asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether fishery No. 20/3, Sligo/Leitrim was leased to the highest tenderer; and, if not, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishery Lease.
39.
The answer is yes.
Arising out of the reply to Question No. 37——
We cannot go back to Question No. 37.
That question is up-stream.
Arising out of the reply to Question No. 37——
We have passed on to Question No. 39.
Are we not allowed to ask supplementary questions?
We cannot revert to a previous question.
Are we to have two sets of rules in this House?
Question No. 39 has been answered.
I have answered Question No. 39 and I am ready to move on to Question No. 40.
Arising from the reply to Question No. 39——
To which the answer is: "Yes".
——can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the local angling club were not suitable?
The highest tender was accepted and the tender accepted far exceeds the tender of the body or association in which the Deputy appears to be interested.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the persons who have the letting at the moment will allow the Sligo Angling Club only one boat per week with two rods at £1 per rod? That will not facilitate all of their own members even apart from the tourists who come to the area.
This was open for tender and it was up to the Deputy's club, if they so decided, to submit a tender higher than the successful one and naturally it could be approved.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that where possible negotiations should be entered into by the Department and the local angling club to facilitate the locals and the tourists rather than have syndicates make money on some of these lettings?
Mr. P. Murphy
Is the Deputy aware that it was his own Government and his own Minister who made these regulations? I agree entirely with the Deputy.
I am not concerned about that. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary now.
It was given to the highest tender.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the policy to be pursued in these cases is to give the contract to the highest tenderer irrespective of the people concerned, the angling club, what it is doing for tourism or whether the people making the highest bids are foreigners? Are none of these considerations to be taken into account?
The successful tender is from the party who have had this right for the past 20 years so it is not a question of a newcomer coming along. It is the existing person.
Is it not time to change that?
We cannot have a debate on this subject.
They have had this for 20 years. Whether it is right or wrong they had it during the 16 years the Deputy's party were in office.
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary what is the policy on this matter?
The policy is clearly set out that the highest tender will get it unless there are some exceptional circumstances prevailing. Such factors were taken into account in determining the tender for this fishing right.
Could I ask another supplementary question?
I am passing on to Question No. 40. I think the Deputy has got sufficient mileage out of this matter.
I had two questions down. I just want to ask a final supplementary question.
Quickly then.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the point I made in relation to negotiations with his Department and local angling clubs before these lettings are put to public tender in future so that those clubs might be facilitated?
The successful tender in this case came from the sitting tenants and they have had this site for 20 years. Their tender was far in excess of that of the club the Deputy seems to be interested in so if it is wrong that they should get it this time it must have been wrong for the past 20 years. I do not accept that it was wrong this time.