Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Avril Doyle and there are amendments Nos 2 and 3.
Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
May I say a few words on all three amendments together as they are effectively consequential?
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would seem to be related also.
They are.
We can discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, paragraph (e), line 31, after `licence"', to insert ", salmon rod (annual) ordinary licences".
In view of the fact that we are now deleting the definitions for the five classes of salmon licences that exist at the moment and substituting as per the Bill two classes of salmon licences only, one a 21 day licence for £21, the other an annual licence for £25, on two points I am moving the amendment. First, an increase as is the case from £8 to £25 I consider far too high — it is over 300 per cent — for an annual salmon licence. Many holders of such licences, district licences and the like now have their licences for £8. I accept that £8 is perhaps too small, even derisory, but I think an over 300 per cent increase in one step is taking the other extreme. Secondly, as there is so little in the difference between the £21 and £25, administratively the extra work is unnecessary for the sake of £4 in a licence. For both those reasons I ask the Minister to accept just one ordinary salmon licence, be it for the weekend, a fortnight's fishing or for the year, and have that pitched at the rate of £21.
While there would appear to be some merit in what the Deputy says, I cannot accept the amendment. Deputy Doyle refers to £8 to £25, £8 taken from one extreme in some districts, to £25, but countrywide it works out at about £17. Even if this Bill were not to be introduced there would have to be some increase. That £17 is there for some three or four years, so I contend it is a very nominal increase.
On the question of £21 to £25, again on the surface it appears there is no great difference. However, £21 for a 21 day licence is designed to cater for salmon anglers. The extra £4 gives our own people a full year's licence. I contend that that is very reasonable, particularly when one takes into account that they can fish in any part of the country. The current fee for countrywide salmon fishing for the whole season is £17 and, as I have said, it is there for almost three years. The sum of £25 is not excessive in any circumstances.
To put this amount in contrast I would consider fees charged for other types of recreation and entertainment. For example, green fees in golf go from £10 to £18 and higher in places for just one day's golf. Green fees for two weeks on my own Portnoo golf course are some £36. The entrance fee to football matches is from £3 to £5 for an hour and a half of entertainment. Look at the theatre and what it costs there. What better source of entertainment for anyone than three weeks' — 21 days' — angling for £21 and for an additional £4 a full years' fee?
The comparisons with golf courses and football matches are not really valid in view of the capital that has to be expended to provide the entertainment in those cases compared with angling. We are talking about rational exploitation of a natural resource of our environment. Perhaps for some time we have not managed that resource as we should and have not developed it, but certainly there are not the same overheads in the accepted sense as there would be in keeping the greens on a golf course, a golf club, a football stadium, teams or whatever other aspect one likes to consider. I accept what the Minister says. I am quite sure that those who are very keen to go salmon angling for the year will pay £25 as easily as they pay £21 but it is a huge hike. The increase from £17 to £21 is a little under 20 per cent, still well over the inflation rate of the last three years during which time there has been no increase in licence fees. There is very little difference between £21 and £25 for the licence fees and I believe it would make things much easier administratively if we had only the one licence fee.
I do not intend to press this amendment because there are more important issues. I have made my point. I just thought it would make the system better and would be more equitable for those interested in this aspect of angling.
I do not think the fee suggested is unreasonable given that the present average fee is £17, but it seems pointless to have a distinction between a full annual licence and a 21 day licence. This has all the hallmarks of bureaucracy. This fishing licence system is appallingly and unnecessarily complicated and this is only prolonging and intensifying the complication. Would the Minister of State not consider withdrawing column 4 in the Schedule and allowing column 3 to stand with the £25 licence, rather than have two different types of licences with a £4 difference? The only justification is that presumably this difference was there in the past and, therefore, should be there in the future. The difference between the two licence fees is miniscule. Presumably the 21 day licence is taken out by tourists only and I do not believe that is an unreasonable imposition on them because by European standards they are getting cheap salmon fishing here, assuming there are any salmon left to catch. It would make it simpler if there was just the one licence. There is enough difficulty in enforcing this because of the cuts which have taken place.
Deputy Doyle suggested there was no comparison between salmon fishing and the other services I mentioned earlier. There is a comparison because over the last five years an average of £3 million each year has been spent on inland fisheries. I feel, as do many anglers, that £21 for a licence is very cheap. As Deputy O'Malley pointed out, this licence will be taken out mostly by tourists. I do not see any administrative difficulties in selling licences at £21 for 21 days and £25 for a licence for a full year, which will be used mostly by people living in Ireland. Regrettably, I cannot accept the amendment or the withdrawal of the section which Deputy O'Malley suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 44, after "birthday", to insert "or who is attending an institution of third level education or training".
