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.

Sentiment score: 0.06

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.

Sentiment score: 0.03