asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he has calculated the amount of angling tourism revenue lost to date arising out of the imposition of rod licence fees; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 47 and 69 together. Revenue figures covering the full range of specialist holiday activities, including angling, are prepared only on an annual basis. Data for 1988 will not be available until the first quarter of 1989.

Since taking office I have consistently requested Bord Fáilte to target the special interest segment of the international tourism market. Angling ranks high on the list of sectors which they are actively and successfully marketing in this regard.

Unfortunately they are being impeded by the activities of anglers and others in the anti-rod licence campaign who, as I stated in a press release issued on 8 November, are holding the tourism industry up to ransom. I have directed Bord Fáilte to inform overseas anglers that there is ample good fishing available in Ireland and anglers will be directed to these areas where they will be both very welcome and enjoy good fishing.

Specific marketing initiatives for any tourism product are the statutory responsibility of Bord Fáilte. Therefore, I have no comment to make on the last part of Deputy Hussey's question other than to express my confidence that Bord Fáilte's promotion of angling will continue to be both accurate and effective.

I understand the Minister for the Marine will be providing details regarding development plans for inland fisheries, including angling facilities.

Arising from the Minister's reply I can tell him that Bord Fáilte do not seem to have the problem the Minister has in relation to the figures. On an RTE radio programme conducted by Mr. John Bowman one Saturday morning in October, Mr. Larkin of Bord Fáilte said it was his view that the minimum amount lost from the rod licence dispute in 1988 was £6 million——

The Deputy seems to be imparting information rather than seeking it. I crave her indulgence to co-operate in disposing of four priority questions within the prescribed time.

Deputy Kavanagh got four supplementaries to his——

That may be so, but I am going on to other business at 3.45 p.m.

The Chair is biased.

In view of the fact that Bord Fáilte are issuing disclaimers because of the Trades Descriptions Act and saying everywhere they are promoting angling in England that they are not sure if angling will be available in certain areas, and that all intending tourists——

These questions are too long.

What does the Minister expect the loss to be in 1989 due to the Government's intransigence in solving this dispute?

I would reject the Deputy's suggestion that the Government are intransigent. There is intransigence but I suggest that the Deputy scout around and see where the intransigence exists.

Did the Minister ever hear of the word "compromise"?

As I said in my reply, Bord Fáilte will be empowered to state that there is plenty of good fishing available in this country and the anglers should be directed to those areas.

In view of the fact that the Government compromised on the teachers dispute last year, have the Government or the Minister——

Please, Deputy Hussey, that is hardly relevant.

It is relevant.

I am calling Question No. 48.

Questions Nos. 17, 37 and 48 and Questions Nos. 16 and 49 are being taken together.

We did not reach Question No. 16.

We did not reach Question No. 17 either.

We are not passing over the Deputies questions. The Minister did not read out the replies to Questions No. 16 and 17 and therefore we will take them with the priority questions now.