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

I am glad in a sense that the Minister of State is responding to this because he took a hands-on approach to another matter and he might have some influence here.

I am standing here seven years after the Government introduced a wonderful policy. None of us had a problem with it. It was a policy to ensure the sustainability of fishing within the six-nautical mile zone by banning trawlers measuring more than 18 m. None of us had a problem with that. It was to be rolled out with a transition phase, which was practical and sensible, to give the bigger trawlers time to adjust to the new regime and move out over a period. Unfortunately, it has never become a reality. The problem is particularly acute given the biodiversity and climate emergency and it is equally important for sustainable jobs on the coast. What happened was that - the Minister of State can save me from repeating this if it is in his prepared contribution because it has been brought up many times - it was challenged by a number of boat owners. They were perfectly entitled to do that. It went to the High Court and the High Court found for them on one specific ground, namely, that the consultation was - this is my word - faulty. Nothing else. Indeed, the High Court set out that the Government is entitled to make policy and that the policy it had made was in keeping with Government objectives on sustainability and biodiversity. One tiny part was found not to be right and therefore the policy was held at naught.

That was appealed by both sides to the Court of Appeal. I will fast-forward as that took a number of years. The Court of Appeal, interestingly, again held totally with the Government. It absolutely agreed that the Government was entitled to make the policy and that it was in keeping with all its aims and objectives, but on this occasion, it held on a narrow ground, not that the boat owners had not been consulted, but that Britain and the EU had not been consulted or put on notice that there would be this change. On that very narrow ground, it went back to scratch. It went back for consultation. On the first occasion, there were 900 submissions. On this occasion, I understand, there were more than 5,000 submissions. I have been at public meetings on this matter. I have been in Connemara at a public meeting on this matter and all I want is for the policy to be implemented.

I ask Minister of State to spare me a little bit. On 20 May, I got an answer to a parliamentary question which states "I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that this matter is of the utmost importance" and assurances follow. Fast-forward two calendar months and I get another answer that is verbatim the same. There is not even an additional full stop or comma. Only the last line is different: "It is critical that all of the necessary procedural and legal steps are taken". The consultation process closed last year. It has been more than a year since the consultation process closed. Bear in mind that the High Court and the Court of Appeal found no problem with the Government's policy, none whatsoever, just with a tiny segment of the consultation. In fact, they said there was not even an obligation to consult, but that once the Government undertakes a consultation process, it must take all care to do so correctly. The Court of Appeal said England and the EU had to be consulted.

I am not sure where the problem is. I know it is urgent and the Dáil will be on leave from next week. In September, we will be looking at big trawlers going in unsustainably, taking out the sprat in large quantities in an unsustainable way with quite a lot of it going to feed fish farms. This is a golden opportunity for a win-win for the Government on every level, but particularly for local fishermen. I will stay within my time.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Connolly for raising this issue, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley. I was speaking to him this morning in advance of the debate. He sends his apologies. He has to attend a meeting with the UK fisheries minister this morning. He will be in direct contact with the Deputy in the coming days on the matter. I hope that provides some level of reassurance. I will deal with the answer now, but at the top, it was important to make that point.

I stress that the Government is fully committed to maintaining support for our important inshore fishing sector and promoting the sustainability of fish stocks, as outlined in our programme for Government. The Deputy has already covered much of this background, but she will appreciate that I want to read it into the record.

In December 2018, the then Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine announced that vessels measuring more than 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 for vessels of more than 18 m targeting sprat was allowed to enable adjustment for these vessels, as the sprat fishery is concentrated inside the six-nautical mile zone. Policy directive No. 1 of 2019 was issued by the Minister to the independent licensing authority for sea fishing boats to give effect to these measures. This decision to exclude vessels of more than 18 m from trawling inside the six nautical miles was the subject of extended legal proceedings further to a judicial review to the High Court taken by two applicant fishermen challenging the validity of the policy. Following the final judgment of the Court of Appeal in this matter in 2023, where the applicants succeeded on the narrowest of grounds, policy directive No. 1 of 2019 was quashed and no longer has legal effect.

