asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport the effect, if any, the Fisheries Amendment Act, 1987 will have on angling as a tourism product; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishing Rod Licences.
4.
asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he has received representations from tourist interests to say that the Government's new rod licence laws are damaging our tourist industry; and the action he is taking in the matter.
12.
asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he has considered the impact of the rod angling licence fee on the tourism industry, especially as many tourists are still coming to this country on the understanding that there is free fishing, as advertised in Bord Fáilte brochures; if he intends to take any measures to alleviate potential damage to the tourism industry arising from this; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22.
asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if his attention has been drawn to reports that foreign anglers are being asked to purchase rod licences even though the Bord Fáilte brochure which encourages them to come to Ireland said that fishing was free.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5, 12 and 22 together.
The Fisheries Acts and the issue of angling licences are the statutory responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for the Marine, who took into account a range of factors, including tourism interests, before deciding to introduce the rod angling licence fee.
A small number of brochures printed by Bord Fáilte prior to the announcement of the proposal to introduce the licence fee made reference to the availability of free coarse fishing. However, brochures distributed since November last referred to the possibility of the introduction of licensing and imposition of licence fees for the 1988 season. In addition, Bord Fáilte have fully appraised tour operators of the position and made every effort to alert tourists to the licensing requirement before, or on, their arrival in Ireland.
The Minister has made no reference to the present problems particularly in the west which I believe are affecting tourism seriously, I refer to the appalling carry on of some of the anglers over there which is disgraceful and should not be tolerated by anyone. In that regard would the Minister agree that angling as a tourism product is probably one of the best natural products we have available to promote out of this country and that where it has been most successful in other countries, the way it has gone forward is by the angling clubs themselves in these countries being responsible for developing fishing and for gaining the income from tourism such as is intended in respect of the licence in this country? Would he not consider it a possibility that the angling clubs in this country should be allowed to collect the licence fee in the first instance from their own members and then from the tourists for utilisation within the local areas primarily——
I want to assist the Deputy to elicit information but I want to dissuade him from making a long statement.
I am asking the Minister——
The Deputy has made his point.
I agree with the Deputy that it is a very important tourism ingredient and for some areas, such as my own, the only one we can rely on. However, at this stage I have to enter a caveat. I have learned just today that court proceedings have been instituted challenging the legality of the regulations on grounds of constitutionality. I must be careful, therefore, not to be in breach of the sub judice rule.
I am sure Deputies will have regard to the rule appertaining to matters sub judice.
This is much too serious a problem for the tourist industry to become a matter of party political politics, therefore I will attempt to be very temporate in what I say here. The Minister is the person responsible for tourism and, as Deputy Cullen has said, the first tourism into this country was through angling. Unfortunately, we are getting an extremely bad press abroad about this aspect of our tourism industry. The cuttings from foreign papers surely must be on the Minister's desk. In view of that, will he not say to his colleague, the Minister for the Marine, that he should withdraw this new licence charge until the beginning of next year until talks can take place with the responsible members? I endorse what Deputy——
Questions directed to the Minister should be within his sphere of responsibility.
With respect, it is within his sphere of responsibility to talk to the Minister for the Marine and point out the damage that has been done abroad to Irish tourism. Unfortunately, damage will be done this year, but the major damage will be done in 1989 and 1990 and the years afterwards. It is essential for tourism that this measure be withdrawn now so that talks can take place between now and the end of the year.
I appreciate what the Deputy has said, that it is not a matter for party political wrangling. When it is a question of another Minister in Government I am conscious of my obligation under Article 28.4.2º of the Constitution with regard to Cabinet responsibility. I must repeat that I am being very careful, in view of the information brought to me today that there is a challenge on constitutional grounds and as court proceedings are imminent I am making no further comment.
In view of the Minister's responsibility for tourism, will he say whether, because of the considerable damage being done by the rod licensing law, the figures for tourism which he has projected are unlikely to be achieved? Also, in view of the fact that the whole purpose was to raise additional revenue for central Government, would the Minister agree that the polluters are the ones who should have been asked to pay?
