Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 20 April 2023
88. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 12 of 9 March 2023, the status of the programme for Government commitment to ensure that inshore waters are protected for smaller fishing vessels and that pair trawling will be prohibited within the six nautical mile limit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17289/23]
View answerMy question follows on from the Court of Appeal striking down Government policy, albeit on a very narrow ground. What is the status of the programme for Government commitment to ensure inshore waters are protected for smaller fishing vessels and pair trawling will be prohibited within the six-mile limit?
I thank the Deputy for her question. My Department and I continue to work on the commitment set out in the programme for Government on the banning of pair trawling inside the six-mile limit as a matter of priority.
As the Deputy will be aware, in December 2018, following a public consultation process in which more than 900 submissions were received, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine announced that vessels over 18 m would be excluded from trawling in inshore waters inside the six-nautical-mile zone from 1 January 2020. A transition period of three years was provided for vessels over 18 m which would have been targeting sprat before that to enable these vessels to adjust, as the sprat fishery is concentrated primarily inside the six-nautical-mile zone. A policy directive was issued on the back of that.
I am committed to the sustainability of fishing across our waters and to the exclusion of vessels over 18 m from trawling in the waters inside six nautical miles, in line with the commitment we also have in the programme for Government.
As stated in my reply to a previous parliamentary question, the decision to exclude vessels over 18 m from trawling inside the six-nautical-mile zone has been the subject of ongoing legal proceedings. A judicial review to the High Court was taken by two applicant fishermen and on 6 October 2020, the judge in response to that, as part of the court's summary in advance of the final order, declared the policy void with no legal effect.
I appealed that decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. The court issued an unapproved judgment on 19 July in the past year and issued a final judgment on 10 March past.
My team is now fully assessing the final judgment we have received with a view to taking the next necessary steps to follow through on our commitment to protecting the inshore sector within the six nautical miles.
The blunt reality is that there is no protection and that was the case back in 2018 and 2019, when there had been 900 submissions with people sufficiently engaged to appeal to the Minister to do something. He did something in respect of that policy and fair play to him. It was set at naught by the Court of Appeal eventually.
The Minister has been aware of this for a very long time and he has given me the same background. My concerns remain acute in respect of the lack of protection for our inland waters and the unsustainable nature of the fishing that is going on. When will the policy be reinstated? This is very simple. I do not want any more background. I am very familiar with that. The record of the House is very familiar with it. Tá sé thar am ag an Aire beart a dhéanamh de réir a bhriathar agus na céimeanna a thógáil chun an cosc ar na báid mhóra a chur ar ais agus stop a chur leis an rud atá ar siúl faoi lathair.
It was not possible to do anything until I received the final judgment, which was only received just over a month ago. As I said, and I cannot be any clearer, myself and the Government have a very strong commitment to work to protect fishing inside the six nautical miles for smaller vessels and for the inshore sector and to protect the sustainability of it.
Nothing could be done until we received the final judgment, which we are now fully assessing. It is going to be important in respect of the steps that we take that we are very deliberate and considered, to ensure that all of the required procedures are followed because, as we can see from what happened on the previous occasion, and indeed from so many other instances, all that needs to be found and challenged is one small item in order for the whole procedure to be stopped.
There is now a procedure to re-establish this policy that will have to be gone through. I will work with my team to step that out but there is no quick way of making an immediate decision or simply, with the stroke of a pen, to just do something. A comprehensive procedure must be gone through legally to achieve this and that is very much evidenced by the experience over the past three to four years, where the previous decision was overturned by a court challenge.
I disagree with the Minister. On every step of the procedure in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, the courts held with the Minister. They said that he was within his powers to bring in this policy. It was the right thing to do for conservation purposes and on every step of the way the courts agreed with him.
Unfortunately, the Department and the Government failed in their consultation process in respect of Europe and England. It is a vital piece of the Minister's obligation that he communicates with Europe and with England in respect of the impact of this policy. He failed to do that. What is the result of his inquiry into the Department as to how it failed to comply with its obligation that has now led to this debacle, where the policy has been set at naught and there is absolutely no protection?
The Department is on notice for a very long time that the Government was running with it in respect of the nature of the policy and its objectives. The difficulty was simply in respect of the Department's communication obligations, which it failed to comply with. That is all. When will the Minister see the policy up and running again?
I am looking at the final court judgment to decide how we can step it out. This judgment was on a very narrow and small matter in the context of everything that was done here in respect of the whole process, where the judgment found against the Department and the policy was overturned. As the Deputy will know, it is much easier to stop something than it is to actually achieve something. All it takes is one small matter, upon which it can be decided how it should have been done, in order for something to be stopped.
How did it happen that the Department failed to communicate?
In this particular instance - I have no doubt that there would have been hundreds of particular things that would have to have been followed as part of the process - all that one needs to find to strike a policy down is one small item. That is what happened in this instance. Very significant commitment, time and effort was put into the consultation process and I am now assessing this.
To be clear, the Government's commitment, and mine, is to protect fishing inside the six-nautical-mile limit. I am now assessing how we get to that position and achieve that.
