Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1978

Vol. 304 No. 1

Vote 37: Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £11,045,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1978, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Fisheries, including sundry grants-in-aid.

—(Minister for Fisheries.)

Minister for Fisheries (Mr. Lenihan)

I announced some months ago changes in the board's marine credit plan. The main changes were a reduction in the deposit for vessels between 66 and 90 feet and an extension of the repayment period for loans for these vessels from eight to 12 years. Another feature was an increase in the rate of grant from 25 per cent to 50 per cent of the cost of adapting vessels to new methods of fishing. The purpose of these changes was to help to generate more work in Irish boatyards and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that these changes are having the desired effect.

A number of fishermen have recently displayed an interest in vessels in excess of 90 feet in length which do not at present come within the ambit of the marine credit plan. I have asked An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to examine the question of the extension of the plan to these vessels as a matter of urgency but before approving of such an extension I will have to be satisfied that these vessels will be capable of and used for catching fish well offshore and not operated in grounds already being fished successfully by our existing fleet.

In addition to their function, connection with the development of the fishing fleet, the board continue to operate the various advisory services to fishermen, fish processors and exporters and, much of the credit for the increased exports must be attributed to these services.

Steady progress is being made in providing improvement works where they are needed for fish landings, berthing of boats and other necessary facilities at fishing ports.

At Killybegs, proposals are in hands for the installation of a syncrolift and boat repair facilities, the provision of an auction hall and port offices, the development of the White House property, the re-siting of the oil tanks, additional dredging where needed and the building of a harbour master's house.

At Castletownbere, works this year include site development on Dinish Island for fish related and general industries, the provision there of an electricity supply, an effluent disposal unit and roads and surface drainage. The surfacing of the mainland wharf will also be undertaken and a net store and box store will be provided there.

At Howth, work is expected to commence this year on the dredging of the west side of the harbour as the initial part of a major development scheme for the harbour.

My Department have in hands also for this year proposals for development works at 29 other landing places around the coast including major works at Greencastle, Burtonport, Caherciveen, Skerries and Clogher Head.

Deputies have had ample opportunity in recent times to indulge in a wide-ranging debate on fisheries aspects of our membership of the European Communities and in particular on the proposed review of the common fisheries policy. The Government position in relation to a final agreement and to the interim arrangements for this year was made clear by me then and I do not propose to go over the same ground again here to-day. I would like to stress, however, that in the Government's view it is not a realistic proposition to press the policy of a 50-mile exclusive limit at the present time. We have at present an opportunity to secure substantial benefits for our fishermen under a system of fishing plans which can be negotiated with our partners in the Community and implemented as a national measure as an interim arrangement for 1978. Such plans will involve a special preference for Irish fishermen in our waters and will secure a reduction in fishing effort on the part of our Community partners in these waters. I am proposing to set up a working group and to invite the two fishermen's organisations, the IFO and the IFPO, to work with us in co-ordinating an agreed national approach on these plans and to supervise their operation. I must point out, however, that these arrangements have yet to be finalised but in the absence of agreement on a revised common fisheries policy my main concern must be to prevent a free-for-all situation in 1978 which would be so completely disastrous to the Irish fishing industry.

I now turn to our inland fisheries the most important of which is, of course, our salmon fisheries. The overall catch for salmon in 1977 again showed a drop on the 1976 total which was 30 per cent lower than that recorded in 1975. The market value in 1977 was maintained at a satisfactorily high level. Based on provisional figures now available the total weight of the catch for the year 1977 by all fishing methods was 1,259 metric tons, valued at £4,531,000 as compared with 1,492 metric tons, valued at £5,302,000 in 1976. These figures do not include those for sea trout which, however, are of relatively minor importance.

The estimated quantity of salmon exported in 1977 was 945 metric tons valued at £3,482,000 compared with 1,209 metric tons valued at £4,633,000 in 1976. Some of the salmon was, of course, exported in processed form which increased the export value compared with the landed value. Officers of my Department continued to keep a check on the standard of Irish salmon exported.

