asked the Minister for the Marine if he will give a breakdown of the figure of £400,000 collected for fishing licences in the year 1988 in each of the seven categories of licence nationally; the basis on which he made a decision to reduce three of the categories for the coming year, for example composite salmon to 21 day and trout to 21 day.

35.

asked the Minister for the Marine the reason he altered the amounts to be paid for rod licences; and if he will give details of the alterations implemented.

I propose to answer Questions Nos. 11 and 35 together.

The detailed information on rod licence sales in 1988 is contained in the attached schedules, which have been already given to the Deputy.

The alterations I made in the licence fees for 1989 as compared with 1988 were as follows: the composite licence was reduced from £40 to £25, the 21 day salmon licence was reduced from £21 to £10, and the 21 day trout licence was reduced from £10 to £5.

These changes resulted from wide ranging consultations I had with the fishery boards, angling groups and tourist interests including Bord Fáilte. The purpose of the changes was to simplify the licensing structure and to remove anomalies which had emerged in the cost of the short term licences which were adversely affecting tourist angling.

The purpose of reducing the composite licence was to move in the direction of simplifying the licensing structure. I made this change on the basis of a very strong case made to me that the licence categories should, as far as possible, be rolled together into the one licence.

As regards the short term rates, it was strongly argued by tourist interests that the level of the previous fees might inhibit the tourist or casual angler who wished to avail of only one or two days' fishing.

I have always said that I would adopt a flexible approach to the licensing issue provided the principles were not infringed. In making the changes which I made, I demonstrated in a very tangible fashion that I am prepared to respond reasonably to well reasoned and balanced arguments by anglers who are prepared to pursue their case in a reasonable manner.

Following are the schedules:

SCHEDULE

Rod Licence Revenue.

Breakdown of Yield.

† Composite, coarse and trout licences.

Sales of Rod Angling Licences in 1988

Is the Minister in a position to give an overall figure, for the coming year of the expected reduction in revenue intake as a result of this reduction? Could he explain to the House how he can reconcile this revenue reduction with his strong argument, when introducing the trout licence and coarse fish licence in 1987, about the need for additional revenue for development purposes? Is the fact that he has now introduced this reduction not a total contradiction of his original argument for the introduction of a trout licence?

No. I believe that the reduction will make the whole system more manageable, more successful and more acceptable to the general body of the angling community. Rather than losing any revenue, I anticipate that we could substantially increase revenue provided, of course, that we get the constructive support of the Opposition and the Deputy and others involved in this area.

As the Deputy knows, there were clear indications that up to 80 per cent of anglers were willing to pay for a licence and would buy a licence and would support the measure provided that the revenue from licensing would go direct to development of fisheries. This is precisely the situation. In the event of the revenue not materialising, the only area that will suffer as a result will be the development of the fisheries. I have indicated very clearly on more than one occasion that the revenue which will accure from this mechanism will go direct into further investment in fisheries. Any shortfall would represent a shortfall of money into the overall development funds.

The Minister has not answered my question which was concerned with the figures on the intake last year. Has he not an overall figure of the reduced amount for this year? He anticipates an increase but does not give reasons for his optimism. He has started that over 80 per cent of anglers were prepared to pay for a licence — he is quoting from the ESRI Report on the Economic Evaluation of Irish Angling published in 1987. Under the heading of "Gain" the figures include salmon, sea trout and brown trout. The issue is the brown trout licence. Does the Minister not agree that the figures which he has circulated indicate that the introduction of the brown trout licence has proved most unsuccessful in that only 3,598 fishermen out of 100,000 trout anglers actually purchased licences? The Minister commends this ESRI report and the figures given as being comprehensive and the report indepdendent——

This is becoming a very long question, Deputy.

Is that not proof positive that the introduction of this licence has been a total failure and that he and his Government should amend the legislation?

This is tending towards debate.

The figure which is relevant for me is that under the previous voluntary system which was in operation in 1987 the sum total of £21,576 was collected. In the western area the amount was £181. Under the new legislation last year almost £150,000 was collected, an increase of up to 600 per cent.

That is not correct.

These are the figures that are relevant.

The figures are there in the report circulated by the Minister.

If we got some support from people like the Deputy opposite, it would be far more beneficial for the development of the fisheries.

In view of the failure to have the trout licence accepted nationally in addition to the reduction of the short term licence fee the Minister has outlined today, is it not a fact that the amount of revenue required for the fishing development package will be greatly depleted? Are the people who pay the licence fees not entitled to the benefits of the development package the Minister proposed? Are the Government prepared to make up this shortfall to create the situation that was promised when the Minister originally brought the legislation to the Dáil?

I anticipated when I introduced the scheme last year, that we would receive £500,000. We have actually got £400,000. There is substantially more money available, if there was general agreement on the system of collection, yet nobody from the Opposition benches has come up with an alternative system which would be acceptable to the board general body of anglers. One of the difficulties we have found is that while we have hundreds and hundreds of formulae to find solutions to this issue, no formula would get 98 per cent support right across the board. In the absence of that kind of support, we took the measure we have taken and I think it is a useful one. It can be operated very successfully and will benefit the overall development of inland fisheries if we get some support for it.