Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Labour Party for allocating us time to contribute to the debate on this Bill, which Sinn Féin supports. As the explanatory memorandum states, there is an issue regarding fish stocks. Everyone involved in the fishing sector in this country recognises that. However, it is also the case, as stated, that the punitive measures that were introduced to penalise Irish fishermen are not only inefficient but have caused a great deal of resentment within fishing communities. The current measures mean that a fisherman found to be in breach of certain regulations may end up with a criminal record rather than having to pay a fine as would be the case in legislation covering any other economic sector, such as farming. This means that anybody fishing even a little over quota will end up in court and with a criminal conviction. Such persons will be unable subsequently to travel to the United States or Australia, for example. This is a disgraceful provision which would not be imposed on any other sector in our community.

The explanatory memorandum refers to stocks being low, but there is an issue regarding the scientific evidence cited in support of some restrictions and a view that the research carried out is not always accurate. Even apart from that, many people in the sector are of the view that the management of the Irish fishery should primarily be a domestic responsibility rather than the current situation where almost everything to do with the sector is at the whim of diktats from the fisheries directorate in Brussels. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is in effect enforcing those diktats rather than any logically arrived at measures decided in this House. That is a legacy of the surrender of our fishery not only to the bureaucrats who determine quotas and sanctions but also to an entirely unfair distribution of quota allocation within Irish waters which, since 1973, has meant that Irish fishermen have been at an extreme disadvantage in terms of access to quota and has led to the taking of as much as €200 billion worth of fish from our waters. If that figure is accurate it represents a criminal waste of a potentially valuable natural resource that could have been developed in a way that made fishing a significant contributor to economic growth and exports.

When the entire European Union quota for all fishing waters in 2008 and for all European Union fleets was taken into account, the Irish quota was a mere 9% of the overall total. Even within Irish waters, where almost all of the Irish sector's catch originates, the disparities were glaring. For example, France had 42% of whitefish quota in Irish waters in 2008 compared with just 15% for Irish fishermen. That is, by any reckoning, a glaring disparity and a completely unfair distribution of quota. It is difficult to imagine that any other sovereign European Government would agree to that type of surrender of such a valuable natural resource, but that seems to have been lost on those who negotiated the disastrous deal prior to accession. The current reform of the Common Fisheries Policy presents an opportunity for the State to insist on a radical reform of the system to address these issues. It has also been pointed out that the European Union flouts its own principle of subsidiarity in regard to the governance of the fishing sector. In place of this rigid and unfair centralised management of the fishery, individual states - including Ireland - need to reclaim the primary responsibility for fisheries within the national 200-mile limit under the principle of "applied subsidiarity". All vessels operating within that limit would then become subject to the full force of Irish law.

This is the background to the criminal sanctions that were introduced several years ago in the face of almost unanimous opposition from everyone involved in the fishing sector as well as from within the Fianna Fáil Party, including those Members who were members of the Oireachtas committee when the legislation was debated. Despite this opposition, the Government chose to proceed with measures that have caused a great deal of resentment among coastal communities throughout the country. One need only recall the two referenda on the Lisbon treaty to gauge the degree of resentment. In the first referendum, up to 90% of voters in coastal communities rejected the proposal in a show of protest against these provisions.

The legislative measures were accompanied by the establishment of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority which was empowered by the legislation to police the fishing community in a manner which, to many fishermen, effectively placed them on the same level as criminals involved in drug dealing. As I recall, the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell, made an insinuation at the time the legislation was going through that this was indeed how he viewed fishermen who were in breach of regulations. That was a disgraceful comment which hurt many people, particularly those in rural and coastal communities. Nobody would attempt to defend anyone involved in illegal practices that impact negatively on the rest of the fishing community or which represent a serious threat to fish stocks. However, there is a widespread perception that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority acts in a heavy handed manner and concentrates to a massive extent on Irish fishermen, which is not reflective of the level of illegal fishing in our waters by non-Irish vessels. Many fishermen find the authorities in this country completely impotent or even uninterested in tackling this reality, even though it has been estimated that the illegal catch by foreign vessels from Irish waters could be one third or perhaps even more of the declared catch.

There is a strong belief among fishermen that illegal fishing by non-Irish boats is underestimated. On that basis, there are proposals that fishery control and surveillance should be related to quota so that vessels from bigger fleets are given proportionate attention rather than the current situation where Irish vessels are paid a greater level of attention by the protection agencies than is warranted by the share of the quota in Irish waters enjoyed by the Irish fleet. The Kerry County Development Board made a similar point in this regard in a report I presented to the Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food two years ago, indicating that the regulations governing stock management were not being applied equally across the different national fleets.

I support the proposal to replace the existing criminal sanctions with the administrative sanctions and fines set out in this Bill. That change undoubtedly reflects the view within the fishing sector and would ensure that fishermen in breach of regulations are dealt with in the same way as other businesses found to be in breach of regulations pertaining to their sector. This is far preferable to the heavy handed powers contained in the most recent legislation. I urge the Government to recognise the sentiment that exists within the fishing community towards the existing legislation and the manner in which the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority executes its remit. The replacement of criminal sanction provisions with administrative measures and fines would go a long way to reducing some of the negativity that exists within coastal communities.

Deputy Aylward spoke about the number of salmon in the rivers Barrow, Nore and Suir last year and how he expects to see more salmon this year. The implication of this is that it was drift salmon fishermen who were responsible for fish not getting up the rivers. I made a living from drift fishing at one time, both legally and illegally. I do not deny it.

See this speech in context