As to salmon fishing in general, we are now facing a very serious problem that calls for prompt and effective action. Catches which had been on a high level for quite a number of years dropped considerably in 1976 and this trend continued in 1977. Additional conservation measures were introduced in 1977 limiting the depth of drift nets and requiring all boats and nets used in salmon fishing to be numbered to correspond with the licence numbers held by the fishermen. The ban on the use of monofilament nets in salmon fishing was also reintroduced. Despite these measures, however, the stocks continued to decline due mainly to illegal fishing which has now reached alarming proportions. The various controls are being flagrantly ignored by many of the fishermen and there is clear-cut evidence that large vessels using nets grossly in excess of the maximum length permitted, and in many cases with their owners not even holding fishing licences, are taking very substantial amounts of salmon.

It is essential that the illegal fishing be stamped out if there is to be any hope of achieving the required level of escapement to freshwater. For the 1978 season, I have arranged that the funds available for the various boards of conservators will be considerably increased in order to allow them to recruit extra staff. I am also seeking the co-operation of the navy in enforcing the fishery laws at sea where the greatest damage is being done by illegal fishing. The Garda, who have always co-operated with the fishery protection staff, are also being asked to step-up their vigilance.

The work of protection and development of the fisheries in the various fishery districts rests with the boards of conservators. Apart from the enforcement of the various fishery laws which is a most difficult task, the conservators have to deal with the threat of pollution which arises from effluent discharges from industrial and agricultural sources and from town sewage. Pollution officers employed by the boards have made considerable progress in pin-pointing sources of pollution and in persuading would-be polluters to take remedial action. Where co-operation has not been forthcoming, boards have had to resort to court action and in many cases the polluters have been successfully prosecuted. With the enactment of the Water Pollution Act, 1977, which places overall responsibility for clean water on the Department of the Environment and the local authorities it is to be hoped that a new era in pollution control is dawning. The responsibility for the protection of fish and fish life will, however, continue to be the responsibility of my Department and of the boards of conservators.

On the development side, boards of conservators, often in collaboration with angling associations, continue to promote suitable work by arranging for removal of obstructions to fish movement in rivers and clearing the spawning beds for better propagation. For such situations, river improvement works grants are available to cover most of the cost. In any case in which technical advice is required, my Department give every assistance in the design and execution of the works. In addition, extensive research work with a view to conserving and developing our salmon stocks has been carried out by my Department throughout 1977 and will be intensified in 1978.

In order to bridge the growing gap between the expenses of conservation and the statutory incomes of the boards of conservators, the Exchequer grant to the Salmon Conservancy Fund has to be increased each year and £745,000 has been allocated for this purpose in 1978. By far the greater part of the grant is required to supplement the direct income of boards of conservators from the sale of licences and from fishery rates, the total of which income fails to keep pace with the steadily rising level of salaries, wages and incidental expenses.

A sum of £75,000 is included in the estimates to meet our contribution towards the expenses of the Foyle Fisheries Commission. A similar contribution is being made by the Department of Agriculture in Belfast.

In recent years the commission's operations have resulted in annual deficits. These are due to the fact that while their outgoings—principally wages—are increasing each year, revenue, by way of licence duties and profit from their commercial fishery, has not succeeded in keeping pace with the increasing expenditure.

I am very much impressed by the excellent co-operation which exists in this North/South body and I desire to record my appreciation of the excellent work being accomplished by the commission and their staff.

Provision is made in the Fisheries Vote for the payment of a substantially increased grant-in-aid of £750,000 to the Inland Fisheries Trust. This sum includes a provision for the creation of new posts and reflects the Government's confidence in the work of the trust. The trust carried out a highly successful programme of investigation and development of brown trout, coarse fishing and sea angling waters during the past year. In this connection I would like to thank the council of the trust and their staff for their dedication and hard work not just in the past year but indeed over the years.

A grant-in-aid of £11,000 to the Salmon Research Trust, which is funded jointly by my Department and Arthur Guinness Son and Co. Ltd., has been provided in the Estimates. During the year the trust continued their specialised work in relation to salmon and sea trout. I would like to pay tribute to the director and his staff for the research work carried out over the years.

Following a review of the Control of Fishing for Salmon Order, 1974. at the end of the 1977 fishing season. I considered that the exclusion by the terms of that order of certain fishermen who derived their livelihood mainly from fishing was inequitable.

