asked the Minister for the Marine if he will review the operation of rod licensing legislation in view of the serious disruption of the development of trout angling; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
23.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rod Licensing.
9.
asked the Minister for the Marine if he has any proposals to introduce an alternative to the present licensing system for trout and course fishermen; and if he will make a statement on the extremely adverse consequences of his action to date in terms of the disruption of tourist activities and the growth of social division in the community at large.
25.
asked the Minister for the Marine if, in view of the continuing serious implications for angling in the country, he intends to take any new measures to seek a solution to the rod angling licence dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 23 and 25 together.
On the introduction of the new licensing arrangements at the beginning of 1988, I made clear on more than one occasion my Department's willingness to examine ways in which the legislation could be improved. I also indicated that I was willing to make adjustments within the framework of the legislation to make it more acceptable to anglers and tourists alike.
The controversy that developed as a result of this measure was avoidable and unnecessary in view of the generally accepted view that expenditure by the taxpayers on inland fisheries should be supplemented by a statutory contribution from anglers towards the overall development of the resource.
Prior to the introduction of the legislation and after its passage through the Oireachtas, discussions were held with various angling bodies, with the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards and with many other interested parties on the question of the development of inland fisheries. There was widespread agreement on the need to strengthen the finances of inland fisheries to avoid any further rundown and neglect of this important sector.
While there is acceptance of the necessity to fund development, no generally accepted formulae emerged as to how it could be achieved. It was in these circumstances that the licence arrangement was made.
Figures on the loss to tourism are not based on any factual assessment. Estimates of £3 million to £6 million which have been mentioned are largely speculative. It remains to be seen at year's end what the outcome will be. Major efforts have been made throughout the year to attempt to resolve the issue.
In spite of all the discussions undertaken, the anti-rod licence lobby continued to raise unrelated issues and, in a small number of areas, inhibited citizens from exercising their lawful rights to fish.
I would urge all the groups involved to call off the campaign and to get back to working through their representative bodies.
I am more than willing to discuss the whole area, as inland fisheries are in a critical and declining state and must be protected.
Would the Minister accept that the valuable development work which had been done over the years, on an annual basis, by angling clubs on a voluntary basis has now come to a halt because of their objections to the imposition of a rod licence on the free fishing waters and that this will have a detrimental effect on the development of inland fisheries as well as the terrible effect which this is having on our tourist industry? Was it not the Minister's intention originally to seek to get additional funds for investment in inland fisheries development? Having considered the matter for the best part of nine months, would he not accept that there are other ways in which additional funds can be obtained through the organised angling clubs for the purpose of developing inland fisheries without necessarily——
This is becoming a very long question.
——having a rod licence? May I ask the Minister if he would, at this stage, consider reviewing the whole position by withdrawing the rod licence and entering into discussions with the angling clubs to see how best additional funds could be made available by them to supplement his own State funds?
Please, Deputy Molloy. I must ask the Deputy to desist from any further questioning or further speech-making.
I do not accept the Deputy's contention that all angling development has come to a halt. It has not; in fact, a lot of angling development is taking place. Angling development in some areas has been disrupted.
I believe that this matter might never have gone this far if misleading information had not been given to this House. The Minister was incorrect in his statement that the lost tourism was speculative. Ireland West Tourism have done a detailed analysis in their own area and the figures do stand up. Can I ask the Minister, in the interests of avoiding further social disharmony and in the interests of good tourism development and angling development, if an alternative is put up which is agreed and which would bring into the Exchequer an equivalent or greater amount of funding, if he would be prepared to review the licence concept of the legislation in that context?
First, I want to reject the allegation made by the Deputy that I misled the House in some way. At no time did I mislead the House——
Yes, you definitely did.
——and the record is there for anyone to see. I did not mislead the House on any occasion.
You definitely did.
Order, no such allegation should be made that anyone deliberately mislead the House. I call Deputy Joe Sherlock.
It is——
Deputy Sherlock has been called.
May I ask the Minister if he would not accept that the figure of £6 million lost to the tourist industry came from authentic sources and that it is he who is being frivolous in this regard? Would the Minister agree that it is because of his own intransigence in the issue that those who are involved are determined not to compromise. It is their view which must be taken into consideration and it is about time the Minister made a decision to withdraw the order of licensing and to start afresh so that the damage that has been done to the tourist industry and to the angling clubs generally in the smaller areas where tourism is not the main issue can be rectified in the coming years. He should now take some action on this matter, that is, to withdraw the order for licensing.
Would the Minister not agree at this stage that very serious damage has been done to the economy and, in particular, to the individual livelihoods of people who depend on tourism and that as a result of that he has a very specific responsibility in this area to now negotiate with the anti-rod people and to ensure that some resolution is immediately brought about in view of the fact that Bord Fáilte are now about to publish their brochure — indeed, it may be too late because many agencies abroad have already published their brochures? In view of this alone does the Minister not now feel that he has a responsibility to those whose livelihoods are in danger to enter into negotiations at once in order to bring about some resolution of the problem?
I have always indicated that we are willing to talk to the people, and the representative body, the Trout Anglers Federation of Ireland, have been involved in discussions throughout the year with both myself and officials of my Department and we have correspondence from the federation to prove that. We have indicated on all occasions that we are willing to be reasonable and flexible in the operation of this legislation. The whole purpose and rationale behind the introduction of the legislation was to enable the people involved in angling to make a contribution which would supplement the State's investment in this area. We have said on numerous occasions — on so many occasions that I bore people by repeating it — that we are willing to talk to people but we cannot talk to people who are being unreasonable. We are not prepared to talk to people who embark on a campaign of intimidation or blackguardism, whether they are in the anti rod-licence campaign or in any other campaign.
Give back the illegal nets to the people who have nothing.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I have allowed some latitude. I want to finalise matters by calling on Deputy Madeline Taylor-Quinn for a brief supplementary and then I will finally call on Deputy John McCoy.
(Interruptions.)
I think the Minister was being harsh in referring to blackguardism and referring in that manner to the people who oppose the licence. I believe that——
Ceist, le do thoil, a Theachta.
Is the Minister aware that the anglers are prepared to make a contribution towards inland fishing development but that they are opposed to the principle and concept of a licence. They are not opposed to making a contribution——
This is leading to argument.
I find it very hard to understand the reasoning behind that question given that many anglers continue to buy salmon fishing licences and, in fact, some of the leading anti-trout rod licence campaigners were very busily fishing for salmon with salmon licences during the summer.
Would the Minister ever answer the question?
Deputy John McCoy, a final supplementary please, and a brief one.
In view of the many statements the Minister has made about being flexible, can I ask him to outline to the House what he means by being flexible?
The purpose and rationale behind the introduction of the legislation was to enable a statutory contribution to be got from the angling community to supplement what the State was investing in inland fisheries. In fact, when the legislation was debated here both Deputy Madeline Taylor-Quinn's party and the PDs supported it.
Deputy O'Malley told you it would never work.
Deputy O'Malley supported it.
The House was wrongly advised in relation to the agreement——
It was not.
Deputy O'Malley said it would never work.
In fact, he wanted a licence for sea anglers as well.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 10.
(Interruptions.)
Order, I have called Question No. 10, Deputy Mervyn Taylor's question.