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the very welcome provision to allow our young people free angling. I welcome the provision that the under 18 year olds and those over 66 years of age should have free angling. Many young people are still in full-time training or education beyond their eighteenth birthday. I would like bona fide students or members of third level institutions, to have the same provisions as the under 18 year olds. In my time as a student — I think the same practice still holds — each student was issued with an identity card with their photograph on it. This system would be easily controlled because it would be easy to identify the bona fide carrier of the student card.
There are many other groups, who have also expressed their views, who should be exempted from paying a licence fee for angling but I am not sure how wide we can consider it under this section. For example, the view has been expressed very strongly that the unemployed should be considered, and if it is not possible to give them free angling, they should be granted some concessions in relation to the fee. I would like the Minister's view on that and I want to know if he gave the matter any consideration. Is there any concession he would consider might be appropriate?
We spoke on Second Stage of increased leisure time, some by choice but others, regrettably, have it forced on them. One of the more constructive ways of spending leisure time must be on the banks of rivers or lakes. We have many examples of destruction carried out during so called leisure time. I would hate to put in place a system that might dissuade those who have time on their hands from putting that time to constructive and enjoyable use.
We also spoke yesterday of this concept of fishing being handed down through families. This is part of our tradition not only in rural areas but also in our cities. I can see a simple way of extending the provision granted to under 18 year olds to students and people in third level institutions, but I am not sure how we could extend it to other groups. I would like to hear the Minister's views on whether these groups have been considered and if provision has been made for them.
I support Deputy Doyle. She made a very valid point when she said that this provision should be extended to the unemployed and to students. It is very refreshing that in some schools, teachers are taking their pupils to the river banks to teach them how to fish. If we are to encourage this practice, we will have to take another look at the £10 fee if these students are over 18 years of age. The Minister might see his way towards granting this concession.
This system will be very difficult to sell to the traditional fishermen whose grandfather and father fished in certain rivers and encouraged the children to do likewise. If these people are unemployed where will they get £10? It is only right that we should motivate people to take advantage of the many facilities which are available around the country. Fishing is one such facility, particularly in rural areas. There is no point mentioning specific geographic locations because there are thousands of such places around the country where free fishing has been available for generations.
The Minister might see some way to help people who are unemployed, in receipt of disability benefit or unemployment benefit. I have met angling groups over the last few days and they told me that at least one-third of their members are unemployed and have no hope of getting employment. The only way these people can keep their sanity is to go fishing from morning until the evening instead of loitering around the town, probably getting into mischief. The Minister is taking a fundamental right away from people who traditionally held it. If the Minister casts his mind back a few years, he will remember that we had fish-ins which were very successfully orgnaised by pressure groups on different rivers. Thousands of people turned up for the day and fished at will and they were not taken to court because the court would have been choc-a-bloc as so many were involved. The Minister might, unintentionally, be opening a can of worms. He should look at this matter very carefully to see if he could give a concession to the long term unemployed.
I have given a great deal of thought to the amendment tabled by Deputy Doyle but, unfortunately, I cannot accede to her request. This is a very clear cut case in that we can define those under 18 and over 66 years of age. In addition to students I have no doubt that other categories are equally deserving of exemption. I looked at this matter very closely when the legislation was being drafted but I cannot do anything in that regard. Indeed, this is the first time that exemptions have been provided in fishing licence fees. Deputy Begley referred to students going with their teachers to fish but they would all be under 18 years of age——
Leaving certificate students would not necessarily be under 18 years of age.
Most of them would be. If we exempted students in this country we would also have to make it available for young people in the Community. Anyone who wishes to obtain a licence for coarse fishing must pay a fee of £10 and £15 for trout fishing. If we open up the category beyond which it can be totally and absolutely defined — under 18 and over 66 years of age — we would have to open it up to so many other categories that it would be better not to introduce a licence. The money from fees will generate an income of £500,000 which will go back to the various boards through the central board. This money is necessary for the development of inland fisheries.