Accordingly I made provision in the Control of Fishing for Salmon Order, 1977, whereby fishermen who derived their livelihood mainly from fishing and who in the opinion of the board of conservators are persons to whom a licence should be issued may be considered for the grant of a licence.

Although the work of the Electricity Supply Board in relation to fisheries is not provided for in the Fisheries Estimate I would like to express my appreciation of the excellent manner in which fisheries under their control are managed and developed.

I would now like to say a few words about a provision that is appearing for the first time in the Estimates for Inland Fisheries, namely, a sum of £250,000 in connection with the acquisition of fisheries. It is desirable that it be made clear at the outset that there is no question of our embarking on a nationalisation process which will involve the complete acquisition of all private fisheries. What is proposed is that, where a need is seen to take over a private fishery for the better management of the fisheries generally of that area or for scientific purposes, there will be no obstacle to such a course of action being taken.

This is in line with one of the recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission relating to the purchase of fisheries on a voluntary basis. In addition, I am proposing to take power of compulsory purchase under new legislation which is at present in course of preparation and which will shortly be brought before the House. Naturally, I would envisage that this power would be invoked only in the most exceptional case and would be subject to the owner's right of appeal and to the payment of fair compensation.

I should at this stage inform the House that my Department have recently acquired on a voluntary basis the Galway Fishery, which constitutes one of the most important private salmon and eel fisheries in the country. The management of this fishery will now be planned primarily for the benefit of the fisheries of the area but will include a rational degree of commercial utilisation. As it constitutes a new venture by my Department it will serve somewhat as a pilot scheme which will help enormously in setting our future policy in regard to the acquisition of private fisheries.

The reorganisation of the whole structure of Inland Fisheries which was recommended by the Inland Fisheries Commission is now the subject of the proposed legislation to which I have already referred and which I hope to introduce in the Dáil shortly. This legislation will make provision for the establishment of a central board and seven regional boards to replace the existing 17 boards of conservators and the Inland Fisheries Trust. The legislation will also provide for vastly increased penalties for fishery offences, for the acquisition of private fisheries and for stricter controls on sales of salmon. It is expected that the new structure will be set up by October of this year. It is my intention that the central board will have the responsibility for directing the regional boards as to their functions, duties and activities in the context of policy as laid down by the Minister for Fisheries.

With this proposed comprehensive restructuring, allied to an increased financial State commitment, I am confident that we are entering a new era in our inland fisheries administration which will in a relatively short time prove of immense benefit to our own fishermen and to tourist anglers.

I recommend this Estimate to the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will now take Forestry. Deputies will understand that we are debating Fisheries and Forestry together. At the conclusion, separate decisions can be taken on both Votes.

Mr. Lenihan

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Turning to the Forestry Vote, the net estimate is £13,866,000, an increase of £396,000 on the 1977 estimate, due in the main to higher salaries and wages arising from awards under national wage agreements and to price rises partly offset by an increase of £1,400,000 in Appropriations-in-Aid.

In the course of what follows I do not intend to examine in detail certain subheads of the Vote which provide for about the same level of activity as last year.

These are: subhead A.1—Salaries, wages and allowances at £4,621,000; subhead B.1—Travelling and Incidental Expenses at £937,000; subhead B.2 —Post Office Services at £189,000; subhead B.3—Office machinery and other office supplies at £61,000; subhead C.3—Sawmilling at £145,000; subhead E—Forestry Education at £85,000; subhead F—John F. Kennedy Park at £88,000; subhead I—Agency, Advisory and Special Services at £127,000.

I will be happy, of course, in the course of my closing speech to go into such detail as Deputies may require in regard to any of these heads.

Under subhead A.2 a provision of £20,000 has been made for consultancy services. This is a repeat of a provision made but not utilised in 1977. The Forest and Wildlife Service is co-operating with the Industrial Development Authority in a sectoral study of the timber industry. It is possible that in the course of the study it may be desirable to engage outside consultants and the present provision is made for that purpose.

On subhead C.1—Grant-in-Aid for the acquisition of land—the balance in the fund at 1 January 1978 was £436,268. I am providing in this estimate for £1,000,000, giving a total sum available for land acquisition for the year 1978 of £1,436,268. This should be adequate for the purchase of land likely to become available in 1978.

