Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will share time with Deputy Ring. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I have listened to the various speakers on this issue over the past weeks and am fascinated by what has happened with regard to this Bill. As one who had the experience of introducing new legislation, when I was fortunate enough to be a junior Minister in the mid-1990s, I am amazed by what has happened with this Bill. The procedure has been quite extraordinary.

I remember that when I introduced legislation, it was new and without precedent. I had to go through the procedures with two civil servants in the Department and with the draftsman. Every part of that Bill had to be considered. The heads were agreed by Government and the provisions were agreed by me and the Government. In this case, I find it extraordinary that speaker after speaker from the Government side has come into the House to criticise a Government Bill, which is entirely unprecedented. I do not know whether analysts are looking at this, but it would certainly be a very interesting exercise.

I have great admiration for the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, whom I have known since I became a Member. He has always been friendly to me, but the word is about — I do not know whether it is true and I do not believe everything I hear — that he is also against this Bill. That is even more extraordinary than the criticisms by other Members on the Government side.

Members are making one point in the House and a different point to the fishermen in their constituencies to keep them happy. In this case, it could be said the Government side of the House has expressed the view that it is not in favour of the Bill. I was amazed to hear the view of former Minister, Deputy Walsh, who introduced several Bills in the House. He is very familiar with how legislation is formed and is emphatically against this Bill. He made a major statement in this regard, which was taken up by the media, and he is one of the few people who were quoted in respect of the legislation. He took an extraordinarily hard stand against it. Politically, the Bill represents a major departure and a new way of doing business in this House. It represents a new type of opposition, by Members on the Government side, to legislation.

The Bill affords us an opportunity to consider fishing policy, of which there is need for a major review. Many reports are issued in this regard but they are sectoral and do not include a major debate. Various interest groups are not consulted and this is what results in sectoral reports. There is no doubt that there is great need for a major debate on issues such as conservation, life protection and fisheries development.

Let me refer to the issue of salmon stocks. I have spent all my life living near the River Feale in County Kerry, which flows right by my village, Finuge, and the town of Listowel. As a young person, I fished on that river, as did hundreds of fishermen, both locals and visitors. The river was a major source of wealth to the local economy, probably for 50 years, but now there are very few people fishing on it, for recreation or otherwise, because the stock level is simply too low. It is really important that major salmon initiatives are introduced. Deputy Perry will introduce a policy in this area in the new year.

I find it difficult to understand why the scientific advice on salmon stocks has been ignored consistently. This was the case even last year when the quota was set at a figure 40% higher than that recommended. If that is not an effort to destroy the salmon stocks, I do not know what is.

The Maritime Institute of Ireland, the Central Fisheries Board, the relevant international agencies and the tourism boards have called for a change to the way in which salmon stocks are managed. The common factor in all scientific advice is the call for a decrease in the number who use commercial nets to fish for salmon.

I am the Fine Gael spokesman on tourism and in this capacity I note that the number of game angling tourists, who fished on the River Feale, drank in the local bar, the Angler's Rest, and stayed in the Listowel Arms Hotel, has declined in recent years. In 1999, 54,000 game angling tourists came to Ireland, but this figure has reduced to 27,000 by this year. The contribution to GNP of salmon angling declined by 52% since 1986, that is, from €28.6 million to €13.6 million. This is a considerable decline in income for small rural communities, in whose localities the game angling rivers are generally located. The fall in numbers has led to the closure of facilities, including guesthouses, and a decline in the business of bars and restaurants. This is a major issue and it is simply not being addressed or fully understood.

I, like all my colleagues, oppose this Bill. It may have a few welcome aspects and in this regard I certainly welcome the section that enshrines in Irish law the part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea extending Irish jurisdiction over the waters around our coasts.

On the issue of protection, we cannot have people drifting around the sea and plundering and pillaging our fish stocks with no thought for the common good, the need for sustainable exploitation rates and the need to maintain the quality and biodiversity of our marine environment. Although I agree with this I do not believe it can be achieved through this legislation. Although Committee Stage of the Bill is to be taken after Christmas, I advise strongly that it be withdrawn following consultation.

