Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCeann Comhairle as ucht an tSaincheist Thráthúil seo a roghnú. Tá sí práinneach agus thar a bheith tábhachtach. Baineann mo cheist le breithiúnas a thug an Chúirt Achomhairc, breis agus coicís ó shin ar an deichiú lá den mhí seo. Sa bhreithiúnas sin, chuir sí polasaí dearfach an Rialtais ar neamhní, is é sin, polasaí maidir le stoc na n-iasc a chosaint agus slí mhaireachtála na n-iascairí ar fud na tíre a chosaint freisin, nó a láidriú. Cén fáth ar chuir sí an polasaí seo ar neamhní? Chuir sí an polasaí seo ar neamhní mar rinne an Rialtas nó an Roinn praiseach den phróiseas cumarsáide agus theip go huile is go hiomlán ar an Roinn agus ar an Rialtas an dualgas dlíthiúil a bhí orthu a chomhlíonadh, is é sin, dul i dteagmháil le Sasana agus leis an Aontas Eorpach. Tá sé suntasach go leor nach raibh aon easaontas ón gcúirt ó thaobh cé chomh tábhachtach agus atá an polasaí, is é sin, go bhfuil sé dearfach agus gurb é an rud atá i gceist ag an Rialtas ná stoc na n-iasc a chosaint agus cosaint agus tacaíocht a thabhairt do na hiascairí ar fud na tíre, laistigh den sé mhíle.

My question is specific, urgent and important. It relates to a judgment given by the Court of Appeal in two parts, one in July and the final judgment more than two weeks ago, on 10 March. Significantly, I asked a question just the evening before that and nobody seemed to know this case was coming up for final judgment the following day. In that judgment, the court quashed the policy of the Government. Why was that? It was because the Government failed on one ground, namely, it failed to comply with its legal obligation to notify England and the European Union in regard to the policy it was bringing in. Significantly, it is a wonderful policy. It was brought in during 2019 and due to come into effect in January 2020, over three years ago, with the specific aim of conserving fish stocks and to help fishermen in the area.

The judgment in July stated that the policy directive was a measure for the conservation of fish stocks and that the failure to notify that measure pursuant to the provision at the time did not invalidate it. It stated that the policy directive was not discriminatory. The Government had the power to bring this in and it was not irrational or invalid. The judgment was positive about this policy and the essence of what it was about. It failed not due to the communication strategy in Ireland but because of the failure to give warning to the European Union and to England.

Now, we have no policy, more than three years after it was brought in to conserve fish stocks, protect biodiversity and give small fishermen a chance by excluding boats over 18 m. It is now a free-for-all. It is now séasúr oscailte, open season, and the taking of sprat in an unsustainable manner has continued unabated.

My specific question is this. What urgent action is the Government now taking and what timeline have we now got for the implementation of the policy, having consulted properly with Europe and England?

See this speech in context