The productive or plantable areas available in the total lands acquired in 1976 and 1977 were as follows: 1976— 9,093 hectares (22,469 acres); 1977— 8,275 hectares (20,448 acres). These additions to the plantable reserve are not adequate to maintain an effective planned planting programme of 10,000 hectares. The continuing inflation, the increased prices for agricultural produce and the unprecedented escalation of land prices, with the consequent reluctance of land holders to part with any land, are all factors which militate strongly against any significant improvement in land acquisition prospects.

During the past year we have introduced a substantially improved scale of prices for the purchase of land for forestry and we hope to arrest the downward trend in our acquisition figure. The increased prices are, of course, so scaled as to avoid competition for land which should more desirably be utilised for agricultural production. Our objective must be to acquire sufficient land to service and annual planting programme of 10,000 hectares and I can assure the House that my Department will spare no effort to attain that objective.

Subhead C.2—Forest Development and Management—at £11,333,000 is, as usual, the main expenditure subhead of the Vote and represents an increase of £665,000 over the 1977 provision. Deputies will be aware that this subhead caters for many aspects of the development and management of the current forest estate of 357,000 hectares— almost 900,000 acres—and includes such matters as the raising of nursery stock, the establishment, maintenance and protection costs of State plantations, public recreation facilities, the purchase and maintenance of machinery, building of roads and the cost of timber felling and conversion in so far as these are undertaken by the Forest and Wildlife Service—in short, the many items that must be catered for to ensure the smooth running, consistent with economy, of the overall afforestation programme.

The main subhead is broken down into seven subsections, C.2 (1) to C.2 (7), each catering for a convenient grouping of the development/management aspects I have mentioned. Here again I do not propose going into each of these seven heads in detail because in general the money provided covers much the same level of activity as in previous years but inevitably reflects increases in wages and prices. Thus I will pass over C.2 (1) at £520,000 for nurseries, C.2 (2) at £2,356,000 for establishment of plantations, C.2 (3) at £791,000 for roads and buildings, C.2 (5) at £2,346,000 for mechanical equipment, and C.2 (6) at £3,680,000 for general forest management. Here also should Deputies wish to raise any points of detail I will cover these as necessary in my closing speech.

Head C.2 (4) of subhead C.2 provides for amenity developments in the State forests. The figure sought— £466,000—is an increase of £57,000 on the 1977 provision of £409,000. The increase is mainly due to rising costs of maintenance at the several hundred locations opened up to the public and which last year attracted some 1.5 million visitors. The provision sought will also be utilised for continuing large-scale developments on planned State forest parks at Currahchase. County Limerick, and Doneraile, County Cork, and for completion of additional facilities including a visitors' centre at Portumna Forest Park, County Galway.

On-going plans in the amenity and recreational fields will be aimed at keeping abreast of continuing public demand in this important sphere of my Department's activities.

The provision is, I feel, modest in relation to facilities provided for and enjoyed by an ever-increasing number of our people and of the visitors to our shores.

The provision under subhead C.2 (7) is designed to cover the cost of an addition of 100 to the labour force employed on harvesting. While the bulk of material removed from State forests will continue to be harvested by private enterprise, it is necessary to increase the service's own harvesting facilities to cope with increasing supplies of wood from the State forests.

The provision for grants for afforestation purposes under subhead D has been increased from £25,000 to £30,000.

As Deputies will be aware, I have recently introduced substantial increases in the grants for private planting. The basic grant for planting on areas of up to 40 acres has been increased from £35 to £90 per acre. The provision for larger areas which qualify for grant will be increased to £50. Substantial increases have also been made in grants for the planting of broadleaved trees, for scrub clearance and for popular planting.

Again, in fairness to those who undertook planting in the current planting season before the commencement of the increased grants, I have decided that the revised grants should be made retrospective to 1 October 1977.

Further, I have decided that, because inflation has eroded the value, I am doubling the second instalments of grants falling normally due this season and in subsequent years.

The increase in the provision on this head may seem modest in relation to these increases. It is expected however that, as much of the current planting season has passed, the full impact of the improved grants will not take effect until later this year and the main expenditure increase will fall to be met in 1979.

