Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 May 1976

Vol. 290 No. 8

Draft Regulations by Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries: Motion.

I move that Dáil Éireann approves the following regulations in draft:

Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935 (Part II) (No. 5) Regulations, 1976, and Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930 (Exporter's Licences) (Fees) Regulations, 1976.

The effect of the regulations before the House in draft will be to raise the level of fees payable in respect of animals presented for veterinary inspection under the Fresh Meat Acts and the Pigs and Bacon Acts. The increases will vary according to the type of animal. The fee for cattle will be increased from 5p to 45p per head and that for sheep will go up from 0.625p to 8p per head. In the case of pigs the increase will be from 1.25p for a pork pig and 2.08p for a bacon pig to a flat rate of 12p for both types.

The present rates are still at the levels fixed in 1930 and 1935 when the Acts first came into force. Over the years due to increases in salaries, inflation and the need for more intensive supervision of procedures at meat and bacon factories, the cost of veterinary supervision has risen enormously. In recent years the cost has escalated steeply and the point has now been reached where receipts from fees no longer bear any relation to the cost of providing a veterinary inspection service. The proposed increases will raise the fees to more realistic levels.

It is true that with the great development in our meat industry the volume of animals presented for veterinary inspection has increased. This has resulted in some increase in receipts but, notwithstanding this, the position in 1975 was that the cost of veterinary supervision of meat and bacon factories was about £1.6 million, whereas receipts from fees were about £100,000 only. Obviously this completely unbalanced situation cannot be allowed to continue.

At the new rates now proposed, the fees are calculated to yield about £500,000 in the current year and about £700,000 in a full year, on the basis of the present levels of slaughterings. The recovery of the full cost of veterinary supervision must be the ultimate aim, but I took the view that an immediate increase in fees to the extent necessary to equalise receipts and costs would not be warranted at this stage.

While the increases now proposed may seem fairly substantial, they should be viewed, not in relation to the existing rates of fees which were fixed some 40 or 45 years ago, but in the context of present-day livestock prices. A finished fat bullock is now worth £300 or more, and the proposed new rate of fee amounts to only 0.15 per cent of that price.

I also have in mind the amendment of existing legislation so as to enable the fees to be collected monthly instead of half-yearly, and to increase the fee for horses to the same extent as that for cattle. These changes cannot be effected by order and so I propose to introduce legislation at a later stage to enable them to be made.

Finally, I would like to make it clear that the proposed increases relate only to animals presented for slaughter at licensed meat factories and bacon factories, which are supervised by my Department. They do not apply to slaughterings at premises catering for the home market only, which are under local authority supervision. I will now ask the House to approve these draft regulations. Before I sit down I would like to say that it was brought to my attention yesterday that it was inconvenient for Deputy Gibbons to be present this morning because of a meeting of the European Parliament. I was asked could this be changed to next week or the week after. I would at all times wish to convenience Members attending the European Parliament, because on a number of occasions in this House I have spoken about the importance I attach to their work. Unfortunately, the request came too late and the Seanad is also sitting to consider the same matter, so I can do nothing about it. I regret this.

I accept the Minister's apology for not being able to facilitate our spokesman on Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Jim Gibbons, in relation to this motion. It is appreciated that the Minister, when possible, goes out of his way to facilitate Members in many respects. With regard to these draft regulations which propose increasing veterinary inspection fees I should like to state that we object strongly to them. The Minister's statement is blatantly noticeable first, for its absence of any reference to consultations having taken place on the matter with anybody and secondly for its absence of any reference to an application having been made by him, or the Minister for Finance, to the National Prices Commission to justify his 800 per cent minimum increase in fees.

I have gone to them and it has been agreed.

There is no reference to that in the Minister's statement. I am unaware of any reference in any report from the National Prices Commission of this application having gone before them. While not doubting what the Minister has said I would like to see proof that this application went before the National Prices Commission. I would also like to see the comments and observations of that body on the application. In connection with the Minister's failure to have consultations with interested parties on this matter, we all recollect the Minister, and members of the present Administration, making a great issue out of well-worn phrases and catch-cries, useful at the time, about open Government and full consultation with all concerned in anything and everything before decisions are made. Perhaps the Minister has now forgotten that he and his colleagues were loud in their comments on the importance of open consultation with organisations and interested people before making decisions. Apparently, this has now been forgotten but it might be resurrected again in the not too distant future when the Minister and his colleagues go before the people again.