The urgency of this Bill has arisen from the two cases in Kerry that were taken to the Supreme Court. They occurred two years ago but the skies have not fallen in since then. There have been many prosecutions in the meantime and therefore I see no reason for this very tough approach.

I am from a coastal constituency with a large number of small and medium-sized fishing enterprises, including individuals. Fishing is very important to the fabric of life in a county such as Kerry, which has 300 miles of coastline. I am very conscious that the sanctions proposed in this Bill, if enacted, will be imposed on the smallest vessels in my area in addition to the largest ones. There will be as many small operators who will be affected as large operators.

The Minister contends it is constitutionally impossible to have in place a system of administrative sanctions as an alternative to purely criminal sanctions, the strength of which has been increased in this Bill. My colleague Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred to this in his contribution last week. Similar examples arise in respect of road traffic offences and I am sure that, in the case of sanctions, they cannot be referred to this Bill also.

I join Members of the European Parliament, Deputies on the Government side and Deputies on this side of the House, including Deputy Perry, in appealing to the Minister of State to withdraw the Bill and allow for the consultation demanded by many people. If he does so, we will, I hope, get the legislation right collectively.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Christmas is approaching and I will not get angry today. The Minister of State, the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, its MEPs and all others in that party are telling the fishermen of this country that this is a bad Bill. There is no point in the Minister of State, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats blaming officials because officials do what they are told. The Bill is sponsored by the Minister of State who is responsible for marine affairs. I have listened carefully to fishermen throughout the country in this regard and know they are very unhappy. The Minister of State and Fianna Fáil Members and MEPs are also unhappy. There must be something very wrong when everybody is unhappy. When legislation goes through the House, somebody is usually happy with it but nobody is happy with this Bill. Even the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is against it.

Deputies Walsh and O'Donovan and others who have spoken against the Bill in the House should do the honourable thing and vote against it. There is no point saying one thing in a constituency and doing another in the House. If the legislation is wrong and not good for fishermen, and they know it is not good and are not happy with it, Members should vote against it.

My colleagues have appealed to the Minister to withdraw the Bill, which he should do. He should have further discussions with fishermen, the officials of his Department and officials in Europe and return to the House with another Bill which would meet the needs of the fishing community. The Minister of State has represented that community well over the years. He knows fishing is a difficult business and a difficult life. He and I know of the serious tragedy that occurred in recent weeks to fishermen trying to make a living.

We do not want two laws, one for our fishermen and another for European fishermen. The State has given away fishing rights to other European states. Super-boats are coming to Ireland, plundering all before them, yet nobody does anything about it. However, when a small fisherman in the west, Donegal or elsewhere steps outside the line, he is immediately lifted by the coastguard, taken in, charged by the fisheries boards and has his fish and nets seized. In addition to being fined, fishermen will become criminals as a result of the Bill. A fisherman trying to work, make a living and raise his family is not a criminal. He is competing against the best boats in Europe as well as the rules and regulations which help the Europeans while crucifying our own fishermen. This must be stopped.

Legislation was rushed through the House last year only for it to be found unconstitutional in the courts last January. While the Bill before us may not be unconstitutional, it is not good legislation. I appeal to the Minister of State, who has represented a fishing community for many years, to withdraw the Bill. He should not guillotine it and force his colleagues to vote for it when they know it is wrong, as I and many MEPs know. The sanctions that will be taken against fishermen are not right. Instead of having to pay fines, they will be made criminals and will have a record for the rest of their lives because they fought for their livelihood and their rights and tried to make a living in difficult circumstances. The Minister should withdraw the legislation.

I have seen enough of the elected representatives in this House handing powers to State agencies, in particular the National Roads Authority and the Health Service Executive. When I put questions to Ministers, I am told they have no responsibility to the Dáil. We ask the people to vote every four or five years and to put their faith in the representatives they elect to this House, yet we hand over too many powers to outside agencies which are not accountable to anybody. We see this process at work in the Health Service Executive, local authorities and all State agencies. The Leader programme boards and community groups have more power than this House, which is seen as no more than a rubber stamp to provide jobs for the boys and girls in these agencies.