Before dealing with subheads G and H, which relate, respectively, to game development and conservation projects, I should like to refer briefly to the new legislation, namely the Wildlife Act, 1976, which is now being operated by the Forest and Wildlife Service of my Department, and to highlight some of its more important provisions.

This Act came into operation on 1 June 1977 and provides a much-needed statutory backing for my Department's work on wildlife conservation and game development by up-dating hunting laws and affording protection for our wild fauna and flora.

Under the Act new game hunting controls were put into effect in time for the 1977-78 open season. Basically these require that persons, including visitors to the State who wish to engage in game shooting, must show that they have lawful access to shooting rights and must also possess a licence to hunt in addition to their firearm certificates. The main objective is to eliminate poaching. In this context I have recently, by way of regulations, declared some 670 named game conservation clubs and associations throughout the country to be recognised bodies for the purpose of enabling them to prosecute offences for trespass on their own preserves.

New regulations have also been made under the Act to control commercial exploitation of protected species of wild birds and animals, including game species, and persons such as game dealers, hoteliers, restaurant owners and taxidermists engaged in buying and selling such species must now have a wildlife dealer's licence, the concept of which is much broader than the game dealer's licence which previously obtained. To meet the growing menace of indiscriminate and cruel methods of trapping and snaring wild animals—usually for profit —new controls are now in operation and these will be supplemented later by restrictions on the export of certain wild birds and wild animals and, in some cases, their skins.

My Department have currently under consideration the appointment, in accordance with section 72 of the Act, of a corps of "authorised persons" whose functions will include the enforcement of its control provisions. They would act in the wildlife sphere more or less as an arm of the Garda Síochána, who will of course continue to be actively involved in dealing with offences under the Wildlife Act. I hope to make a number of these appointments in the course of the year.

The Wildlife Advisory Council, provided for in section 13 of the Wildlife Act, will be established by me shortly. It is my earnest hope that by virtue of their experience and practical knowledge a broadly representative council will be a productive source of advice in the development by my Department of effective policy and programmes for wildlife conservation.

All in all we now have in the Wildlife Act itself and in the regulation process provided by it a sound basis on which to undertake worthwhile programmes in the game development and wildlife conservation sectors, aimed at safeguarding and conserving these important aspects of the national heritage.

Incidentally, while on the subject of the Wildlife Act—a very complex and comprehensive piece of legislation—I should mention that as part of their continued efforts to meet demands from the public for literature on wildlife matters my Department have produced a special booklet entitled Wildlife and the Law which sets out to explain in layman's language the various provisions of the Act. Some time ago I had a copy of this booklet sent with my compliments to each Member of the House and I unhesitatingly commend it to them.

Against that general background I can now deal more specifically with subheads G and H of the Estimate.

As in previous years, the main expenditure under subhead G—£230,000 —is on grants to regional game councils to assist their development schemes, which are formulated and operated in consultation with the advisory staff of the Forest and Wildlife Service. These schemes relate principally to programmes of restocking of pheasant and duck as well as habitat improvement and some educational projects. The subhead also contains provision for projects sponsored by a joint committee, representing the Forest and Wildlife Service and Bord Fáilte, for the development and control of game shooting facilities for visitors.

The substantial increase in the current year's provision under the subhead is intended to defray the cost involved in appointing authorised persons to assist in the enforcement of the Wildlife Act, not only in relation to game matters but also in the context of the entire wildlife spectrum. As already indicated, I hope to see a number of these appointments made during the year.

Subhead H is a conservation grant-in-aid which, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, is used to meet the cost of conservation projects—as distinct from game development programmes—approved of or engaged in by my Department or any other Department. There is already a substantial balance from previous years in the grant-in-aid which should be sufficient to meet the needs of the current year's on-going and projected programmes relating to wildlife conservation; hence the absence of an input of funds to the subhead this year. Much of the current work is related to surveys and research, essential to any conservation programme. These include surveys of wetland vegetation, plant communities and so on, as well as distribution studies and research on a wide variety of fauna such as deer, pine marten, squirrels and some game species.