The Minister should tell us if he consulted the major farming organisations, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association or the IFA, about this monstrous percentage increase. What advice did these organisations give the Minister on these increases? Were they asked for their advice or is it fair to say that they are only consulted by the Minister when he wants to use them to his own advantage? During Question Time yesterday the Minister relied on the IFA Sheep Committee and the advice they gave him. The Minister is smiling because he knows how correct I am about this. The Minister was pressed by Deputies John O'Leary and Charles Haughey on questions dealing with sheep dipping and when he found himself on a hook from which he could not get himself off he told the House that this was the advice given to him by the IFA Sheep Committee. The Minister told us that nobody, other than such a committee, would be in a better position to give him advice.

He got fleeced by them.

He did not get fleeced yesterday. It is a pity that the Minister is not able to say today that he had consultations with them or obtained their views on the action he is about to take in this regard. I would have thought that the Minister would have had such consultations before hitting us with an 800 per cent increase this morning. The president of the IFA, Mr. Lane, according to The Irish Press this morning stated that his organisation, which represents the vast bulk of farmers, was not given the courtesy of being asked to discuss this vast increase and he assured every farmer member that they would bitterly oppose its implementation to the degree recommended by the Department of Finance. Poor old Ritchie, poor old Minister for Finance; what a buffer he is for everybody. He takes the blame while other colleagues hide behind his back and let him take it but they are not too quick to defend him. Perhaps there is truth in the rumour that the time is coming when he will be shifted sideways.

According to the president of the IFA that organisation were not even accorded the courtesy of being asked for their views on this matter. That organisation described this decision as a dictatorship type decision. The Minister should tell us why those who represent the vast majority of farmers were not consulted. He should tell us also if the factories were consulted. Can the Minister say if Clover Meats or IMP were asked for their views of these monstrous increases? The least one can say about the Minister's action this morning is that his approach was a highhanded one. The Minister is probably aware that the cost of this increase in one year to IMP will be in the region of £120,000 and I have no doubt that Members who consulted other groups involved in this industry will be in a position to tell the House how they will be affected.

By doing what he has done in this manner the Minister is saying that the industry is strong enough to bear these increases at present. Nothing could be further from the truth of the real situation. The Minister and his advisers should know that there has been a drop of about 40 per cent in fertiliser usage over the last couple of years. Surely the Minister is aware of the consequences of this disastrous decline in fertiliser usage in the industry as a whole. He must be aware that the pig herds have dropped by 30 per cent in the last couple of years, mainly as a result of the confusion created by him when he advised these small pig producers to get out of pig breeding.

A lie cannot be repeated too often.

I have proved in this House on more than one occasion how the Minister created this confusion by advising people in the pig industry to get out of that business. The Minister's denial of this monumental error on his behalf is not enough to exonerate him from the serious disaster he caused to the pig industry. If the Minister wishes to imply that I am telling lies in this regard he may make that accusation but he will do so knowing that that is untrue and that if he consults the record of the House he will find that I am correct. I am not lying. If anybody is lying let the Minister look into his own heart.

Quote the reference.

Lies or falsehoods should not be attributed to any Member.

I accept that and I was always of the opinion that the word should never be used in the House. I was slightly upset to hear the Minister use it in the way he did.

Is it in order for a Deputy to quote something which he maintains was said by a Minister without giving the reference?

I did not quote anything.

If a Deputy purports to quote he should give the reference.

I know the rules of the House as well as the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. If what I am saying, which is the truth, is tinkling the Minister a little too much he has to remember that it was he who gave the advice to the farmers, not me, to get out of the pig industry.

The Deputy should give the reference.

The Minister should know at this stage that with the unfortunate reduction in the cattle, sheep and pig herds the throughput in factories will be seriously affected, resulting in more redundancies. If the creation of further redundancies is the policy of the Government and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries they should say so and let the people know exactly where they stand. The Minister should know that factories have closed down and that others are on short time. This is not the right time to impose further strangleholds on the agricultural industry when those involved in that industry are reeling from the clobbering the Government are giving them in many other ways and which they propose to impose further on them if the Minister for Finance gets his way with regard to the tax on co-operatives.