I am disappointed by the Minister's attitude because he must know that this charge is full of pitfalls. For example, a farmer may have a river running through his land and his family for generations have fished there for brown trout. He has also allowed others to fish in that river but there is nothing to stop him now from putting up a sign saying that trespassers will be prosecuted. The Inland Fisheries Board do not even know that some of those rivers exist, they never went to the trouble of surveying or restocking them and now they expect to collect £10 from an individual who fishes there. The Minister must know that, administratively, this will not work. If the farmer will not allow people to fish on the river on his land the whole thing will backfire. Commonsense should come to the rescue now. If there is a fishing club in the district, perhaps they should have the discretionary power to grant the concession to which I referred to the unemployed and disabled who want to fish. I know that the Minister thinks that many other categories would have to be included — that is a fair point — but we have the goodwill of the landowners at the moment, it has been there for generations, they never interfere and the people who use the rivers respect the owners' rights. They do not trespass on crops, they are very careful. Perhaps the Minister will look at this again on Report Stage.
There is a licence for salmon fishing——
I was talking about brown trout fishing.
I appreciate that. We have introduced an exemption for the first time which has been welcomed by the House. There would be difficulties in granting any more exemptions and we gave very serious consideration to this matter when the Bill was being drafted and when we received amendments from Deputy Doyle and Deputy Fitzpatrick. I am of the firm belief that it would be unenforceable if we were to extend it to people other than those under 18 and over 66 years of age. While times are difficult and many people are unemployed, a charge of £10 for the season is not excessive. Indeed, a catch of one salmon could recoup the licence fee.
I am not talking about salmon, I referred to brown trout. The Minister is missing the point because I am speaking about a family who never fish for salmon. The amount of fish those people catch would be no more than seven or eight fish. Indeed, the largest fish would probably weigh no more than nine ounces. The Minister is now telling a family who have a river running through their land that they must pay a licence fee of £10 from now on. The Minister might as well face up to the fact that there will be a revolution in rural areas as far as that is concerned. It will not be accepted, particularly by people who fish where their fathers and grandfathers have fished before them. It is stitched into their title in the Land Commission that they have these rights. The Minister had better cop himself on.
The Deputy said earlier that angling clubs should have the discretion to grant licences. That would not work because you cannot pass on statutory functions to the various angling clubs. I am as aware as the Deputy of the difficulties it could create but we must realise that, if we take something from the rivers, we must give something back. The introduction of this measure will mean a sum of £500,000 will be available to the boards to assist in a restocking programme. It should also be remembered that the sum of £10 covers a year and is not excessive. Fisheries must be protected for future generations and this money will help in that regard.
The Minister should be frank about this most important aspect of the Bill. He just stated that the sum of £500,000 from these licences will go back into restocking the rivers. If I thought for one moment that all the £500,000 was available for restocking the rivers I would not delay the House much longer. I accept from what the Minister said on Second Stage yesterday that the money will be retained by whatever structures are there when he makes his announcement in relation to An Bord Iascaigh Intíre. The Minister and I know, as the officials in the Department must know, that he will not get anywhere near the sum of £500,000, particularly in 1988. He will have some chance of getting a little in 1989 but it is going to take some years to have a built-in acceptance of the charges we are discussing for the different licences.
May I raise another matter, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on section 4 as I am on my feet?
Perhaps we would dispose of the amendment first. We can then discuss the section.
I will stick to the amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister cannot include in section 4 (2), to which this amendment refers, other categories apart from the under 18 year olds and those over 66 years, which we do commend with the increase of sixth year at second level eduation. My two oldest children will be almost 19 years of age before they leave school in the June of their sixth year and that will be the case increasingly as the years go by. We should encourage as many people as possible, including, as Deputy Begley said, teachers pass on to young people the tradition of fishing, angling and making the best use of our environment and unspoiled countryside while we have it. There will be a logistical problem, if nothing more, in relation to confining the exemption purely to under 18 year olds unless we include bona fide students and, one would hope, also non-income earners who are in some sort of training or educational establishment for the few years after they leave secondary school.
I should like to ask the Minister to also consider the disabled. Deputy Begley mentioned this, too. There are many associations who look after the needs of the disabled and I do not think there would be much abuse in this area if disabled people were accredited by the organisation to which they belong and allowed free access to what is a traditional right in our country. Disabled people have limitations enough in relation to the types of sports they can partake in and angling is one of the sports from which many of them have derived enormous pleasure. Tragically in many cases the disabled have far more leisure time than many other people, time they could put to great use if they had access to the angling of their choice in their districts.
The case of the unemployed has also been made.
Deputy Doyle is fishing in new waters now.
Troubled waters.