More tangible evidence of my Department's wildlife conservation activities is to be found in the management of valuable habitats such as the internationally important Wexford Wildfowl Reserve, the barnacle goose sanctuary at Lissadell in County Sligo and a number of semi-natural oak woodlands, amounting in all to about 2,000 hectares, located throughout the country. It is my intention to use the powers under the Wildlife Act, 1976, to intensify the habitat conservation programme with a view to converting as many sensitive areas as possible into nature reserves for appropriate management.

When speaking earlier about the booklet on the Wildlife Act, I alluded to the educational side of the wildlife scene—a feature which I regard as most important. I am happy to record a sustained interest in wildlife conservation by the general public and especially by the schools. This is reflected in the well-supported residential weekend conservation courses for youth leaders and primary teachers held during the summer months at the Avondale Forestry Extension School and in the regular demand for the Department's expanding stock of literature on wildlife and nature conservation matters.

Another recent important and informative publication by the Forest and Wildlife Service was a booklet entitled Wetlands Discovered which describes the various types of wetland habitats in Ireland including historical, geographical and ecological aspects. This was a major contribution to the 1976-77 international publicity campaign on wetlands undertaken by the Council of Europe's Information Centre for Nature Conservation for which the Forest and Wildlife Service acts as the Irish national agency. These biennial Council of Europe campaigns are extremely valuable in stimulating and maintaining public awareness of specific elements of nature conservation. The council's next campaign, scheduled for 1979, will deal with conservation of wildlife and natural habitats and my Department will contribute as fully as resources permit.

Under subhead J—Appropriations-in-Aid at a figure of £5 million represents an increase of £1,400,000 over last year's figure. This increase is due to a rise in the estimated receipts both from sales of timber in the round, £4,640,000, and from Department's sawmills, £185,000. The four main processing mills, which utilise small-sized timber for the production of woodpulp, chipboard and fibreboard, have been experiencing some trading difficulties since the latter half of 1977 due to a general trade recession in European countries which has resulted in the closure of several large concerns engaged in similar manufacturing processes. This in turn has depressed the sales of small-sized timber in the round and there is reason to believe that the depression will continue for some time during the current year. I am confident, however, that any slight loss of income in this regard will be more than compensated by a marked increase in sales of sawlog timber for which there is a continual demand from sawmillers and timber merchants. As regards the processing mills, the Government are aware of their difficulties and are doing everything possible through the medium of the Industrial Development Authority, Fóir Teoranta and the various Government Departments concerned to lessen the burden on them as far as possible.

State forests represent a very heavy investment of public money and it is in everybody's interest that they grow to maturity with the minimum loss through fire or other damage.

Substantial sums of money are provided each year for the protection of forests from fire—our spending on protection in the current year is of the order of £300,000—but there is, of course, a limit to what can be spent economically on such protection.

In the last analysis the protection of the forests from the greatest enemy, the fire hazard, depends on the care, good sense and goodwill of our citizens. It is, after all, their money that has been invested by successive Governments in State forestry.

I know that there is a great deal of goodwill towards State forestry and I appreciate very much the fact that the opening of our forests for recreation has not involved significant increases in damage to the plantations.

There are, unfortunately, with us the careless and the selfish who, through failure to take reasonable precautions, put our plantations at hazard. Last year more than 3,000 acres of plantations were destroyed. In one fire alone 1,300 acres were lost. Practically all of these losses were avoidable. One cannot emphasise too often the need for care in the vicinity of young plantations. People should avoid lighting picnic fires near plantations if at all possible. In any event, all fires, matches and cigarettes should be carefully extinguished before being left or discarded.

Moor burning by farmers to improve grazing is another serious cause of forest fires. Under the new wildlife legislation burning of vegetation is completely prohibited during the period 15 April to 31 August each year. Outside that period, the procedure is simple. If a landowner proposes to burn vegetation within a mile of a plantation he should notify the local Gardaí and the State forester— or, in the case of private estates, the estate owner—at least seven days before undertaking such burning. In the case of State forests, if the forester feels that the burning is likely to endanger the plantation he will contact the landowner with a view to agreeing on a suitable date on which he can arrange to have staff available to protect the forest.