The Minister should know and appreciate the duties and functions of the National Prices Commission. As I stated earlier, there is no reference in the Minister's brief regarding the case made by him or by the Minister for Finance to the National Prices Commission to justify this 800 per cent increase. There has been no report from the commission with regard to this matter in the way they normally report when applications are made for increases. In an interjection the Minister said he was in touch with the National Prices Commission. I accept what he has said but other than that——

Surely the Deputy will accept what I said?

I accept what the Minister said. Every other citizen has to await the report of the National Prices Commission. The commission make a recommendation to the Government which is accepted or rejected and this is how it works for everyone in the country. If the Government or those who support them are serious about price control there should be one rule for everyone with regard to the commission. Seemingly there is no such rule for the Minister. In his statement this morning he refused to say that he went to the National Prices Commission and we have no word from the commission of the case made by the Minister or of their recommendations to the Government.

Why is it that short cuts with regard to the National Prices Commission have been taken by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries? Why is it that the Minister is not prepared to go through the same channels as he and the Government have decided that all others must do? Is there a sinister reason why the Minister did not adopt the normal procedures with regard to an application to the commission? Are we to expect comments on the Minister's case in the commission's report?

There will be other speakers from this side of the House who will develop the point further, and possibly better than I have done, with regard to the operations and functions of the National Prices Commission in a matter like this. I should have thought that if any ordinary citizen wanted even a 1 per cent or a 2 per cent increase he would have to go before the commission to justify his application. If the Chair would allow the Minister to interject, I should like him to tell us when he went to the commission and how long the case was with them. Will the Minister let us have the report on his application, a report that should be publicised? The law that applies to the ordinary businessman or the person in the street with regard to increases in prices should apply equally to those who make the laws and those whose function it is to see that the laws are observed.

There should not be short cuts for anyone in a matter like this. The Minister cannot say that this 800 per cent minimum increase was something that developed overnight. I hope such a matter was given due consideration by the Minister and his colleagues, that this was not just a hasty decision to bring in an extra £700,000 because the bottom of the barrel is being scraped at the moment. I would have thought that a serious matter like this would have been discussed within the Department in the first place and discussed with the interested parties whether in the factories or in farming. I would have thought that this decision would have been discussed further by officials in the Departments of Finance and Agriculture and Fisheries and finally by the two Ministers concerned. When the Minister was convinced that an 800 per cent increase was necessary he should have made his application to the commission at that time. If I were a businessman and wanted an increase of 1, 2 or 3 per cent—never mind the 800 per cent increase sought by the Minister—I would have to make an application, have it processed in the normal way and substantiate my case. From reading the monthly reports of the National Prices Commission it is evident that the increases sought are not always those that are given. We might well ask what percentage increase did the Minister seek. Did he look for an increase of 800 per cent or 1,800 per cent? We do not know but we would like to know.

This is the wrong time for the Minister to take such an action and it is the wrong time to do it in this manner. There is an indecent haste about the whole matter. We have only one hour to debate it and then it will be sent to the Seanad which is being specially convened this afternoon. I realise that the time is limited and that the Minister may not be able to reply to all these matters. If this is the case, those Deputies speaking in support of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary should make a public apology to the farming organisations for lack of consultation with them. There should be a public apology to the factory people for a similar lack of consultation with them and a public apology to the general public for the Minister believing that he has the right to take short cuts to the National Prices Commission without letting anybody know that he has done so and without making any effort to tell us that he has done so until we pulled it from him. We are opposing this resolution.

In their present state of distress it is difficult to expect a realistic approach on the part of Fianna Fáil to a measure such as this. It is, indeed, a far cry to 1935, when the fees were set down by this House chargeable under the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930. At that time it would be fair to say that a 300 lbs bullock was selling at no more than £3, and similarly the price of pigs and sheep was proportionately lower. Today we have a flourishing cattle, sheep and pig industry. We are very pleased that that is the position.

You did not help it in 1974.

I am rather doubtful of some of my friends across the way. They seem to be very gleeful when prices are low but not so when prices are good and people are satisfied. I will explain briefly and concisely what this measure proposes to do.

You are incapable of doing it briefly and concisely.

Let the Parliamentary Secretary proceed without interruption, please. Let us have an orderly debate.

Does the Minister expect co-operation from the Opposition in future if he is going to send in his mouth-piece to fill up time?

Order. That is not a point of Order.