You are throwing oil on the waters a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Deputy Fitzpatrick is waiting patiently because he has an amendment coming up. When we have dealt with the amendments——
We have another three quarters of an hour.
There are quite a few sections to be dealt with yet. When we have dealt with the other amendment we will return to the section and the Deputy will be at liberty to stray over——
This is the part of the section to which I was hoping the Minister would either include a Government amendment or agree to bring forward one at Report Stage. I am trying to sow seeds in the Minister's mind in relation to improving this section.
Hopes in that regard cannot sideline Standing Orders.
I will be led by you. I think I have said enough for the Minister to realise that we have very strong views in relation to the other groups we would like to see included, notwithstanding the point the Minister made, that if too many groups are included, effectively the whole principle of having a licence is eroded. We have drawn to the Minister's attention one or two extra categories we would like to see included and we would like full consideration to be given to these. Perhaps on Report Stage the Minister will indicate that he is willing to extend the exemption to some of these categories..
There is an indication from Deputy Doyle's contribution that she has said all she wants to say on the amendment. If she is not pressing the amendment we will move on.
She is keeping her options open.
Can I take it that the amendment is not being pressed?
Can I take it that the Minister absolutely refuses to accept it?
The Minister has no interest in the disabled.
The disabled are not provided for here. That would be a matter for when the section comes up.
I am surprised at Deputy Begley, whom I hold in the highest esteem and who has a tremendous interest in fisheries and fish angling, suggesting to the House that I would have no interest in the disabled. I take it that it is a comment he did not mean and I regard it in that light.
I think Deputy Begley made that statement with a tantalising glint in his eye.
I accept that because I know Deputy Begley well.
The Minister is fielding the ball.
The amendment is strictly in relation to students. We have spent some time on this today but have also spent hours considering the various groups that we might exempt. We are convinced that if we extend it beyond this group, it will make it unenforceable. I want to comment on the income from this. There are about 100,000 trout anglers and 10,000 coarse fish anglers in Ireland as well as an additional 10,000 tourist anglers. The income from this will go to the boards to be used at their discretion.
What about the goodwill of the landlords?
That will come up on the section.
I would like to be able to accept this amendment and extend the exemption to the group involved but the provision would be unenforceable if we extended it beyond this category. We have set a very important precedent. The goodwill is there. If we could define the category in question we could give consideration to the suggestion between now and Report Stage but it would be unfair to Deputy Doyle and to the House to suggest that I might change my mind. We have spent many long hours considering this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Before we deal with Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment I would like to advise the House that in the third line of the amendment following the words "being a visitor to the State", the three words "as a tourist" have been omitted.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, after line 45, to insert the following:
(3) The provisions of subsection (1) (c) of this section shall not apply in respect of the fishing for or taking or killing, by a person who is for the time being a visitor to the State, of any coarse fish with one or two rods and lines.".
I intervene in this debate because I represent the constituency of Cavan and Monaghan which is largely comprised of small farmers, many of whom find it very difficult to make a decent living from agriculture alone. It is good to be able to say that my constituents have looked around and exploited every other possible way of adding to their basic incomes. This constituency is one of the most intensive food producing and processing constituencies in the country. As well as that, we have the benefit of having many rivers and lakes which abound in coarse fish and game fish and it is to the coarse fishing industry that I want to address my contribution and to which my amendment is also addressed.
As I have said, during the years people in a geographical position to do so have reconstructed their houses and have built new houses to cater for the tourist industry, particularly the coarse fishermen from Britain and other European countries. They have done so with considerable success and it is refreshing to note that, notwithstanding the troubles with which this island has been afflicted in the last 20 years — I speak of the troubles so near to my constituency in Northern Ireland — the coarse fishermen continue to come here in large numbers from Great Britain, Germany, France, Holland and other countries. They are regarded as big spenders who come here having saved an amount of money during the year and they spend it locally in the guesthouses and in the public houses at night while discussing "the ones that got away".
One of the big attractions and great selling points of this industry has always been that we have free fishing; that the people are friendly; you will not be obstructed or questioned and your activities will not be made more difficult. For the first time this Bill proposes to subject the coarse fishing industry to the licensing system. I have put down this one amendment only but there are other provisions in the Bill which subject the coarse fishermen to regulations, licensing, inspections and so on and that will be a big change. It will discourage this type of visitor and this type of tourist activity. I have discussed this proposal with the guesthouse owners' association and particularly with those who have made a success of the provision of farmhouse and guesthouse accommodation for these visitors and the first thing I am told is that it will be a complete innovation and a complete surprise to foreign visitors when they find that they must get a licence. I would like to emphasise that it will not be the amount of the licence that the people will object to but rather to being dragged into the bureaucratic system. It is not necessary in order to attain the objective which the Minister has in view. He can rely on the complete co-operation of the guesthouse owners and so on.