Failure to comply with these simple rules can involve a landowner in heavy fines and payments for any damage done to the plantations. Compliance with these simple rules can avoid this danger. When a landowner complies with these procedures and arranges for burning in agreement with the forester, then, so far as State forests are concerned, he need not fear prosecution or any claim for damages should the burning unhappily get out of hand and damage State forest property. I feel that the message of ensuring the safety of forests cannot be repeated too often and I have no doubt that Deputies from both sides of the House will lend their support to putting this message across as opportunity offers.

Finally, I would like, in presenting these two Votes together, to draw attention to the affinities between the two divisions of my Department. Both are concerned in the first instance with the harvesting and development of national resources, both of fish and wood, which can on the one hand substitute for costly imports and on the other provide the potential for additional employment in the harvesting and processing of fish and wood.

Apart, however, from the economic value of these contributions the forestry and fishery interests and particularly the inland fisheries side share with the wildlife conservation arm of my Department responsibility for the improvement of the natural environment and the enhancement of the quality of life in this country.

It will be the aim of my Department to continue to pursue these complementary objectives and thus make the greatest possible contribution both economically and socially within the resources available.

Mr. Deasy

The country is still reeling from the effects of the Letterkenny debacle. There is reference in the Minister's speech to the common fisheries policy negotiations and, though I do not intend to dwell on the point, I must mention recent happenings in passing. They reminded me of a colonial reconquest with Gundelach acting in the role of conqueror being aided and abetted by our Minister for Fisheries. It was an extremely sad occasion and I cannot blame the leaders of the fishermen or the Leader of Fine Gael for their extreme bitterness at the somersault that has taken place.

I regret that all those Fianna Fáil speakers who came in here a year ago and nailed their colours to the mast and raised their flag of support for the proposal for a 50-mile exclusive limit have not seen fit to apologise to the public, particularly to the fishermen. Their absence this year from debates on fisheries has been most noted—not one of them appeared. They showed complete cowardice. People who told us they would not give an inch on a 50-mile limit less than 12 months ago now refuse to say anything about the issue. Of course the public expect politicians to be a little twisted—poetic licence it might be called—but it is not an excuse and we would not be doing our duty if we did not say so here. This has lowered the level of political debate.

Let us be realistic. The 50-mile limit has gone and the Minister in suggesting that the option is still there is not being truthful. The option is not there. We have caved in and we must take the best we can out of the proposed fishing plan which has been put forward by the Council of Ministers. I should like to see the Minister, although he is in a very weak position, trying to salvage some little hope of prosperity for the Irish fishing industry. The fishing plan idea is not completely new and I will not be so dishonest as to say that the Coalition Government would not have gone along with some such idea.

However, the whole outcome depends on who operates this plan, who controls conservation within the 200-mile limit. If the Minister can get agreement that Ireland will operate conservation in that area there is still hope for our fishing industry. On the other hand, if, as I suspect, the political power of the Europeans will prove superior and if they get their way and they dictate the terms, our fishing industry will face ruin. There are to be fishing plans, but let us control conservation in our area. Any of us who have seen those people operating in previous years know what will happen if they get control. They do not give a damn about conservation. I have seen the Dutch and the French operating within 100 yards of the Irish coast and I can assure the House that there will be no fishing industry left if they are allowed to dictate those plans.

We must be allowed to control conservation in our own waters. That should be the Minister's definite line when those plans will be presented in the next couple of weeks. We have been told they will come into operation on 1 April next and that if they have proved satisfactory they will become permanent as from 1 January 1979. The 50-mile limit concept has gone because those people are not fools. They outwitted the Minister and they will try to do it again. They know that if they behave themselves in the next nine months the fishing plans will remain for eternity. Would they not be fools, therefore, if they contravened the rules and regulations that will accompany these plans before 1 January 1979? They would be cutting their throats.

So we can expect them to play ball with us during the next nine months, but after that bedlam will reign. I will not go into what they have done in the past. I will go further afield to see what other countries have done. I will refer specifically to Canada and Norway, both of whom have declared a 200-mile limit. They allow other countries to fish in their zones but on their own terms, but they rigidly control conservation. Any foreign boat entering Canadian waters fishing under licence must first go to a certain port and collect a fisheries officer who supervises the fishing carried out by the crew of that boat. When the boat has completed its tour of duty the fishery officer is taken back. The whole exercise is at the expense of the country whose boat is in Canadian waters. That is a very effective control mechanism.