(Interruptions.)

The cost of this operation to the Exchequer which is mandatory on the State is the sum of £1,600,000 in the current year and the Minister proposes in this order to reduce that figure to £900,000 so that the taxpayers will bear £900,000 of the cost of this operation in a full year and the owners £700,000.

Surely in a limited debate such as this the Parliamentary Secretary cannot come in here and requote exactly what the Minister has said?

That is not a point of order. Would the Deputy please resume his seat and let the Parliamentary Secretary make his statement without interruption?

Will you not give us protection on this side of the House?

It is not a matter for the Chair.

It is very much a matter for the Chair.

It is not a matter for the Chair.

I had a positive contribution to make on this subject but because of the long-windedness of Deputy Collins I am somewhat curtailed.

Could we not have agreement for a two hour debate on it?

(Interruptions.)

Will the Deputies please desist?

I am here sometime longer than Deputy Collins and possibly may be here some time after he has disappeared.

(Interruptions.)

We are asked to increase the cost per head of cattle in this measure from 5p to 45p. Nobody will grudge that increase.

You did not mind factory owners taking 75 pence per head.

Order, please. Order.

Nine shillings or 45 pence is paid on an animal now worth £300 as against 5p when that animal was worth £3. Deputy Crowley mentioned the burden that will be placed on the cattle owners. If Deputy Crowley or any of his auctioneer colleagues were selling a 300 lbs bullock in a dispersal sale tomorrow morning, his charge would be £15 and if he were selling that bullock in a similar sale in 1935 the charge would be 3s. Deputy Collins can now calculate the percentage increase in that line. That is a fact; that is what your charge is.

Why did you not consult the factories and farm owners in this?

(Interruptions.)

There would be no objection from any right-minded person in regard to something that was set down here in 1935, when the value of money was completely different from what it is today and the value of cattle, sheep and pigs was far removed from present day prices, that we should ask for a contribution towards the Exchequer of £700,000 per annum to help to off-set the cost of £1,600,000 which I have already mentioned as the sum calculated to hold these inspections in a given year. Fianna Fáil have been speaking with two voices recently. We have the voice of the city member here. In the debates on social welfare and on health services the suggestion was made that farm products are too dear, implying that farmers are getting away with murder.

Filibuster.

These are facts.

Deputy Crowley, please desist from interrupting and allow the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed in his own way.

You are not keeping much order.

If Deputy Crowley persists, I shall have to ask him to leave the House. I mean that.

The position, as outlined by the Minister, is that instead of asking this House to approve the full cost of the scheme— £1,600,000—he is only asking for £700,000. I am quite sure that many Fianna Fáil Deputies here from Dublin city would not be too satisfied that the taxpayers of this country, the people they are so worried about, must contribute £900,000 to keep this scheme moving in accordance with the laws of this country.

Close the co-ops. That is what you want to do.

We are much more interested in co-operatives than Deputy Crowley is.

(Interruptions.)

We are prepared to grasp at any straw in order to keep the co-operatives in operation.

The new taxation system will result in their closure.

Deputy Crinion is the one who, in 1975, alleged fraudulent activities on the part of co-ops.

I believe in the cooperative idea. It has been a benefit to the small man at all times.

We must be realistic. Money does not fall from trees and we must raise the necessary expenditure by way of taxation and the Minister for Finance is charged with finding the money to meet our obligations. The measure before us would get total approval from a normal Opposition.

Has the approval of the IFA been obtained in relation to it?

This House is responsible for legislation and we are not handing over that responsibility to any outside organisation be they IFA, ICMSA, ICTU or any other, but Deputy Collins is entitled to express the opinion, if he so wishes, that this power should be handed over to some outside group. The people are aware of the Minister's interest in the development of our cattle, sheep and pig trades but again today there is raised, without any reference being given, the question of a statement he is alleged to have made two years ago regarding the pig industry.

During the Minister's absence in Europe on one occasion I was answering questions on the pig industry. I recall then the gloomy picture that was painted by several Fianna Fáil Deputies in regard to the industry when they advised the people to get out of pigs since, as they said, there was no future for the industry.

(Interruptions.)

This is like a circus.

It was the Minister who said there was no future in the industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary is in a state of confusion.