I am told that when the representatives of the guesthouse owners' association and the tourist board visit Britain, Holland, Germany and other countries selling this holiday, one of the big selling points is that we have free fishing. That is simple sales talk. It is a message that is easily got across and it is something that is very welcome. I am satisfied that nobody better than the Minister, Deputy Pat Cope Gallagher, will realise the efficacy of the short punchlike selling line. He will clearly remember the 1977 election when all one had to say was that there would be no rates on houses and no tax on cars and the job was done. It was irresistible. People realised that it would mean a big saving for them if they voted in favour of those things and they did not see how they could do anything else. So strong was that line of sales talk that it confounded four political commentators who forecast one result on the Sunday before the election. The sort of sales talk I am talking about could change the whole atmosphere and the result was totally different. The Government were defeated and the Minister's party were back in power, much to everybody's surprise, including their own.
Could the Deputy come back to the section we are discussing?
I will, but I am speaking in a political assembly and I cannot think of any better way of getting my point across than the line of argument I have just been making. There may be simplified ways proposed for claiming this licence but, if so, they are not mentioned in the Bill. It is feared that people will have to spend a half day looking for a licence when they come to this country and that will be a great inconvenience. The amount of revenue that will be brought in by this proposal is negligible and it will be eaten up by the cost of collection.
One other point has been made to me, a very significant point which may not have been made before, and that is, that the success or failure of the type of tourist industry I am talking about depends on the goodwill of the farmers. For the last number of years, due to pollution and so on, farmers have had a chip on their shoulders. They are not as totally cooperative as they had been previously because they find that they are being prosecuted heavily for pollution. These farmers will now see that the State is collecting revenue for permitting tourists to fish in their waters and to use their lands and fields to pass through, sometimes with inconvenience to them. Farmers who would not let a neighbour's dog onto their land have no objection to fishermen coming onto their lands to fish. If that is interfered with in any way it will not be good enough. I do not want to carry on for too long. I put down an amendment because otherwise I might not get to talk at all.
I was going to say that it was a very interesting and no expenses spared programme on the part of a former holder of this office.
There is already provision for excluding the under 18s and over 66s. The keenest fishermen might very well fall into those two categories which have been excluded. If it is possible to exclude those it is possible to exclude visiting fishermen.
I suppose the Minister's argument is that he wants to save the lakes and rivers from being raped and overexploited. I honestly believe that if guesthouses distributed literature to visiting fishermen to the effect that the catch would be restricted to so many fish a day, by and large it would be observed. It could be made an offence to be found with a greater number of fish than that allowed. We would not need then to get a licence or to have people subject to inspection and all the rest of it. If the Minister's provisions are to be operated by lay inspectors, we all know they can be quite officious and might do more harm than good. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment and I would be happy if the Minister wants to take it away and put it into the best of Civil Service understandable wording.
Deputy Andrews. I know Deputy Andrews will avoid treating this amendment as a licence to discuss tourism at any great length.
Yes. I will not take the liberty of making a Second Reading speech. The amendment, while wellintentioned, seeks to select a breed of fishermen for special treatment. I do not like that so I urge the House to reject the amendment in the name of Deputy Fitzpatrick. I dislike the idea of fishermen, particularly trout fishermen, being asked to pay an additional fee on top of the moneys we spend, for example when we go fishing on Lough Mask, Lough Corrib or on Lough Sheelin which was a great lake. Unfortunately Lough Sheelin has become a victim of modern farming methods. I am not being critical of the farmers. They have to earn a living but they should have been given sustained Government help particularly along the banks of Lough Sheelin where the water was deoxygenated to the point where the sub-growth took the oxygen out of the water and killed the fish. The growth was so prolific as a result of pig slurry getting into the lake that the necessary biological element ceased to be there and the fish died. Lough Sheelin was regenerated for a short time but it is gone again now. It is unfortunate that this should happen in this year of the environment. I remember fishing there with my father and uncle 25 years ago and catching eight, nine and ten fish, magnificent three pound and four pound trout. What has happened to Lough Sheelin is a tragedy which I hope will not happen to other lakes. The lakes are part of our heritage which we must transfer to the next generation. Our generation has not really discharged their functions in that regard.
