given month, they will find themselves facing a criminal sanction, with significant and punitive financial consequences.

This is about having a level playing pitch. For the benefit of those who might now be so aware, I will highlight the lack of a level playing pitch. Deputy O'Keeffe outlined how out of step we were with the rest of Europe in this regard. The average fine in Portugal for using and keeping on board prohibited fishing gear was €450, while it was €9,000 in the Netherlands. The average fine for unauthorised fishing in Belgium was €375 but €19,255 in the United Kingdom. The average fine for directed fishing of species subject to a prohibition was €20 in Denmark but €8,379 in Spain. The average fine for falsifying data required in the control of documents was €98 in Germany and €132,056 in the United Kingdom. In general, the average fine applied in Finland was €282 and in the United Kingdom was €77,922.

There is not a large number of alternative employment opportunities in these coastal areas. There are 10,000 people presently gainfully employed, both onshore and offshore in the processing and catching. As I travel around these areas, I hear the clarion call, "Give us a level playing pitch. Give us equity and fairness". That is what is at the heart of Deputy O'Keeffe's Bill. I would urge the Minister of State, Deputy Connick to be true to the spirit that was reflected on his own website prior to his elevation. He has a good grasp of the fishing issues. He comes from a coastal community that will watch will interest what he will say in this debate.

See this speech in context