Time and again I expressed confidence in the development of the pig industry. The Minister shares this confidence too, but in an effort to gain political kudos from the then relatively depressed price of pigs, Fianna Fáil Deputies advised the people to get out of pigs and, unfortunately there were some who listened to their advice. This Government have nothing to be ashamed of in so far as our agricultural industry is concerned.

Why, then, have cattle numbers fallen during the past 12 months?

The Parliamentary Secretary.

We have given our attention to all aspects of the industry and I am satisfied that these farmers realise nothing has been spared on the part of the Government in ensuring the best return possible to this major industry. However, it would be unfair to ask the general body of taxpayers to carry in its entirety in future years the levy which is the subject matter of this motion. Indeed, I should not be surprised if some of the city Deputies on the opposite side who are so vocal——

Is the Government not comprised of city Deputies?

——would start telling us about the gains the country people have got and how little the city people have got and would ask the Minister to discontinue the subsidisation in this measure. Perhaps such a case would be difficult to answer.

There will be no fear of that since, as a result of the bad policy of the Government in relation to agriculture, cattle numbers have fallen.

I am prepared to wager a bet with the Deputy that cattle numbers are greater now than they were when Fianna Fáil left office in March, 1973.

Hear, hear.

There are certainly fewer now than there were in 1974.

There were instant calves in 1973.

And instant cows.

We have a very prosperous farming industry.

In the course of discussions on agricultural matters in 1974 and 1975 we had some allegations from Deputy Crinion but we all know that the Deputy has not the best reputation in regard to substantiating allegations.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not try to substantiate anything in 1974.

Deputy Crinion must desist from interrupting.

Is it the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary to utilise the full time?

In 1974 Deputy Crinion alleged that fraudulent methods were being adopted by the fresh meat factories, that it was time something was done to change that alleged situation. As that is his opinion, he may not consider £500,000 to be out of place at this time. We have a flourishing industry in relation to cattle, sheep and pigs. The inspections in question here are mandatory and they cost the Exchequer £1,600,000. The intake from the existing fees— these were established 41 years ago—is £102,000. The Minister's proposals will bring in an additional £600,000 and the balance of £700,000 in a full year will come from the fees chargeable while £900,000 will be extracted from the general body of taxpayers. Deputy Collins indulged in mathematics and spoke of an increase of 800 per cent but that is on a fee of 5p. When we consider that Deputies in 1935 got an allowance of £360 compared with the £5,400 which is today's figure, we get an idea of the increases that have occurred since then.

How many cattle were slaughtered in 1935 and were they not slaughtered by permanent inspectors of the Department?

Instead of selling them, the Fianna Fáil Government voted against——

If it were not for the interruptions I would have finished long before this.

The Parliamentary Secretary has had 20 minutes. I hope he will be able to excuse himself to the Government Whip.

For the carry on.

I have been interrupted. As a Member of the House, I am entitled to address it on any subject.

On the business ordered by agreement.

These interruptions are eroding precious time.

I do not see any justification for opposing a charge of 45p per head for cattle, 8p for sheep and 12p for pigs. I think the figures in the motion are fair and reasonable and I do not see how Fianna Fáil can expect kudos for opposing them. They are on the last lap. I have never indulged in filibustering.

What are you doing now?

I would have concluded in five minutes if I had not been interrupted. The interruptions started as soon as I got on my feet and I feel obliged to answer them. The Minister's statement was fair and realistic in present circumstances. He was justified in asking the House for an increase to offset the full burden on the Exchequer of £1.6 million.

I honestly feel the Minister was deceiving the House when he said these charges will bring in only £700,000, seven times what the present figure is. How can that be so with the fee on cattle going up nine times, on sheep, 13 times, and on pigs, six times? The Minister gave a false picture. The Parliamentary Secretary said we are wrong to oppose this, that the housewife would not like to be taxed to make up for the increases. Of course, measures like this are virtually weekly mini-budgets and the amount from these increases will be a greater imposition on the people than would Exchequer support.

That is not so.