The introduction of seafood managers is another similar transfer and another negative aspect of the Bill. While it will create more big jobs, when the managers are asked to do something, they will say they have no power to do it, as is the case with the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs. When one writes to that body, one is told it is outside its power to act and that it cannot deal with the issue in question. It will be the same with seafood managers.

Seizing the boats, nets and catches of fishermen does not make sense. When European legislation is introduced, why is it that we go four times better and act more severely than every other European country? France and Italy simply ignore European legislation whereas we tackle the small guy. This is turning into a police state. This bad Bill should be withdrawn immediately.

Deputy Perry outlined the Fine Gael view on the Bill. He stated we will introduce the necessary amendments on Committee Stage to deal with the problem. However, the Bill should not reach Committee Stage and should be withdrawn immediately. We had strong Ministers in the past. If they did not agree with legislation, they did not allow it to get through the Dáil. Strong Ministers were not afraid to vote against legislation when it was not right. I call on Fianna Fáil backbenchers who are speaking out of the sides of their mouths in the constituencies and at committee to do the right thing and vote against the Bill. It is bad legislation and will cause difficulty in the future for the Minister of State, me and every rural Deputy.

Fishing is a difficult business. Fishermen are trying to make a living but they are regulated to the extent that they are sick and tired of it. They are feeling the pinch because past Governments sold the fishing industry to get rights for the agricultural sector, which has also been taken away by European regulation. If Mr. Mandelson gets his way at the World Trade Organisation talks, nobody in this country will be fishing or farming. European visitors who want to use the west to have little sanctuaries for shooting will bring us back to the days of the landlord. We always complained about Britain but we are worse to our own people than any landlord ever was. At least when the landlord was here, we knew he was the landlord. Now, the State and its Ministers are the landlords. We saw a landlord in the House yesterday and know what happened in that regard.

I call on the Minister and Fianna Fáil backbenchers to withdraw this bad Bill which is neither wanted nor needed. Nobody called for it. If the Oireachtas and Irish MEPs do not want it, why is it before the House? The Minister of State should do the right thing. If he tells the Taoiseach he will resign if it is not withdrawn, he would be a hero to the fishing community. They would see him as the person who fought well for them. However, the fishing community sees Members as two-faced, having listened to Fianna Fáil Members say one thing and then another. The former Minister, Deputy Walsh, is a nice man and one I have always had time for. Listening to him last week, I thought he was a member of Fine Gael. He does not have to be a member of the party because all we ask him to do is vote with us today.

Jackie Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Glennon.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Jackie Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Coming as I do from a rural and coastal community, I have tremendous respect for any group of people who work at building up an industry and who maintain viable communities as a result. In my experience the fishermen of Ireland have worked extremely hard and have succeeded in establishing the industry in spite of massive Government neglect through the years. There are many coastal towns and villages which would crumble completely if the fishing industry and the revenue it provides were taken out. I hope the fishing industry will continue to develop and contribute to the economic well-being of the country.

When my attention was first drawn to this Bill, I was very surprised at the severity of the fines being proposed and the general approach being taken towards fishermen. It must be remembered that we are not discussing drug dealers or terrorists, but fishermen attempting to make a fair and credible living. This proposed Bill is totally unreasonable and over the top, penalising Irish fishermen far more than those from other European states. I am aware that across Europe, which in theory has a Common Fisheries Policy, the vast majority of fishery offences are dealt with differently than here. Irish fishermen already face the harshest penalties in Europe for fisheries offences. This has been reported in a number of debates in this House recently, and I do not need to quote facts and figures.

There has been a media campaign in the past few weeks claiming this Bill is required to avoid heavy fines from Europe. I cannot see the logic behind the increasing of fines to avoid European sanctions, when Irish fines are already the highest in Europe. This makes no sense to most, but it clearly does to some civil servants. This is a complete red herring and the European Commission does not support the introduction of heavier fines, but favours the use of administrative sanctions. Another justification for the Bill is the possibility of closing existing loopholes. I am in favour of this, but the addition of heavier fines and penalties for unrelated offences is completely unacceptable.

