I welcome the Minister of State to the House and look forward to hearing his reply.
The Caragh River in County Kerry is well known and is famous as a great salmon river. A great deal of concern was expressed about the future of this river at two large public meetings held in Killorglin and at others held by the Caragh Action Committee which made representations to Members representing their area on this issue. These concerns relate to title portions of the river, access to the river, the river bed, Seefin's intentions and maps showing ownership, the fact that a grant was rescinded and reactivated and their traditional rights.
It might be best if I read into the record a letter which the Caragh Action Committee sent to the Minister and all local public representatives. It states:
Thank you for your letter dated 12th May 2000 in which you set out a verbatim reiteration of your unyielding stand made to the delegation from this committee when they met with you in Dingle. The letter clearly does not address the issues brought before you and your department regarding title, tidal and corporate ownership of the Caragh River. It seems to sidestep the definitive response to enforce a declarative statement which, we suppose, is meant to force the community of Caragh River to accept facts which are not verified.
The vast amount of inconsistencies surrounding this issue are growing as time goes on. You stated that TAM did extensive examinations of Seefin's right to the Caragh River and yet the grant of £167,000 was rescinded. It would seem logical that, given the teams of legal and fisheries experts, that the entire grant would not have been recalled and Seefin would have been able to commence the renovation of the portion above Caragh Bridge some time ago. It is inconceivable that any business enterprise would sacrifice profits for a prolonged period of time unless other means had to be provided to secure their title or even a portion of the river.
You stated in your letter "the development scheme now approved does not involve the most contentious areas of dispute associated with the original application." Are we to assume that is a situation that is permanently dissolved or temporarily put on hold to appease and lull the local community into agreement or a great sense of apathy? We seem to recall that you semi-promised a written definition to all our questions and that the tidal portion of the river was not a matter for concern. To date that assurance is not in writing.
Many questions were brought to the attention of the Department of the Marine and Fisheries in the person of Michael Woods and now yourself. There was a letter from Ellen Roche, EU Projects Manager (enclosed for your review) with misgivings on the motives and corporate ownership of varied companies in the business of purchasing rivers, lakes and the operation of game fisheries. Another letter, from Seán Ó hArgain, Cathaoirleach, IRD Waterville Ltd, also expresses grave concerns regarding Seefin and the ultimate use or misuse of their natural resource. We are also aware, as we are sure you are, that the Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-1999 deals with the acquisition of certain fisheries for development. Is it possible that it is within this programme that Seefin miraculously obtained title to the Caragh River. We were also given to understand that it was government policy to purchase, obtain or secure any natural resources that became available for the public domain. Why did that not apply to the Caragh River? When it was supposedly sold to Seefin, why was it not purchased and given to the local community to operate and nurture?
We hope that you understand that the Caragh community is not trying to obstruct or defile your Department, but we feel that we are entitled to just and honest answers. To date that has not been the case.
The document referred to in the letter and signed by Ellen Roche, the EU projects manager in the tourism angling unit of the Department of Tour ism, Sport and Recreation, shows that they had concerns as it states:
I have been advised recently by the South West Regional Fisheries Board that there may be some negative feedback in relation to this project. I appraised the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources – the Minister's press officer and the inland fisheries division.
It is my understanding that some of the individuals involved in Seefin Fisheries Limited have plans to acquire and/or co-operatively manage other game fisheries in Kerry and are in negotiation with fishery owners at this time. It appears to me that they wish to build a critical mass of strategic fisheries for development and exploitation for tourism angling. There appears to be some confusion in relation to the role of the TAM regarding these negotiations. There is no application under TAM to acquire and/or develop the fisheries which are currently under negotiation, i.e. Waterville Lakes. It appears that an application for BES funding in relation to these fisheries has been successful.
I raise this matter on behalf of the people of Caragh and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation (Mr. E. Ryan): I thank the Senator for giving me this opportunity to address the House on the subject of the Caragh river and the tourism angling measure or TAM of the Operational Programme for Tourism, 1994 to 1999.
Under the TAM a total of £18 million was made available to 157 projects over the period of the National Development Plan, 1994-99. The objective of the TAM was to upgrade our game, coarse and sea angling facilities to the best international standards with a view to increasing substantially tourist angling and revenue and to the creation of sustainable jobs, particularly in more remote and disadvantaged areas where the majority of our prime fisheries are located. The improved facilities are available for the benefit of local and visiting anglers, thereby ensuring economic and social benefits accrue to local communities.