To return to the amendment, it is extraordinary that the drafters of this legislation should ask for more money in the context of a rod licence. One cannot quantify what it costs to kill one fish, particularly if one travels from Dublin to Lough Mask. One would spend a couple boatman and spend money in Mrs. Murphy's in Ballintrallagh House, a magnificent guesthouse on Lough Mask.
(Interruptions.)
It is a wonderful place.
You must be looking for free accommodation next season.
Now that the Deputy has raised it, the accommodation there costs only £10 a night — remarkable value.
Have you a prospectus for us?
What do you get for breakfast?
One gets a full breakfast and the place is spotless and representative of the quality of accommodation one gets in the Ballinrobe/ Mask area.
Deputy Andrews, we would love to have time to listen to this but this is not the place to discuss it.
If we are to have this awful imposition on unfortunate people like myself we could describe ourselves in the context of the European Year of the Environment as a deprived section of the Community because of the pollution that is being poured into our lakes and rivers. I strongly urge the House to reject this imposition. It seeks to discriminate against one section of the fresh water fishing community. That is inacceptable. The Bill itself is unbearable but having listened to the Minister, Deputy Daly, who has a great grasp of this subject saying that the licence fees would be put back into work on the waterways and the local fisheries boards, I am reassured. Places like Lough Mask, Lough Sheelin and Lough Corrib should be sustained with the moneys collected, but I have grave doubts about how the money will be collected. I object to the passing of Deputy Fitzpatrick's Bill.
It is not my Bill.
Sorry, I mean Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment. However, it is important to discuss amendments of this nature as it gives us an opportunity to speak in broad terms on this issue.
The licence given to Deputy Andrews will not be given to Deputy Henry Abbott. I ask him to speak specifically on the amendment.
I am very hurt by your remarks. I am really upset.
I have observed the example of Deputy Andrews and I will try not to follow it. I join with Deputy Andrews in suggesting that Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment should not get the support of the House as the sum being charged for foreign visitors is nominal. Local coarse anglers are increasingly setting up very worthy angling clubs throughout the country and they would be hurt if visiting anglers were to get free angling. The visiting coarse angler will appreciate facilities more if he or she is asked to pay a nominal sum.
I disagree with Deputy Fitzpatrick in his assertion that the money collected will be nominal and not sufficient to outweigh the collection costs. A total of 5,000 visting anglers would yield £250,000 and the number of anglers will far outnumber 5,000 in the next few years. The money will go a long way towards ensuring that the type of facilities needed for the coarse angling market are delivered and maintained. We undoubtedly have excellent facilities for coarse fishing but at the moment these facilities are often inaccessible. I know the British angler likes to drive his car close by the area where he is fishing and to be able to walk on level ground to a fishing stand reasonably well prepared.
I have particular personal experience arising from the organisation of the freshwater youth world championship on the River Inny which, despite the deprivation of Lough Sheelin, is watered by enough fresh Westmeath water to be a very good haven for enormous numbers of coarse fish.
A lot of the pollution comes from the Deputy's constituency.
Despite that, Westmeath County Council, the organising committee, the Central Fisheries Bord and Bord Fáilte had to spend a very significant sum in preparation of the bank to enable the fishery to be prepared as a world standard match stretch. That match stretch is now recognised as having a good world track record and we are pressing to have it designated as a European fishery with special rights for each European state in relation to the requirements of their angling enthusiasts. All these things cost money and it is not fair for the angling interests or the tourist interests to demand of the State endless subventions without themselves making some input.
Regarding Deputy Andrews' interest in trout angling, I would point out that there are lakes in Ireland other than Lough Corrib, Lough Mask and Lough Sheelin.
I realise that.
Without challenging the Chair's ruling, I should like to extend an invitation to Deputy Andrews to come to Lough Owel in County Westmeath or Lough Ennel which is now recovering.
Will the Deputy pay the cost of my licence?
I will facilitate Deputy Andrews in every possible way and the fullest Mullingar courtesy will be extended to him.
I accept the invitation. Am I guaranteed fish?
It will not even cost the Deputy £10 for bed and breakfast. Banter apart, the curing of Lough Ennel of very serious pollution and eutrophication cost the State and Westmeath County Council a figure approaching £1 million but the treatment has been a success. It is an example of what can be done with the co-operation of angling, local authority and State interests to restore a marvellous heritage and facility. The only thing required is money and the only way money can be raised in these times of shortage is by looking to the angler to pay some part.
