Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur faoi chúrsaí iascaireachta agus go háirithe faoi pholasaí an Rialtais, polasaí a foilsíodh i 2019 agus a cuireadh i bhfeidhm ó Mhí Eanáir na bliana seo. Bun agus barr an pholasaí sin - polasaí maith a bhí ann - nach raibh cead ag na trálaeir mhóra a bheith ag iascaireacht taobh istigh de 6 mhuirmhíle ar fud ár gcósta. Faraor, chuir an Ardchúirt an polasaí sin ar neamhní an lá deireanach de Mhí Iúil. Ó shin, tá bearna mhór ann agus tá na trálaeir mhóra laistigh den limistéar sin. Tá mise agus Teachtaí eile ag déileáil le neart gearán ó dhaoine atá thíos leis agus atá thar a bheith buartha faoi.

My question relates to a policy directive by the Government that came into effect in January 2020. It was published last year and prior to that there was a whole, long history and entry into this policy. The idea and the concepts behind the policy were excellent. They sought to have a sustainable fishing industry within the six-mile zone. More particularly, the documents that accompany the decision and the consultation process said it was to improve the protection of coastal environments and essential fish habitats and to benefit biodiversity and commercially exploited fish stocks. It was to have socioeconomic benefits for the smaller inshore boats and fishermen and saw the importance of diversification opportunities, with more jobs and a more intimate connection between fishermen, consumers and businesses in the area, among many other advantages. That was brought in after a consultation period. As I said, the decision was made in March 2019 and the policy came into effect in January this year. Three boat owners, or their companies, took a case, which was successful on very narrow grounds. On the last day of July 2020, the High Court issued a very detailed and comprehensive judgment. Many arguments were put up by the three big boats. None of them was upheld by the court except that the Department had failed in its consultation process. Simply, the consultation process was faulty. Once the Department went down the road of the consultation process it had to do it right. Unfortunately, it did not and now we are in the situation where the policy is gone. Mar a dúirt mé i nGaeilge, tá sé ar neamhní. It is not valid. We now have a serious gap and the trawlers are back in Galway Bay and in others bays on coasts throughout the State. What is the Taoiseach doing about that? The consultation process was faulty. To me, it was a relatively simply matter to accept the judgment of the High Court and go back to do the consultation process properly given the importance of the contents of the policy in question.

Táim buíoch den Teachta as an gceist seo a ardú. Aontaím go bhfuil an polasaí a bhí ann roimh chinneadh na cúirte ceart ó thaobh bac a chur ar thrálaeir mhóra teacht isteach laistigh de 6 mhuirmhíle ón gcósta. Is oth liom a rá gur olc an scéal é go bhfuil na trálaeir mhóra ar ais laistigh den limistéar sin. Níl sé sin sásúil i gcomhthéacs an pholasaí a d'fhoilsigh an Rialtas a bhí ann i Mí Eanáir na bliana seo. Caithimid athmhachnamh a dhéanamh air sin agus mar a dúirt an Teachta, caithimid athmhachnamh a dhéanamh ar an gcomhfhreagras agus ar na déileálacha leis an bpobal agus caithimid slí ceart a chur i bhfeidhm.

I take on board what Deputy Connolly has said. I will engage with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine on this specific issue, on the aspects of the High Court's decision that undermine the policy and on the moves the Department proposes to take to rectify that, if that is possible. I take on board what the Deputy said and will pursue the matter with the Minister with a view to seeing if we can develop a consultation process or other processes that would meet the requirements of the High Court decision.

That was July. We are now in November. Nothing has happened. The Taoiseach is not even clear whether an appeal has been taken. I do not wish to put the Taoiseach on the spot but we know that from July the substantive judgment was given. The order might not have been perfected. Is an appeal under way? If there is an appeal it would not seem to be a very good way to proceed because there will be a further delay.

The court did not take issue with the Government's policy and what was behind it, but it did take issue with the consultation process. This is a golden opportunity to do it right because when the Government brought in that policy it was a blunt instrument that affected a certain number of trawlers over 80 m which fish sustainably. Those fishermen were caught in that overall ban, including one earning a livelihood on the Aran Islands and others in the south west and so on. Unfortunately, those trawlers were caught. The real issue was the non-sustainable fishing of sprat, on which the ecosystem is dependent. The bigger boats, by and large, take in the sprat in an unsustainable way for fish meal, while it is caught for human consumption by the smaller fishermen. The consultation process was faulty. There were 900 submissions, the vast majority of them begging the Government to bring in a sustainable policy. This is a chance to go back and look at the small number of trawlers that were unfortunately caught by the blunt instrument, separate from the industrial trawlers or those carrying out fishing on an industrial basis.

There are clearly a number of issues that must be considered by the Department following the judgment. The Department clearly has to assess the implications for other trawlers and fishermen moving forward.

Has there been an appeal?

As I said, I will engage with the Minister and will come back to the Deputy on the policy position the Department will adopt in response to the court decision and how it intends to proceed into the future.