Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, I thank Deputy Connolly for providing an opportunity to update the House regarding the recent Court of Appeal ruling on the policy directive introducing a ban on trawling inside the six-nautical mile limit and the events leading up to this ruling. As the House may be aware, in December 2018, following a public consultation process in which over 900 submissions were received, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine announced that vessels over 18 m would be excluded from trawling in inshore waters inside the six-nautical mile zone and the baselines from 1 January 2020. A transition period of three years was allowed for vessels over 18 m targeting sprat to provide a reasonable period of adjustment for these vessels, as the sprat fishery is concentrated inside the six-nautical mile zone.

A policy directive was issued by the Minister to the independent licensing authority to give effect to these measures. The policy directive directed the licensing authority to insert a condition to this effect into the licences of affected vessels. Following this, a judicial review to the High Court was taken by two applicant fishermen, challenging the validity of the policy. On 6 October 2020, the judge held, in summary, that the High Court’s final order should include a declaration that policy directive 1 of 2019 was made in breach of fair procedures and is void and-or of no legal effect.

The breach of fair procedures referenced above related to a failure to consult with the applicants in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the consultation process and, in particular, by failing to consult with them a second time once a preferred option had been identified.

A stay on the order was refused by the High Court on 10 December 2020. The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, appealed the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal, also seeking a stay on the order of the High Court. The Court of Appeal reinstated the ministerial policy directive on 19 March 2021, when the court was persuaded that the balance of justice leaned in favour of the State and granted a stay on the order of the High Court up until the hearing of the substantive appeal in June. Following a full hearing by the Court of Appeal on 22 June 2021, the court decided to temporarily extend the policy directive excluding large vessels from trawling in inshore waters within 6 miles of the coast, save for a restricted sprat fishery. On September 23 2021, the Court of Appeal refused the application the Minister had made to further continue the stay. This refusal meant that the decision of the High Court stood. This allowed vessels over 18 m in length to resume trawling in the waters inside 6 nautical miles. The Court of Appeal issued an unapproved judgment on 19 July last and requested further submissions from both parties. These were provided to the court on the Minister’s behalf.

As the House may be aware, the Court of Appeal issued a final judgment on 10 March last stating that the applicant fishers were successful on “the narrowest of grounds”. The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, is currently consulting legal advisers to consider the implications of the judgment and the possible next steps.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. The main question I asked was not really dealt with. I have read the High Court judgment and both Court of Appeal judgments. I have seen clearly that the policy was very good. The courts had no difficulty with the policy. The difficulty related to the failure of the Government. What the Minister of State calls "the narrowest of grounds" was a legal obligation on the Government to notify England and Europe to allow them to have a say in this policy. Now, we are in the crazy situation - "crazy" does not capture it - where it is a free for all within the 6 mile limit as a result of the failure of the Department to carry out its duty. How that happened is beyond me but now that the mistake has been made, what are we doing about it? How quickly can we rectify the mistake? When will this very good policy, which is absolutely essential, be reinstated? It followed a long process of consultation. The Minister of State has outlined that there were 900 submissions. The vast majority of these submissions appealed to the Government to do something about sustainability within the 6 mile limit. Since then, we have judgments from the High Court and the Court of Appeal with the final judgment more than two weeks ago and yet the Minister of State is telling me the issue is with "the narrowest of grounds". There is no explanation as to how the Department failed to comply with its duty or, more importantly, how to rectify that mistake as quickly as possible in order to reinstate the policy. What steps are going to be taken?

In the meantime, let us look at the figures for sprat. They have significantly increased every year from 2019 onwards. Even though the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea had recommended that the catch should be no more than 2,800 tonnes, we have had catches of 14,000 tonnes, 15,000 tonnes, 14,000 tonnes, 12,000 tonnes and so on. A drastic reduction in the annual sprat catch is urgently needed for many obvious reasons. In the last two minutes, will the Minister of State give me a time span within which this is going to be rectified and tell me how the mistake was made?

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not in a position to give the Deputy a time span here and now. I have given her the chronology of events, of which she is well aware. Indeed, she has told me that she followed the case and has read the judgments. Suffice it to say that I can make the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, well aware of the concerns the Deputy has articulated in the House this evening. I have nothing further to add to what I have already stated in that the Minister is consulting legal advisers on the implications of the judgment and the steps that can be taken.