Deputy Andrews is not totally correct when he says that Lough Sheelin is dead. The fish are still there. They had a very close shave last summer but a shower of rain or a storm just about saved them. The fish are ready to be saved if something can be done even at this late stage to alleviate the pollution. Experience has shown that pollution in Lough Sheelin can be eliminated with reasonably modest expenditure to encourage the farming population to have a more progressive slurry disposal policy.
If the Deputy would arrange for some proper sanitation for some of the towns in the area it would be of benefit to Lough Sheelin.
I will take up Deputy Fitzpatrick on his challenge in relation to the contribution of Westmeath on another date and in any other forum he wishes. Westmeath has a proud record in relation to pollution control which I will defend anywhere.
Not here.
I have to support Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment. The Minister must be aware that hoteliers and hotel managers are already touring Europe telling the tourist market that free fishing is available in Ireland. They have offered package holidays which include free fishing. Commitments have already been entered into by some managements. If free fishing is stated as part of the package, the hoteliers cannot be expected to subsidise each anglier by paying the licence fee. I am a trout fisherman and my remarks are related specifically to trout fishing.
The Minister might consider this aspect. The brochures have been printed by Bord Fáilte and I am reliably informed that they were not consulted when the Bill was drafted. If they had been asked for their views they would have stated very positively that commitments have been entered into for 1988. The Minister might find some way to resolve this dilemma.
Deputy Fitzpatrick has made an impassioned plea for the visiting coarse angler in County Cavan and his point of view deserves full consideration by the Minister of State.
Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the difficulties which local anglers would experience in having to pay a licence fee of £5 for 21 days. Many of these people could be unemployed. Anyone who fishes locally would be advised to opt for the yearly licence. The amendment does not refer to these people but only to visitors.
I spoke earlier about comparisons with other fees. The green fee for one round of golf in some parts of Ireland is between £10 and £18. In some of the more exclusive clubs the green fees are much higher. I do not play golf but the only ones I am familiar with are places like Cruit Island, Portnoo and Gweedore where green fees for two weeks amount to about £36. Relatively speaking, the fees we are proposing are very cheap.
Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the availability of these licences and the difficulties which could be created if they were available only at the head offices of regional boards. He said that people in Cavan would have to travel to Ballyshannon to obtain a licence. We want to make the process as easy as possible and I would refer the Deputy to the Minister's speech on Second Stage when he stated that licences would be sold by the fisheries boards through their offices and by some field staff, as well as through outlets countrywide such as shops, hotels and offices of regional tourism organisations.
Will they open over the weekends?
They will be available in shops and in the hotels where anglers will be staying. If the outlets have to be extended in any way, it will be done. I fully appreciate the importance of coarse fishing to the country as a whole but particularly in Deputy Fitzpatrick's constituency. I am very familiar with one area where one hears more German being spoken than any other language.
Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the punchlines in a particular manifesto. What better punchline could we have than "Fish in Ireland for 10p per day"? That will be its cost. I want to reassure the House that the moneys raised on foot of licence fees will be given back to the various regional fisheries boards. It amounts to 10 pence per day or, over a full year, to something like three pence per day. One could not get greater pleasure at a more competitive cost.
It is my belief that very few visiting anglers would object to paying £5 for a 21-day coarse fishing licence or £10 for a 21-day trout fishing licence. It is pointless referring to the difficulties it could create for locals. The amendment deals strictly with visitors. Of course, there is also the difficulty of how one defines "visitor". It is not as simple as the amendment would suggest. In principle it is my belief that a contribution has to be made in this respect, that it is a national asset or resource we are making available. Its contribution to the various regions must be appreciated.
Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment. We cannot go beyond what we have already done — granting a licence free of charge to those under 18 and over 66 years of age. Many of the people Deputy T. Fitzpatrick would have in mind may well fall into that category. It would be unfair to suggest to Deputy Fitzpatrick that I could reconsider this matter between now and Report Stage because we have given it much thought. Prior to his tabling his amendment and the drafting of the Bill we examined the interests of various groups around the country. If we went further we would be creating difficulties for ourselves in enforcing the provisions of the Bill.
I take it that Deputy T. Fitzpatrick — albeit not convinced — does not intend pushing his amendment?
I will push it a little, if the Chair will put the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The point was raised yesterday about the difficulties that would arise if a holder of a trout fishing licence landed a pike. How will that be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill?
That is only a scruple.
