Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail)

I join with others in welcoming the Minister to the House. As I do not bring any pioneering aspect to the table in terms of this legislation, I shall be brief. I am in agreement with Senator O'Toole in disagreeing with the manner the debate on this matter has been personalised against the Minister. That is wrong. In general I admire the conviction with which the Minister goes about whatever aspect of legislation he is putting through the Houses of the Oireachtas, in this Department, indeed, as with others. That is to be admired. I recall effigies being burned outside houses and sub-machine guns to protect against rioters etc. over the years as regards somebody to whom I am quite close. I have seen all of that. The conviction with which the Minister goes about doing things should be admired and acknowledged rather than condemned for the sake of it.

In the context of this Bill there is much that can be welcomed. The debate has not focused sufficiently on such issues. There is much in the Bill to do with the basic and most important aspects of the fishing industry, conservation and sustainability. These are two objectives to which all Oireachtas Members are committed. Anything that enhances conservation and sustainability is to be welcomed. In general terms, if one is doing nothing wrong, one has nothing to fear. That is a fair statement to make. However, while I understand the Bill had to be introduced and certain matters had to be refined, and while I acknowledge penalties must be put in place, I find it hard to understand why they must apply for the most menial of infringements — I will not call them crimes. Senators McHugh and Kenneally, as well as Members of the other House, have mentioned that the book should be thrown at the person who is systematically involved in abuses or consistently over-fishing. With the legislation as it is, however, I do not believe we have had any regard for basic human error or the fact that for the smaller fisherman there is a huge cost to compliance with regulations. Senator Kenneally gave a very good example with the half-decker man whose wife was ill, who was a man down and did not get the log book filled out. As a result he was €50,000 down and out of commission for three years. We have a responsibility to people such as this, whom we are neglecting somewhat in this legislation. While the Bill is introducing much that is necessary, to resort again to the cliché, there is more to do. When we look at the rest of Europe and see administrative sanctions being applied, it is difficult to understand why this cannot be done here. I have yet to have someone explain to me why it cannot be done. I have read the transcripts of this entire debate in the Dáil and I am as confused now as to the answer as I ever was.

I appeal to the Minister to revisit this issue. Senator Kenneally has suggested that it might, perhaps, be done between Committee and Report Stages in this House and I would welcome that, if possible. The approach generally to legislation such as this should, and can only be done, successfully with the appropriate level of consultation. While I cannot agree with Senator McHugh that there was no consultation, clearly more was needed, because far too much of this debate has been carried out through the media and I do not believe anyone has benefited from this. It has led to misinformation on all sides and the personalisation of the debate; which is highly regrettable for everybody.

Consultation between Committee and Report Stages with the introduction of appropriate amendments at this point would be very welcome. Deputy O'Flynn referred to the proposed legislation as a real Civil Service Bill, without practical application, clearly designed by somebody in an office rather than someone who knows the industry. As somebody who spent many years in the beef processing and export business, which is similar in a way, I witnessed an enormous amount of post-tribunal regulations being introduced where abuses were found. In my opinion this was over-regulation. Is this a similar example of major overreaction where the maximum possible penalty is imposed for any wrongdoing? Like the speeding ticket, it is easier to catch a person with a camera on a dual carriageway where one could land a jumbo jet than the serial speeders who are involved in accidents and getting killed in the middle of the night.

I am concerned that many smaller operatives such as the half-decker fisherman we heard about earlier, are being penalised because of administrative and small infringements whereas the big guys are getting away. These are the people we want to get and we should certainly throw the book at them. I appeal earnestly to the Minister to look at the introduction of administrative fines rather than staying with a one-size-fits-all solution, which is not necessary. I was interested in Senator McHugh's point as to the causes of the scenario we have today, where he intimated the problems went right back to 1973. That is certainly interesting. One wonders if we might have a better system today, if the clock could have been turned back.

In terms of the establishment of the independent authority, will the Minister please clarify the situation as regards its appointment? It is a good idea and its independence is important. Will the authority be staffed by Department officials and how will they be appointed? I appeal to the Minister to clarify some of these issues and, if possible, to revisit them.