asked the Minister for the Marine if he will make a statement on his meetings to date with organisations opposed to a fishing rod licence; and if he will indicate his proposals to resolve this dispute.
25.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rod Licence Dispute.
12.
asked the Minister for the Marine the progress he has made towards the settling of the rod licence dispute.
26.
asked the Minister for the Marine if he will make a statement on his discussions over the summer months with interested parties regarding the current rod angling licence dispute; if he intends to take any further initiatives to settle the dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
37.
asked the Minister for the Marine when he hopes to have a solution to the rod licence dispute.
43.
asked the Minister for the Marine the meetings he has had since assuming office with a view to resolving the rod licence dis pute; the parties with whom he has met; the number of occasions on which they met; the definite proposals which have resulted from these meetings; and when he will be in a position to resolve the problem.
44.
asked the Minister for the Marine the current position in relation to the rod licence dispute; the proposals, if any, he has for new legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12, 25, 26, 37 and Priority Questions Nos. 43 and 44 together.
Since coming to office I have held a series of meetings with various interested parties regarding the difficulties that have arisen in relation to angling licences.
On 26 July 1989, I met the chairman and chief executive officer of the Central Fisheries Board. On 27 July 1989, I met members of the national committee of the anti-rod licence campaign. On 1 August 1989, I met representatives of the National Anglers Representative Association. On 3 August 1989, I had a second meeting with representatives of the anti-rod licence campaign. On 24 August 1989, officials of my Department met representatives of the anti-rod licence campaign. On 15 September, I met the members of the Central Fisheries Board, which include the chairpersons of the seven regional fisheries boards. On 5 October 1989, I met representatives of the National Coarse Fishing Federation of Ireland.
On 13 October 1989, I met a delegation representing various tourist organisations including: Bord Fáilte, Western Regional Tourism, Irish Tourism Industry Confederation, Irish Hotels Federation, Town and Country Homes Association, Fáilte Tuaithe, Irish Country House and Restaurant Association, Irish Caravan Council, Incoming Tour Operators' Association, and the Western Game-fishing Association. Apart from these meetings with representative groups, I have also met a number of other groups and individuals who have an interest in this issue. In addition, I have had a large volume of written submissions on the subject.
The detailed matters raised at these meetings are of course confidential and that was the basis on which discussions were conducted with all groups. The discussions were held in a cordial atmosphere and I detected a general desire that this particular dispute should be deescalated and a normal atmosphere restored.
I am now in the process of arranging what will hopefully be a final series of consultations. My aim is to have these completed within a matter of weeks. It is, therefore, timely that I outline for the House my general perception of the problem and the objectives I have set myself.
Those Deputies who are most familiar with this dispute will be aware of how complex it now is. There are significant groups of anglers vehemently opposed to the licence concept for trout and coarse fishing. There are also major groups who are equally strongly supportive of the licence. The Central Fisheries Board and the majority of the regional fisheries boards have also pressed strongly that the licence be maintained.
All the groups I have met, whether pro or anti licence have pressed for increased funding for the fishery service and most are conscious that a contribution by anglers to the financing of the overall level of the service is important.
There is grave concern which I share about the social divisions — and this has impacted most severely on me — caused in some communities by the different stances local individuals and groups have adopted on the licence. I am very anxious that these divisions be healed. I am also very concerned about the impact of the dispute both on angling tourism and tourism generally and the impact of the dispute on the visitor friendly image of some localities.
I have stressed to all the groups I have met that I am anxious to achieve an outcome which will bring about reconciliation within the angling community and between the fishery service and anglers in those areas where divisions have arisen. I have also stressed the need for revenue from anglers for the financing of the fishery service.
There is, in the view of many groups, a clear need for an effective mechanism for raising revenue from anglers. To be effective such a mechanism should aim to overcome the perceived difficulties raised by the licence concept and should be capable of being implemented in a fashion which is tolerant of local feelings and traditions. Many have also pressed that there should be a clear and visible incentive for anglers to contribute and this too is an important consideration.
I am now in the process of finalising specific ideas taking account of these considerations. It would be wrong, however, to underestimate the difficulties of getting the various parties involved to come to agreement. Considerable persuasion will have to be applied and there must be give and take on all sides.
One of my concerns in this whole exercise has been to reduce the temperature, so to speak, and to avoid confrontational language or exchanges. In this regard I would appeal to all sides of the House to avoid using this issue as a political football or pushing their case from a partisan perspective based on the outlook in their own particular constituencies. The problem is much too serious for that and I hope that all Deputies will bear this in mind.
The Minister should have thought of that before he brought it in.
On a point of order, two Deputies have tabled their questions as Priority Questions while a number of us have put down ordinary questions. We are now restricted to two minutes. Do you propose, a Cheann Comhairle——
The Chair is very conscious of that fact. We have very little time left before, in accordance with Standing Orders, I must proceed to deal with Priority Questions. I will call therefore first the two Deputies who have Priority Questions tabled on this subject matter Deputy Taylor-Quinn on Priority Question No. 43, and Deputy G. O'Sullivan who put down Priority Question No. 44.
On a point of order——
Time is of the essence. I am obliged to proceed to other questions at 3.30 p.m.
On a point of order——
Let us not erode the precious time available to us with questions which may prove spurious.
On a point of order, I put down Question No. 26.
If time permits, Deputy, I would love to call you but you are not helping yourself. I would love to facilitate the Deputy and he knows that.
This has been a national problem for over two years and I am sure the Minister more than appreciates that fact.
Questions, please.
Would the Minister agree that, while he was Minister for Tourism and Transport he was one member of the Cabinet who strongly opposed the licence? Now, as Minister for the Marine, he has failed since taking office to have this matter resolved. Does the Minister feel that arranging a final series of consultations is adequate when he should be introducing amending legislation? Does the Minister realise that there are thousands of people who depend on tourism who need to have their names in the brochures for 1990 for fishing purposes?
I appeal for brevity. Otherwise other Deputies will not be facilitated.
Would the Minister agree that it is vital to pass legislation by mid-November?
Heated language has not been helpful in the past and will not be in the future. I do not consider I have failed. I am involved in an exercise which has occupied me very fully since I was appointed. I am making progress. I have met with all sectors of the tourism people who have fully expressed their views to me. I have taken their views on board and I am hopeful that I will be able to resolve this problem in such a way that the social divisions will be healed, that the economic damage inherent in this problem eliminated and that we will be able to advertise visitor friendly holidays for anglers in the various areas.
I appreciate the Minister's work in trying to solve this rather complex problem. Does the Minister believe that the present legislation is unworkable, and does he intend to bring in legislation to get rid of the rod licence once and for all?
The time has come to deal with other questions. Would the Minister make a brief reply?
I am at stage one of this problem at the moment. If I can resolve the problem at that stage then I will do whatever is necessary to follow that up and I will let the House know.
(Interruptions.)
May I seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment?
I will communicate with the Deputy.
May I ask a supplementary question? I have this down as a Priority Question so I am sure I can raise a supplementary on it in Priority Time.
I cannot accede to the Deputy's request.
It is a Priority Question.
It is indeed, and these are Priority Questions. Will the Deputy please desist and allow me to proceed to deal with Priority Questions.
(Interruptions.)