asked the Minister for the Marine the projected income from the rod licence fees in (a) 1988 and (b) 1989.

Salmon angling licence revenue in 1987 amounted to £170,874. In addition, £21,576 was received under the voluntary registration system.

Total revenue from rod angling licences in 1988 amounted to almost £400,000. Revenue from the sale of the new licences — trout, coarse fish and composite — amounted to £148,660 which represents almost seven times the amount received in 1987 from the previous voluntary registration system.

No explicit projections have been made for 1989. However, it is unlikely that the yield will be less than that achieved in 1988. In view of the continuing obstructions the basis for a precise projection at this stage does not exist.

Having regard to the reductions announced in December, is the Minister in a position to give a projection, if the same number of licences are bought in 1989 as were bought in 1988 as to how much less would be collected this year? Would he not consider at this stage being responsible to the House and instead of inflating and distorting figures would he be honest and say that in relation to trout licences where there are 100,000 trout anglers, 3,500 trout anglers purchased licences amounting to £56,000? Why does the Minister continue to distort the overall figure? Please give us some idea as to the projected revenue for 1989?

First, I have neither inflated nor distorted figures. I have given factual figures as ascertained from the various boards who have the statutory responsibility to issue these licences and who have accountability in this regard. I want to make this quite clear because this accusation has been made on one or two occasions by responsible people who should know better. These are actual figures which are subject to audit, are subject to scrutiny and are subject to examination. The people involved in the compilation of those figures have a statutory responsibility for the provision of these figures and for their accuracy. It is most unfair to have these accusations made in a wild and sweeping manner by people, including the Deputy. It is most unfair to the professional people who have responsibility for compiling those figures.

Order, please.

The figures I quoted are from the reply the Minister gave some weeks ago.

Deputy Taylor-Quinn asked a question and she ought to be good enough to listen to the Minister's reply.

The figures are neither inflated nor anything else; they are the factual figures for revenue received. Total revenue form rod angling licences in 1988 amounted to almost £400,000, which is seven times——

Trout licences, Minister.

This is seven times——

Trout licences——

I have asked for order.

We have got seven times more revenue from the new system than we got from the old voluntary system. That is the first factual figure I want to put on the record. This has been achieved in spite of a campaign of intimidation, etc. which sought to undermine the prospect of this effective system working satisfactorily. The purpose of the legislation was to get a modest contribution to supplement the Government's investment in inland fisheries.

What about the projected figures for 1989? The Minister should get straight to the point.

The revenue goes directly into the development of inland fisheries at local level. The revenue is not collected by me; it is collected, accounted for and spent at local level. The fishery boards have been deprived of very necessary and essential funds——

A Cheann Comhairle, the Minister is not answering my question.

I have no control over such matters.

——which would enable them to carry out their statutory responsibilities. All Deputies should act in a responsible way in ensuring that the fisheries industry will not be further neglected and run down because of the failure to get the necessary finances from this modest contribution which is so badly needed.

A Cheann Comhairle——

This is essentially a statistical question and the subject matter of the overall policy does not arise now.

I still have not got an answer.

May I ask the Minister to inform the House of the number of brown trout £15 licences which were purchased last year in the Western Regional Fisheries Board area?

One hundred and twenty three.

I already gave the House factual information on the precise number of licences.

For the information of the Minister, 123 were purchased.

That information was already given to the House. If Deputies, like Deputy Molloy, continue to advocate the non-purchase of these licences which are specifically designed to help develop fisheries I do not think they can come in here and complain if we are not getting the necessary funding. They cannot have it both ways. The Deputy was recently in Ennis advocating 18th century boycott methods to stop this development taking place.

May I ask the Minister——

A brief question, please.

——if he accepts the very deep and genuinely held resentment among anglers in the western region——

I am sorry but we cannot enter into the policy area of this question.

——against the imposition of the licence?

I have said already that this is a statistical question. I am not going to permit a discussion now on the policy aspect of the matter. I am calling Deputy Deenihan for a relevant question.

I well appreciate why the Chair has to rush to the defence of the Minister on this.

The Deputy should rush to the defence of his Leader who wanted to licence——

Deputy Molloy must not make an imputation of that kind to me.

I am not implying anything——

I hope not.

——other than that the Minister is on weak ground.

The Deputy should put down a proper question on the matter. I am calling Deputy Deenihan.

I have called Deputy Deenihan.

We know the false promises the Minister made last year before the Ard Fheis, to avoid embarrassment.

The Deputy continues to live in the 18th century.

Order, please. Will Deputy Molloy and the Minister please desist?

In view of the fact that the composite licence has been reduced this year from £40 to £25 a number of anglers who only fish for salmon and who want only an A licence are being given a P licence, or composite licence, for the same amount of money. This will distort this year's figures of the number of people who purchase trout or coarse fishing licences. These people are confused because all they want is a salmon licence. This will distort the eventual figure on the number of people who buy trout licences. Is the reason for the reduction——

Please, Deputy Deenihan, I think you have had adequate time to make your point.

——that we will have an incomplete figure on the number of people who are buying trout licences?

The composite licence was introduced last year in response to numerous representations I received that it would be desirable to have one licence to cover all fishing, whether it be game or coarse fishing. This point of view was canvassed by representatives of anglers associations, by individual anglers and many others who believed that with the multiplicity of individual licences for particular species of fish it would be sensible and reasonable to have one licence to cover game, salmon, trout and coarse fishing. It was indicated to me during the course of the year — and I indicated that we would be flexible about this legislation — by numerous bodies that the composite price which we set at £40 last year was excessive and was prohibiting people from buying licences which would cover them for all types of fishing activities in all parts of Ireland. In recognition of that widely canvassed view I reduced the price by ministerial order from £40 to £25. I believe that any shortfall which might arise from that reduction will be made up in the purchase of more licences. I believe we will sell more licences and this will compensate more than adequately for whatever we might lose by the way of the reduction in the charge.

It is a con job.