In relation to the section itself — and I may be reading it altogether wrongly — is it the intention that a person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £500, or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £2,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment?
That is for catching a pike while the holder of a trout licence; one gets two years.
Surely that is extremely punitive? If trout anglers and fresh water fishermen are to be punished by the imposition of this £40 composite licence, surely then it is unreasonable — if one were to be prosecuted for not holding a licence — and of course one could argue that out of court with one's solicitor or whoever — that at the end of the day, one is to be indicted and failing to prove innocence to the satisfaction of the learned justices or judges, one might end up with a fine of £2,000 and two years in jail, for failing to have a trout licence. I may be quite wrong but I find that extraordinary. Perhaps the Minister of State could reassure me but, if that is the intention of the section, it is extremely punitive, unreasonable and unfair.
The same would hold for the trout fisherman who catches a pike.
I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be no difficulty in obtaining licences. I have in mind a fisherman finding that, over a weekend, the man who issues licences is away and will not return until Monday — as one famous judge advised somebody in regard to another matter. However, that does not arise here. Many people are concerned about a prospective difficulty in obtaining licences. I should like the Minister to tell us also whether the money accruing from such licences will be spent on the fishing industry, how it will be used; or will it follow some of the National Lottery proceeds to places it should not be going.
The implementation of the provisions of this Bill will entail a lot more work for the regional fisheries boards. Will the Minister say whether they will be given additional allocations for enforcement? There is a rumour that the boards will disappear altogether in January next. If that is correct, then who will enforce the powers contained in the Bill?
Having listened to the debate I think the point Deputy Doyle has raised is correct as far as I can ascertain. When I first read the section I assumed that the lesser type of licence was included in the greater.
No.
Unfortunately, it is not. It would make common sense that the greater should contain the lesser but it does not. There is a ridiculous position created here with very severe penalties being imposed, as Deputy Andrews said; one might almost say ridiculously severe penalties. As has often happened to me, somebody fishing for trout could catch a perch.
The Deputy can get two years for it now.
It is ridiculous that somebody holding a trout licence, fishing lawfully for trout and catching a perch — which is of no value whatever — commits, under the provisions of this section, an offence for which he can get two years in jail and be fined £2,000. I am speaking at 12.27 p.m. which demonstrates how unwise it is to rush these things through on guillotines. This problem has come to light. Perhaps there are many similar ones in this Bill. It is a ridiculous position and it simply should not be allowed to pass. The Minister of State should now withdraw this section because it is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient time. I want to reassure Deputy T. Fitzpatrick about the availability of licences. We will do our utmost to ensure they are freely available. At present the procedures work very well in relation to salmon. We will ensure there are as many outlets as possible so that these licences will be freely available seven days a week. Another point Deputy Fitzpatrick raised was in relation to the usage of the money. I can tell him it will go back to the regional fisheries boards. I have no intention of coming between the legal eagles on both sides of me as far as this is concerned. I might add that the fines of £500, £2,000 are maximum fines. Their imposition will be at the discretion of the courts. I do not know how many perch are caught by trout anglers.
Is our interpretation correct, though?
It is possible but I do not think——
We have a problem?
We have not a problem inasmuch as it is a matter for the courts to decide. If one catches that type of fish——
It is a matter for this House to decide.
I am sure any angler would know the difference between a trout and any other species, and he can throw it back into the river.
But he has taken it.
He has taken it.
He has not taken it; he has taken it to the bank.
Is the Minister of State saying that a fisherman fishing for trout would have to discourage perch and, if so, how would he do so?
He would put a notice on the end of his line to tell the perch to keep off.
It is going from the sublime to the ridiculous to suggest that we could send a fax message to the fish that they should stay clear. If that happens there is a discretion.
The matter could be dealt with by amending the section.
I may be in the House only a few years but I have as much right to speak as the Deputy. I want the opportunity to reply. I am trying to be helpful to all those who are making constructive contributions. There is a discretion. There have been no difficulties with salmon. It has never happened that someone has spent two years in gaol because of fishing for salmon and catching other types of fish. This is not the intention. The penalties are strictly a matter for the courts. If I even suggested that there should be any interference it would not go down well. This system has worked well in the past and there is no reason why it should not do so in the future.
It is now 12.30 p.m.
It is regrettable that we spend a lot of time on matters I can do nothing about.
Will the trout licence include coarse fishing? It will not, according to the Bill.
It will be a composite licence.
Will the licence include coarse fishing?
No.
Question "That the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House without amendment and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed," put and declared carried.