I have some questions for those in favour of this Bill in its current entirety, and who argue that it is required for the protection of the State and its fisheries. What actions are being taken to address the wholesale discarding of fish by fleet or factory trawlers off the Irish coast? These vessels are discarding more pelagic fish in a week than the majority of Irish vessels are landing in a year. If the powers that be are so interested in protecting our fish resources, why is this problem not being addressed?

It has been acknowledged in various European Commissions over the years that on top of having the highest fines, most Irish cases are heard in the Circuit Court, which results in the fisherman getting a criminal record and having an additional penalty of at least €10,000 and automatic confiscation of gear and catch. This provision for automatic confiscation of gear and catch applies only to Irish vessels. Those in charge of foreign vessels tried for the same offence will not face automatic confiscation of gear and catch.

This is despite foreign vessels fishing alongside Irish vessels and catching the majority of fish in Irish waters. The Government nonetheless appears determined to further penalise Irish fishermen by increasing the fines and penalties imposed. If this Bill goes through, the gap between the system here and in other member states will be wider than ever. I cannot understand why Irish fishermen are deserving of such special treatment. This is the same Government which showed its colours by downgrading the word "marine" three years ago. The same Government presides over the break-up of the Department into various ineffective sections. It would make one wonder whether the Government has an interest in the development of the Irish fishing industry.

This pattern is repeating over the years and is the reason the fishing industry finds itself under extreme pressure currently. This Government's vision of our coastal community extends only as far as summer holiday houses for well-off city dwellers. At this rate, the summer will be the only time people will reside in these coastal towns and villages, or partake in traditional industries such as fishing. What plans are being introduced to combat the 7,000 km of illegal gillnets off the Irish coast? These nets are slaughtering small fish 24 hours per day and nothing is being done about it. Will this Bill address these major issues? I feel it will not. I am certain it will badly affect Irish fishermen, however.

Ireland's fishing communities are under pressure from shrinking employment in traditional industries. I have serious reservations that this Bill, as proposed, has the potential to put fishing vessels large and small out of business. It will be another nail in the coffin of coastal communities. There must be a system which imposes sensible sanctions on those who commit fishery offences. A serious offence must receive a serious penalty. This Bill proposes sanctions that are completely unreasonable and unrelated to the European average. I have not seen its like since my election to this House.

I ask the Minister of State, for whom I have the greatest regard in the world, to consider this. As my colleague, Deputy Deenihan, already stated, I feel from the rumours circulating around from Dingle to Castletownbere that the Minister of State is not satisfied with the Bill. I appeal to the Minister of State to stand with the fishermen whom he knows very well and try to improve their lot, which is a bad one. I appeal to the Minister of State to look after these fisherman to the best of his ability.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae for sharing time. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, on his tremendous work over a long number of years in the area of sea fisheries. There is probably no other Deputy in the House as well qualified, or with the deep experience of the marine and fishing activities, as the Minister of State with regard to this issue.

When I mentioned to a person this morning that I would speak on this Bill, an eyebrow was raised. I was asked how a Dublin Deputy would have an opinion on marine matters. This relates to my interest in agricultural matters. My constituency of Dublin North has traditionally had the horticultural and mariculture industries as the twin pillars of its economy. The horticultural industry is doing quite well in difficult circumstances, but the same cannot be said about the fishing industry.

Within a few miles of my home there are the harbours and fishing ports of Balbriggan, Skerries and Loughshinny. Unfortunately I have seen in my lifetime the gradual decline of these harbours to bases for leisure activity rather than commercial activity. Growing up in Skerries in the 1960s there were ten boats fishing daily from the local harbour. In the late 1960s the pier was extended and doubled in size, and the fleet doubled in size. Over the next 20 years there were approximately 20 larger boats fishing out of Skerries. It is sad to report that there are currently only five boats fishing out of Skerries.

