Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)

I reiterate what the previous speaker said about copies of the Minister of State's speech. It is very handy to have a copy of the speech and I looked for it. It is slipping in gradually with various Ministers whereby we do not get the speech. It is very useful to have it.

I want to use my time, as I have done repeatedly since 2018, to discuss this matter and I want to focus on sprats. The Government came up with a policy which, with my inexpert eye, I thought was excellent. I praised the Government for it. It was with regard to introducing a policy that would ban bigger trawlers over 18 m within the 6-mile zone. Many reasons for this were set out, in terms of the damage being done to the ecology by overfishing, the importance for local fishers and local industry and the large spin-off effect. I could not have praised the Government more on it. There was a lead-in time for the big boys, as I called them, to get out.

What happened then was that when the policy was introduced, it was challenged. Over the last number of years the same speech has been given. I apologise to the Minister of State because I know he is new in the role. At the end of his speech he mentioned the legal challenges. I will come to those legal challenges now. There was still flexibility for the Government to act, certainly to make sure that bigger trawlers were not in the 6-mile zone. The challenge was taken to the High Court and then went to the Court of Appeal. On both occasions the plaintiffs failed - I want to make this clear - in what they put before the courts on every level. The High Court, however, found that the consultation process was faulty. On this one issue alone, the High Court had to hold the policy as null and void. It is worth reading the High Court case and the case in the Court of Appeal that set out clearly that the Government was perfectly entitled to introduce a policy. It set out the nature of that policy. It did not endorse it but it went as far as it could to endorse it by stating it could not interfere with a Government that brings in a policy ostensibly for all the right reasons but, unfortunately, with regard to one aspect which was the local consultation part locally, it was faulty.

This was appealed by both sides to the Court of Appeal and the case was finally heard on 10 March 2023. We went from 2018 to 10 March 2023. During that time there were detrimental consequences with regard to the overfishing of sprat. This is not just about sprat; it is about the consequences of the overfishing of sprat for ecology and for the whole rhythm of life in the water, about which the Minister of State spoke so eloquently earlier, as did the Taoiseach recently at a conference. Every September I and other colleagues are inundated with calls telling us that the big trawlers are in the water fishing unsustainably. Indeed, the catchment of sprat has increased. I have all of the figures but I will not read them out. They are on the record. This is what has happened in the meantime.

Let us look at 10 March 2023 when the Court of Appeal issued its decision striking down the policy directive. Why did it do so? This time it was struck down because the Government's failure to notify the EU and the UK prior to the introduction of the directive rendered the directive invalid. The Government and the Department, and whoever the responsible person was, made a mistake and failed to notify the EU and the UK in whatever procedure was required. This was not done and the policy was held null and void.

What is important is that the court did not hold with any of the arguments of the plaintiffs on the policy directive. The court concluded that the directive was a measure for the conservation and management of fish stocks within the meaning of the relevant articles. Importantly, it found that the policy was not discriminatory, had not been shown to be irrational and did not involve a disproportionate interference with the constitutional rights of the applicants, who were the plaintiffs who took the case. These were the owners of the bigger boats. It was not found to be irrational, disproportionate or discriminatory. The Court of Appeal, almost the highest court in the land, told us that none of the arguments on which the application was made were found to be valid, to put it in my own words, yet the policy was held at naught because of the failure of the Department and the Government to notify other parties. I am not here to highlight mistakes. I am here to highlight the consequence of that mistake, and not just of the mistake because there has been flexibility for the Government to act and it has not done so.

That was March 2023. It is now more than two years and three months since then and we still have no policy. I am now looking at my third Minister or Minister of State on this matter. I absolutely deplore the lack of action and the constantly repeated mantra that the courts held this up. Everybody is entitled to go to court, and certainly I will not criticise anyone who takes a case. Obviously it would be better if the court system was more efficient. Obviously there are not enough judges. On a different level, this has been rectified to a certain extent but it is inexplicable that two years and three months later, we still have no policy. The Minister of State is telling us positively that something will be done, hopefully by September, but I did not hear from him that a new policy has been put together and that the policy will be launched and a date for it. I do not hear anything like this being said.

There was no need for consultation but the Department did the right thing and went out and consulted. The court said that when the Department went out and consulted, it had a duty to do it properly. There was a nuanced difference between the High Court and the Court of Appeal. One said that the consultation locally and nationally had not been done, but the ultimate decision was on the fact that we did not tell the EU and the UK.

What has happened in the two years and three months since then? Where is the policy? Will the Minister of State tell us today about that policy? What has happened in the meantime? Every time I have raised this, which is frequently, I am told 5,500 comments were submitted as opposed to 900 on the previous occasion. I realise the amount of work this takes but it does not take two and a half years, given that no court ever held against the policy. Exactly what we need to do is to conserve and the courts backed that up. How could it take this length of time?

Recently I was down in Bantry. I certainly was not in great humour because it took quite a long time to drive down there. I was at a public meeting that was well attended. It was packed. I would have thought there might have been 500 people there but the room was a bit smaller than that. It was well attended and there was absolute goodwill to do something for the environment and the ecosystem. Nobody was saying "not in my back garden". Ample time was given to those who did not agree, who were a small few with vested interests. They were perfectly entitled to speak and they spoke. The concern at every level, and not only with regard to sprat, was palpable.

I have used up my time. There are many other things I would like to say about local fishing but I have used my time specifically because I have never had so many minutes to discuss this one particular issue and get some truth out on it.

When will the policy be published? Where are we at precisely regarding the policy? Have we finished examining all the aighneachtaí that went in? When will we have the policy?

See this speech in context