I am at one with the Deputy in the belief that polluters should pay and I think that principle is applied not merely in this country but throughout Europe. I believe also with regard to pollution that there are very few voluntary polluters and that those who pollute our waters wilfully should be brought to heel. So far as my Department are concerned I accept the view that confrontation in this matter at present can only do further damage to our tourism effort.
I must ask the Minister if he is seriously asking us to believe that he heard only today of the writ or plenary summons that the Munster trout anglers have served on the Government. It is a matter of some weeks now since the Attorney General accepted that writ on behalf of the Government. I am in possession of that information for a matter of weeks and I find it hard to believe the Minister. However, I accept his word. He is a member of the Cabinet so I find it very strange. If he insists that we accept what he says I will certainly do so, but let me put a question to him in relation to that writ, and I understand the sensitivity of what we are talking about. Could he prevail on his colleague, the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Daly, to treat this with the same sensitivity as obviously he, the Minister for Tourism and Transport, is treating it? Could he suggest to the Minister for the Marine that until this writ has been finally settled, until the matter has come to a conclusion one way or another, the legislation in question must be put in abeyance? I do not want it withdrawn at this point but I think it should be put in abeyance because even if prosecutions are taken what happens is that the solicitor for the defendants in all cases——
This is becoming a long question.
It is a very important one.
That may be so.
A copy of this writ is being produced in the Circuit or District Courts and all the particular cases are being adjourned until the outcome of the writ in question. In view of the——
I am sorry, Deputy Doyle, I cannot allow this to go on. I have afforded the Deputy an opportunity of putting pertinent questions but she cannot go on interminably.
I take your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle. In view of that fact, may I prevail on the Minister for Tourism to counsel the Minister for the Marine in this matter and perhaps all interested parties could step sideways on this most difficult issue which is now facing the country before——
The Deputy's questions must come to a conclusion.
Surely the Government——
Let us hear the Minister.
My relationship with the Minister for the Marine is controlled by Article 28.4.2º of the Constitution. I will not pussyfoot——
(Interruptions.)
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
I accept my responsibility under that Article and I would like to make that clear to the House.
I would like to put one brief question. I know the Minister appreciates as much as I do how this affects our constituency and the tourist business. I appreciate there is a division of responsibility under the Constitution but I appeal to him to use his influence as Minister for Tourism and Transport with the Minister for the Marine to have this matter postponed for this year. He must realise now that it was crazy to introduce it without notice and after brochures had been issued, boasting that this was a country of free fishing.
This is leading to repetition.
I accept what the Deputy said. Before he came into the House I indicated to Deputy Cullen that fishing was more than important to our mutual constituency and, in fact, was the only tourist strength we had. I am tied by the caveat which I mentioned already with regard to court procedure. I would like to reiterate my own belief that confrontation, or the encouragement of confrontation, at present does not serve the purpose of tourism. Deputy Barry agreed with me.
I will hear brief supplementaries from Deputy Cullen and Deputy Barry and then I am going on to the next question.
May I ask the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he or his Department have taken any steps with the Chairman of Bord Fáilte, or with the tourism task force to counteract the bad press which is abroad, much of which is misguided, erroneous and untrue? Surely as the Minister for Tourism he must see some ——
This is certainly leading to repetition.
In the tourism context what steps is the Minister taking——
These questions have been asked before today.
This particular one has not been asked of the Minister. What steps is the Minister or his Department taking——
I have already mentioned that Bord Fáilte have brought this matter to the attention of tour operators, of people coming to this country from last November, even before it was on the Statute Book — incidentally, it was passed by 75 votes to ten on Second Stage. The fact is that Bord Fáilte and my Department both have brought to the attention of anglers the legal position.
A final supplementary on this subject matter from Deputy Barry.
I want to make the point which Deputy Cullen has made. That is not sufficient. The Minister is talking about last November when it was said that new rod licences "may be introduced". I would like to ask the Minister if he has seen the French newspaper, Le Monde, and the type of publicity we got. The obvious solution to this is that the Minister——
I know who wrote it.
It does not matter who wrote it; it is those who are reading it the Minister should be concerned about, and their attitude to this country is what is important. The solution to this is that the Minister and the Government should tell the Minister for the Marine to put this matter on the shelf for 12 months until we talk about it and arrive at some amicable solution which will stop this bad publicity we are now getting abroad.