Balbriggan has dwindled somewhat also, although not to the same extent. There is a small amount of lobster fishing being done out of Loughshinny. It is sad that the Irish Sea has been over-fished to the point that it is almost cleaned out. The experience of the ports in my area is replicated along the coast from Kilkeel to Arklow. Some attribute this to over-regulation, others to under-regulation, while the more astute say it is due to abuse of regulation.

We all agree that the fishing industry was the victim of the State's accession negotiations to the then EEC, and it has had a bad time since. It was the poor relation of agriculture at the time of those negotiations in the early 1970s and remains so. It is overrun by foreign craft fishing with little regard for regulation or chance of detection. Our fishing industry has been the victim of bureaucracy for 30 years. My colleagues and I have received comments from fishermen around the country who see themselves as victims again in respect of this Bill.

I was interested to listen to many of my colleagues, whose knowledge of the marine is highly respected, debate this issue on 24 November. In particular, Deputy O'Donovan read into the record a letter from a solicitor whom he did not know. It stated:

I do a lot of work for people in the Marine business around the coast, and I have had a couple of recent cases of representing individuals under the fisheries Acts. In fact this morning, I was in the Circuit Criminal Court [where serious crimes relating to drugs, rape and violent crime against the person are dealt with, and fishermen are brought in there] representing a young fisherman whose offence was that he had not filled in the Log Book [a technical offence]. At the trial, evidence was given of extenuating circumstances — bad weather, mechanical breakdown, and there was no suggestion that he was to profit in any way for his administrative lapse.

Notwithstanding all of that, penalties in the amount of €40,000 were imposed, comprising of a fine of €10,000, forfeiture of the catch and the gear, and in addition the client was at the loss of fishing when his boat was tied up, and also the cost of legal fees...

Legal fees for the defence amounted to €40,000 for a technical offence from which he did not profit. There is something very badly wrong with a system that penalises a man doing his daily work in the difficult circumstances that fishing presents, amounting to a total cost of €80,000.

The point was made that, according to EU records and standards, 86% of all EU fisheries offences are dealt with by way of administrative sanctions. There is a dispute as to whether there is a constitutional impediment in this country to changing our laws to facilitate dealing administratively with these issues.

I appreciate the Minister of State's undertaking to pursue this matter at European level, although it cannot be accommodated in the Bill now. I urge him to proceed swiftly and diligently to deal with this anomaly, which is highly inequitable, at EU level. This appears to be the only answer. When legal opinion conflicts we must abide by that of the Attorney General.

While the levels of fines being introduced are maximum limits, there is something wrong with a system whereby existing fines are increased in some instances by up to 800%, which is out of kilter with the earnings of Irish fishermen. The fines appear to be introduced to deal with the factory ships of Europe, of which we have one or two. Most of our fishermen, however, are not in the factory ship business. There must be some way of linking fines to a vessel's tonnage and capacity.

The fines and detection rates among some of our EU colleagues smell of something badly wrong. In addition, while respecting the independence of the Judiciary, we must devise some system whereby the Judiciary is aware of the political reality and the reality on the ground. This is true not just of fines but of sentencing, which is regularly mentioned in the House. The practice of imposing different penalties on different walks of life, for various breaches of the law is severely criticised inside and outside the House.

Referring to the point raised in the letter to Deputy O'Donovan, I fail to understand why a man who was guilty of a mere technical offence in respect of his log book, in the extenuating circumstances of bad weather and mechanical breakdown, had to pay €80,000 to return to sea. This penalty is disproportionate to the potential profit of an expedition and in that instance the fisherman would not profit financially from his lapse. No other matters, such as previous convictions, were brought before the court. It is incredible that such a penalty is imposed on a man going about his business.

I shudder to think of the effect such a penalty would have on the farming lobby. There would be marches outside the door of the House. The farmers would rightly be camped outside the gate complaining, but because the fishermen are based off-shore, in such small and unfortunately ever-dwindling numbers, they do not have that capacity.

Deputy Deenihan seemed somewhat surprised at the attitude of Fianna Fáil backbenchers to this legislation. They have demonstrated a great exercise in parliamentary democracy. As a result of the debate within party rooms and in this Chamber, the Minister of State has undertaken significant changes which will be introduced on Committee Stage.