The TAM represented an unprecedented opportunity to provide significant and much needed investment in the inland fisheries sector. The benefits which have accrued from TAM are to be seen in many locations around the country and there is provision under the National Development Plan, 2000 to 2006 for continued investment in angling in the sum of £24 million which will be allocated through the regional operational programmes.
I am aware that TAM related developments on the Caragh river have been the subject of controversy locally and that the Caragh Action Committee has been particularly active in bringing its concerns in relation to TAM funding for the Caragh river to my attention and to the attention of my Department. In fact I met with the committee in April this year in order to listen to their concerns at first hand.
The position is that TAM funding has been made available for two projects on the Caragh river. Both of the successful applicants were from the private sector. The first project was proposed by a company called Chapwell Limited and relates to the upper Caragh. This project comprised a total of £41,000 of development work and grant aid of 50% of eligible expenditure has been made available. The second project was proposed by a company called Seefin Limited and relates to the lower Caragh. This project comprised acquisition costs of £250,000 for which grant aid of 20% of eligible expenditure has been made available and development costs of £70,000 for which grant aid of 50% of eligible expenditure has been made available.
In order to qualify for assistance under the TAM applicants were required to demonstrate that the fisheries in question would be qualified to be Bord Fáilte branded fisheries, be capable of attracting additional foreign visiting anglers, be readily available for tourist use, generate economic benefit and additional employment and be in harmony with the environment and the aquatic habitat.
Decisions in relation to funding of individual projects under the TAM are a matter for the TAM management committee which is assisted by a technical and evaluation committee comprised of recognised experts with substantial fisheries development experience. The procedures prior to awarding grant aid to an applicant involved a detailed assessment of the proposal from the technical and development perspectives. In addition to complying with the eligibility criteria for funding under the scheme, the project promoters were required to prove clear title to the fishery being developed.
In the case of the Seefin project the TAM management committee approved grant aid of £167,500 for the acquisition of the lower Caragh fishery subject to Seefin proving that it had title to the fishery. This offer of grant aid was later withdrawn as Seefin was not able prove title to the fishery which was the subject of the conditional approval of the TAM committee. Subsequently, the promoters of the Seefin project submitted a revised application in respect of that part of the fishery where title was clearly held by Seefin and the revised proposal was approved by the TAM committee in June 1999 and the letter of offer was accepted by Seefin in December 1999.
The Central Fisheries Board has operational responsibility for the TAM support unit which implements the decisions of the TAM management committee. The Central Fisheries Board informs me that its legal advisers have confirmed that Seefin purchased clear and marketable title from the previous owners of the fishery and that payment of the £50,000 grant aid in respect of acquisition has been made to Seefin. The central board also informs me that as a result of the support from TAM the Caragh river system will be significantly developed and be open to tourist anglers until 2010 and that the owners of both the upper and lower Caragh fisheries have indicated that local anglers will have access to the fisheries at non-peak times at special rates. I also understand that Seefin is including local groups and landowners in consultations regarding its development plan.
I understand the concerns of local anglers regarding the development of fisheries which are in private ownership and the effects which they perceive this as having on other fishing rights. However, due regard must be had for the rights of the private owners of the fisheries in question and these rights must be respected. I do not propose to enter into any discussions regarding ownership of the various parts of the Caragh river. In cases of dispute or lack of clarity such issues regarding ownership are best left to legal advisers, the Land Registry records and the courts, if necessary. However, in the case of the Seefin project I understand the most contentious areas of the river have not been included in the project which has been approved by the TAM management committee. Accordingly, I hope it will prove possible for the project promoters and the local angling interests to come together to agree mutually acceptable working arrangements regarding access to the fishery which would be in harmony with the objective of attracting visiting anglers to the area.
It is important to bear in mind that development of fisheries such as on the Caragh river through public and private funding can only serve to bring social and economic benefits to local communities. It is through developing and promoting the angling product that we can best achieve the virtuous circle of further development being funded from revenue. In this context private ownership of fisheries is compatible with the sustainable development of inland fisheries for the national benefit.
The Seanad adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 May 2000.