That remains to be seen. Deputy Collins asked if this could not be postponed and the Minister said it must be put into effect as from Monday. I do not see the urgency for this order which the Minister said has been cleared by the NPC. I rushed up to see the NPC report, which is embargoed as far as the media are concerned until tomorrow morning. In view of the Minister's reference, I feel I am entitled to impinge on the embargo and this, of course, allows the media to break the embargo. I refer to the NPC's March report. We have criticised these reports previously for their lateness and I hope the Minister now present will take this matter up with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The reports are two months late. The Minister said he has the commission's permission in regard to these increases, and the report conveys this. The Parliamentary Secretary criticised us for opposing this motion which imposes increases of 900 per cent in the fees in regard to cattle, 1,300 for sheep and 600 per cent for pigs. The Department's application to the NPC has been allowed in full—I suppose the Minister for Finance said he wanted to spare the Exchequer. There are other Deputies on this side who want to contribute and we have Deputies on the far side willing to contribute, but the Parliamentary Secretary took up one-third of the time allowed for the motion. I agree that he is entitled to contribute but he has been assigned to Fisheries, a specific appointment, and his contribution here today amounted to an implication that the Minister is not competent to deal with this question.

Give me time to reply.

The Parliamentary Secretary did it for the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary said this dates back to 1935. Of course, the position is that this amends a statutory instrument brought in in 1973. Indeed, we are amending instruments Nos. 216 and 217 of 1973. These instruments are only three years old. They were brought in by the present Government. Let us not be told we are opposing instruments that exist since 1935.

The instruments have not been changed since 1935.

The Parliamentary Secretary has gone out of his way to say that.

The Parliamentary Secretary is out of his depth.

According to pig statistics issued very recently the number of bacon pigs that have gone for curing in the 12 months ended 31st March was 1,196,000. Of course that was 300,000 fewer than the previous year and a further 150,000 less than the year before. That is an indication of the failure of this Administration as far as pigs are concerned. It appears, from the administration of the present Government, that a number of farmers are thinking it would be advisable to get out. This imposition today can be dressed up as much as one likes but the situation is that it will be a great imposition. Working on those figures, just for bacon pigs without any reference to pork—I did a sum under the terms of the new charges—the amount that would be taken in now in a 12-month period arising from the increased fees on the killing of bacon pigs—working on last year's figures for the 12-months' period ended March last—would be £143,000. That is not taking into account cattle, sheep or pork killings.

I am not accusing the Minister of deliberately misleading the House in this regard. But no matter what way one does the sum, in view of the overall proposed increases in charges, if that figure of £700,000 is the Minister's projected income from fees under the new charges——

I have to accept figures furnished to me.

——that is seven times the present figure. Anybody doing the sum across the board in relation to the increases taking place must conclude that that figure is wrong unless—and this is very significant—the Minister and his advisers have already made up their minds that there is going to be roughly a 30 per cent fall back in killings over the next 12 months, that between cattle, sheep and pigs, there will be 30 per cent fewer to be killed this year. As I see it, a more appropriate figure in this regard would be £1 million approximately. From that point of view the Minister should be more elaborate in his outlining of the situation.

The Minister says also that he has in mind the amendment of existing legislation so as to enable fees to be collected monthly instead of half-yearly and to increase the fee for horses to the same extent as that for cattle. This has to do with slaughters——

And the Minister is proposing to do the same thing as far as horses are concerned.

We are still 5p under what is being charged in the North of Ireland at 45p. It is 50p in the North of Ireland. Therefore, Deputies are howling very loudly.

How much is a gallon of petrol in the North? What about the butter charges in the North?

(Interruptions.)

We do not seem to look across the Border when we talk about petrol, beer and other factors which have a very great bearing on the cost of living down here.

Remember those in relation to cross-Border comparison.

I have no objection at all to the Minister coming into this House and quoting comparative figures for the cross-Border situation. The extraordinary thing is that, in the normal course, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are very worried about——

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but the time allotted to the debate is exhausted. I must put the question.

I am sorry we were not in a position to let the Minister in.

May I protest through the Chair? This is a matter of vital concern to the constituency I represent and I was asked specifically to speak on it this morning.

The Chair is conforming to the Order of Business laid down by the House in regard to Item No. 5.

I would like to protest that we are not allowed——

(Interruptions.)

The debate has not been curtailed——

The Minister did not have to bring it in today.

(Interruptions.)

Order. I am putting the question.

Legislation like this should not be pushed through the House in this fashion. It is very wrong.

I too want to protest very strongly——

(Interruptions.)

The debate was confined to an hour at the request of the Opposition.

More lies. That is wrong.

(Interruptions.)
Question put and declared carried.
Barr
Roinn