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

62. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 1260 of 9 September 2024, the status of the public consultation on a review of trawling activity inside the six-nautical-mile zone which closed on 12 April 2024; if the submissions have now been analysed; the timeline for publication of a report of the public consultation; when a decision will be made regarding the introduction of measures to protect the fishes concentrated within the six-nautical-mile zone; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37936/24]

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

The Minister and I are more than familiar with this issue, so we might not bother with the history of it. My question is very specific. It relates to trawling inside the six-nautical-mile zone by vessels more than 18 m long. We know there is a long history here so my question is specific. I know the communication period for submissions has closed. I know there were an extraordinary number of submissions. Have they been analysed? When will a report be available? When will a policy be available and when will it be implemented?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy pointed out, I held a public consultation on the review of trawling activity inside the six-nautical-mile zone and the baselines. The consultation took place over eight weeks and closed on 12 April. The purpose of this consultation was to invite stakeholders and interested parties to advise me of their views on any changes to policy within the scope of the review. A large volume of submissions - more than 5,000 of them - were received. These submissions will be used to inform my review of trawling activity inside the six-nautical-mile zone and baselines. Over the past few months, my Department has been in the process of analysing the submissions. All relevant issues must be carefully considered before a decision can be made. The consultation was taken without prejudice.

The Deputy referred to the history of this. In 2018 a transition period was put in place to ban vessels of more than 18 m from trawling in inshore waters. The ban was announced at that stage but, subsequently, legal proceedings saw it overturned. An outcome of the legal proceedings was received last year and, following on from that, I commenced this new consultation. I am very committed to pursuing this issue.

The Deputy will understand the amount of work involved in the context of the large number of submissions. From the history of this, the Deputy will also understand the importance of making sure that each step is taken with assurance because of the potential for a judicial review, as happened the last time. It is now more than six years since the ban was introduced. There are significant issues there regarding inshore fisheries and making sure the stocks are properly and sustainably managed. My team continues to work on it. I do not have a timeline but I have them working as hard as possible to go through the 5,000 submissions and to net out and crystallise the different legal considerations in order that I can take it forward. I am very committed to making sure this is stepped forward as quickly as possible.

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

I do not doubt that at all but, as the Minister said, in two months it will be six years since the decision was made to bring in this very welcome policy because of unsustainable fishing practices in the six-nautical-mile zone, particularly in respect of sprat. I will not rehearse all of that again but it was urgent enough in December 2018 and here we are, almost six years later, and there is no policy. It is important to say that on each occasion the courts endorsed the right of the Government to produce a policy and also that it was an important policy. Nobody disagreed with the policy, except the two boat owners who brought the case. When it came to the final judgment, they did not succeed. The Department lost on the basis of a faulty consultation or information going to England and Europe. Those were the only two reasons that it fell. It was not because of the policy or on the basis of the arguments brought in the High Court by the boys from the two big boats. I will rephrase that - the gentlemen or the owners of the boats. There is urgency to this issue.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am addressing this urgently. As we know, the outcome of the High Court proceedings only came in the second half of last year. I then commenced the process of formulating the new public consultation process as promptly as I could and it opened in April 2024. I want to see this progressed as quickly as possible. We have to be very conscious that we do things in a sure-footed way that prevents there being any chink which could potentially be legally challenged in terms of any decision that comes out of that. The decision was taken and announced in 2018. It was in the courts for most of the time since then, up until the second half of last year. I am now stepping forward the new consultation and the new process with the objective of making sure that we have a firm and sound outcome.

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

I welcome the consultation and the 5,000 submissions but we really need a date for when those submissions will be analysed. I suspect that the vast majority of them are in support of the Government's policy, as were the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Both of them found no difficulties with the policy; it was the consultation. The two gentlemen who brought the first action said it was because the consultation process was flawed. The Court of Appeal did not agree with that and stated that the Government and the Department failed to tell England and the EU. That was the only fault line, not the policy. It is really important to come back and ask why this was urgent in 2018. It was urgent because of unsustainable fishing practices within the six-nautical-mile zone. That has gone on unabated for the past six years. On top of that, if we do not have a policy, we will not be able to support local fishers and rural development along the coastal area from Donegal to Kerry unless this policy is brought in as a matter of urgency. What resources has the Department put in place to deal with the extraordinary number of submissions?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would not want the impression to be given that I have not stepped this out in a prompt fashion. I have done so and am very committed to it. It was not possible for me to take any action until I got the final ruling from the High Court, which was delivered in the second half of last year. It had been in the court system from 2018 until then.

I now want to continue as promptly as I can to get to a conclusion but, given the history of the issue, the Deputy will understand that I want to make sure the outcome stands up to all scrutiny, is absolutely sound and holds whenever it is actually concluded. As the Deputy will know, there were issues with legal challenges but this decision was taken back in 2018. I am very committed to it. I am committed to the sustainability of the inshore sector and to supporting that sector. As the Deputy will know, I recently announced a €5,000 support payment for inshore fishers given the very difficult economic circumstances they faced this year. Of course, their economic well-being going forward is entirely dependent on sustainable stocks of fish and on fishing them sustainably. That is very much going to inform this consideration too.