On the basis of legal advice received in respect of next steps, the then Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine decided to proceed anew with a public consultation on a review of trawling activity inside the six-nautical mile zone and the baselines. The purpose of the consultation was to invite stakeholders and interested parties to advise of their views on any potential changes to policy within the scope of this review. Due to the lengthy legal proceedings, it had been more than five years since the original scientific and economic advice was compiled.

Therefore, up-to-date scientific and economic advice was sought from the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, respectively, on trawling in the waters inside six nautical miles and the baselines prior to public consultation. The consultation opened in February 2024 and took place over a period of eight weeks, closing in April 2024. The consultation took place without prejudice.

The Minister is conscious of the dependence of our onshore fleet, compared with larger vessels, on fishing resources within the six nautical mile zone. The policy context has changed since 2018. The Minister encouraged all interested parties to read the consultation documents and to reflect on them when making any submissions. The volume of submissions received during the new 2024 consultation was considerable, as the Deputy has already alluded to. Some 5,500 submissions were received, which was more than six times greater than the submissions received during the 2018 consultation, further highlighting the increased public interest in the matter. These submissions will be used to inform a review of trawling activity inside the six nautical mile zone and baselines. The sheer volume of detailed submissions takes time to collate and fully analyse. All relevant issues will be carefully considered before a decision can be made. Given the history of litigation in respect of this matter, it is critical that all of the necessary procedural and legal steps are taken before any final decision is made.

I reiterate that the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, sends his apologies. He is in the UK to meet the fisheries minister. He would have liked to have taken this debate. He will make direct contact with the Deputy over the coming days.

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

I have no problem with missing Ministers of State. I understand how busy they are. Personal contact never impresses me although I am delighted when Ministers of State make personal contact. What impresses me more are answers on paper. Where are we with the analysis of the 5,500 consultations? I heard in the Minister of State's answer that "the policy context has changed since 2018" and that the people making submissions were made aware of that. I appreciate that is the case. The policy context has become even more serious in terms of our obligations with respect to climate change and biodiversity, and a sustainable way of living for people in our coastal areas. This ties in with seaweed and the wool industry. As a country, we are utterly failing to encourage small native industries. Here is a golden opportunity.

I cannot accept the situation. The replies to the two questions I asked were exactly the same except for the last sentence. It is not the fault of the Minister of State, but there is absolutely no sense of urgency here. There is no sense that we have now lost seven years and fishing continues unsustainably. I want a breakdown. How many of the 5,500 submissions have been gone through? Are there enough staff to look at them? What is the breakdown in terms of supporting the policy and not supporting the policy? What are the vested interests? If anyone has an interest, that is okay but it needs to be dealt with quickly so we can put a policy in place. Is the Minister of State telling me that come September, I will be looking at the big trawlers in Galway Bay and elsewhere? When I visited Bantry, and I was also in Connemara, the point was made that people are now so upset that they want a complete ban, even within the six nautical mile area. That is what they have been driven to. What we need is a sustainable policy as quickly as we can.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I again thank the Deputy for raising this important matter. As I already stated, I am taking it on the behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, who will be in direct contact with the Deputy in the coming days. He would like to have been here to take the debate in his capacity as the Minister of State with responsibility for this area but had a prior arrangement to meet the minister for fisheries in the UK.

This Government is fully committed to maintaining support for the important inshore fishing sector and promoting the sustainability of fishing stocks as outlined in the programme for Government. The review of trawling policy inside six nautical miles is ongoing. The 5,500 submissions received are being given due consideration. The updated scientific and economic analysis from the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara will be factored into any decision. It takes time to get it right. I must stress that given the history of litigation in respect of the previous policy directive, it is vital that all necessary procedural and legal steps are taken before any final decision is made. I take this opportunity to emphasise that this matter is of the utmost importance to this Government. I assure the Deputy that my Department is doing everything to progress this as expeditiously as possible.