Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I wish to respond to the last two speakers. The Labour Party supports the Bill which we believe is predicated on common sense, does what it says on the tin and is unambiguous in what it seeks to do, that is, decriminalise certain transgressions under the law. For Fianna Fáil to suggest somehow that any amendment to the current position would wreak havoc on the sustainability of the future of the industry is, to be frank, patronising to the thousands of fishing families who seek to make a living from this industry. It is quite patronising to the person who has taken the time to do the research and come before this House, and, in a genuine sense, who seeks to provide a solution to a problem the House has been debating since 2005.

I have examined the historical debates and it has to be stated, as a matter of fact, that the committees dealing with this matter had a very united view. There was cross-party support for an amendment to the legislation in order that one would not criminalise a person, as Deputy Sheehan has pointed out. Such a person would not be brought before the courts if he or she was 4 kg over a quota. That is the type of ludicrous situation which Deputy O'Keeffe's Bill seeks to address. That is fair.

In examining the Commission's Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, it states that a minuscule amount, as I understand it, is afforded to fisheries protection. I agree the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is needed, but there is a perception that the authority is not working in partnership or in tandem with the fishing organisations or the fishermen themselves. It is perceived, on the quay sides, as being against these people. I will speak about that in greater detail later.

I also wish to address the remarks of the Minister of State. I do not understand the logic behind the following comment:

I am not convinced, unfortunately, that this Bill would contribute positively to the rebuilding of fish stocks. Quite the opposite, in fact, my belief is that it could result in increasing the level of illegal fishing and further drive down the biomass of fish stocks leading to a collapse of many of the key commercial stocks around the coast on which our fishing industry is so dependent.

There is an assumption in that comment that if the current provisions whereby a man who over fishes by 4 kg is not subjected to the potential for administrative sanctions or sanctions before a court are changed or amended in any way, such a man will fish at a level of 200 kg over quota the following day. There is an underlying assumption that if some of the sanctions are amended or softened, the fishing industry and all those who own vessels will err on the side of criminality or will flout the law.

It is true that some have transgressed and should be subject to the full rigours of the law. However, for Fianna Fáil and the Government to suggest that any amendment would lead to a serious undermining and depletion of our fish stocks and would have an effect on sustainability is over-egging the pudding.

In his speech the Minister of State remarked in respect of France that all member states, including Ireland, were under close scrutiny by the Commission. He further remarked that in the case of France, in 2005 the European Court of Justice imposed a fine of €20 million together with a fine of €57.8 million for every month until the appropriate level of regulation was applied to its fishing industry. Did the Minister of State contextualise that statement? Did he state how much the fishing industry is worth to France? Did he state what percentage that fine was relative to the overall industry in France? Common sense dictates that fines of €20 million and €57.8 million are a drop in the ocean by comparison with what the industry is worth to France. It could not care less about sanctions. Few fishermen in France are subject to the equivalent of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority entering and confiscating their boats and bringing them up before the civil courts within two or three weeks or subject to files going to the French DPP or the Attorney General. That is simply not the case in France but if the Minister of State can prove otherwise I would be pleased to hear it. It is a matter of relativity. We are all aware there are fishermen who are no saints; it is well documented. However, if the Government is going to give us an argument against proposed legislation, at least it should give us something factual, not something out of context.

There is also the issue of proportionality to which the Minister of State referred in his speech. He stated that successive fisheries Ministers have seriously considered the imposition of administrative sanctions following representations and that on a number of occasions the advice of successive Attorneys General has been sought in relation to this approach. He further stated that the legal advice was that imposing sanctions such as those set out in the Fine Gael Bill would undermine the existing legislative framework, allowing offenders to avoid the very serious penalties, prosecution and forfeiture of gear by payment of a fine of €1,000 or less. However, the Bill clearly states there is no reason one cannot go after those persons who flout the law, who are repeat offenders and who have been in breach on successive occasions. It is still possible to impose the full rigours of the law and I do not understand why the Minister of State cannot apply the same logic here to the situation that applies to those who use quads on the mountains, to which Deputy O'Keeffe referred. I believe this point is worthy of a response by the Government.

As I understand the Bill, it allows for a scenario whereby an element of discretion is applied. If someone seriously flouts the law, one can bring that person before the court. However, where a person exceeds the limit of 4 kg, for example, which has happened, one does not apply the full rigours of the law because it is such a small administrative mistake or transgression and therefore common sense applies. I do not understand the Government's position in this regard.

We support the Bill. It has been discussed at cross-party level and at committee in the past. There has been agreement and I do not understand why the current situation prevails in the House. It speaks to the culture in this House as well, and it speaks volumes about why people outside the House are so cynical when one position is taken outside and inside the House, but then a person votes in a different way. It feeds into the cynicism about politicians when we give rich tea and sympathy to a position but then vote against it when it comes to the substance of the matter.

We agree there can be no doubt but that better enforcement is necessary for more effective fisheries management systems. Questions arise in our mind in respect of criminal sanctions and an equitable way of dealing with non-compliance of fisheries management systems. If the figures are to be believed, the marine sector yields an annual turnover of almost €3 billion and supports 44,000 jobs. These figures are supplied by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority 2007 report. If we are to believe it, then we must examine in greater detail where sanctions should be applied.

We all agree that any illegal activity that endangers the fish stocks of this island must be punished. When speaking to the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill in 2005, my colleague, Deputy Tommy Broughan, stated the most effective route for implementing a workable and successful means of control seems to be to impose harsh criminal penalties only on the most persistent and extreme offenders, which corresponds with the point I made earlier. This Bill allows for such a mechanism. The Labour Party believed strongly then, as now, that other breaches should be dealt with by mechanisms such as administrative penalties, on-the-spot fines and a transparent and predictable points system on licences similar to that which applies to owners of motor vehicles found to be transgressing the law.

An amount of consternation exists among Irish fishermen about the role of the SFPA. There is a perception among fishermen that they come under greater scrutiny from the authority's officers and that non-Irish vessels are left off the hook. We should examine this in greater detail. On page 27 of the authority's 2007 report there is a reference to the number of instances where legal action is taken by the SFPA against Irish vessels. Of the 99 cases in which legal action was required, some 23 were referred to the Attorney General's office, 52 written warnings were issued and 24 detention orders were made. There were 99 cases from 19,174 landings in 2007. These figures may have been updated since. Let us compare this to the figures for non-Irish vessels. In 2007, there were 1,465 landings and 1,351 inspections whereupon enforcement was taken in 42 cases. Of the 42 cases, some 18 resulted in detention orders, warning letters accounted for 23 cases and one file was sent to the Attorney General. We must speak to relativity because when we compare the number of inspections of Irish to non-Irish vessels we must factor in the number of landings as well. Perhaps this addresses Deputy Sheahan's earlier point. In essence, based on these figures it could be argued there is no evidence to suggest Irish owners are scrutinised more. However, I am certain that the fishermen's organisations would have a strong view on the matter and such data should be scrutinised independently. The essential point is that of the legal actions taken, the vast bulk are administrative in nature. However, there is little or no analysis provided by the SFPA as to the nature of those administrative and detention-related sanctions. The Bill, rightly, points out that "the sea fishing community in Ireland has been aggrieved at the use of onerous criminal penalties to control even minor breaches of technical regulations". This is the essence of the Bill and it is on this basis we support it.

See this speech in context