Norway does not work in as rigid a fashion but coastguards freely come on boats that have a licence to fish in their waters. We must have some such scheme. I do not trust the Dutch or the French; I never have. I could not, and I think my suspicions will be borne out if they are allowed a free-hand. Let us have a rigid control over anybody who is going to fish within 200 miles of our shores. Let them bear the cost of any inspection duties carried out by our fishery inspectors.

The Minister came back from Brussels a few weeks ago and made a great song and dance about the fact that he had secured £30 million to enlarge our naval protection service. He told us that not only were we going to get five or six new protection boats but that we would get five or six planes as well. Against whom are we going to use those vessels and aircraft? I have great faith in third countries. I do not think they will break the limit. The Russians, with one exception, have invariably kept outside the limit. They abide by the laws. We have nothing to fear from these third countries. Our present naval protection service is quite sufficient to look after our fishing zones. The Icelandic people have proved that with their meagre protection service. They do the job properly and do not have any great problems.

The people we need protection against are our partners in the EEC and that is where we should get the money. We should have some provision whereby we could put fishery officers aboard their vessels. I would not let any of their boats inside our limit and accept their word that they were fishing for a certain type of fish and would catch only a certain quantity. I would not accept their word.

It has been said that our industry is grossly underdeveloped. Of course it is. In addition to conservation measures the Minister should stand out for a deal that would make the continentals land a certain proportion of fish in Irish ports. This would boost employment by giving us more processing industries, which are sadly lacking at the moment. It is imperative that a sizeable proportion of what they catch in our waters should be landed here.

Yesterday in reply to a question by Deputy Begley the Taoiseach gave a figure of £8,500,000 for imported fish. That is a very sizeable sum and is approximately half of the value of our fish exports. We have a very poor record when it comes to processing industries and giving employment in this area. If one goes into any super-market one sees shelves of canned fish. Invariably they are from other countries but more often than not the fish were caught off our coasts. For instance, mackerel is being sold in tins at the moment and it is one of the most common type of fish off our coasts. Sardines and brisling primarily come from Norway but they are being caught off the south coast in enormous quantities at the moment in the form of sprat. In the tinned form they are known as sardines or brisling. We are exporting an enormous amount of fish in the raw state and we are importing a considerable quantity in processed form. We should get the continentals to help pay for the development of our processing industries.

Our harbours need to be modernised and we need many new harbours. There was an interesting statistic in the Minister's speech where he stated that in 1976 there were 2,495 full-time fishermen in Ireland and 4,898 part-time fishermen—almost exactly twice as many part-time as full-time fishermen. There is a simple reason for that, namely, we do not have enough harbours that are capable of being used in all kinds of weather. I have no doubt that the majority of those part-time fishermen would be full-time fishermen if the facilities were available. We should look to our partners in the EEC for considerable financial aid to provide proper facilities in our harbours.

Many fishermen in my area are clamouring for better facilities in harbours but they are told the money is not there. They can fish for salmon and lobster for about four months of the year but for the other eight months they have to draw the dole because there is no work available for them. We need not only to improve our processing industries but also to improve our harbours so that fishermen can fish throughout the year. There is an interesting comparison between the number of people engaged on shore in our fishing industry and in continental fishing industries. For every ten people in this country who are fishing at sea there are eight employed on shore in the processing industry. On the continent for every one man fishing at sea there are four people working in the processing industries. Those statistics are very revealing and they show the underdeveloped state of our processing industries. We must do something concrete to reverse that trend.

The history of our fishing industry in recent years has been a downward trend in catches. It is a sad state of affairs, but the point is emphasised in the Minister's speech. He said that in the first nine months of 1976 we caught 44,373 tonnes of fish but in 1977 this had dropped to 43,602 tonnes. This was at a stage when our fishing fleet had expanded enormously. Every year there has been an increase not only in the number of boats but in the size and in the horse power, which is the greatest criterion of all. We are told that the catching power depends on this factor. While our techniques improve and our boats get larger, our catches drop. This is a most serious trend. It is the lever the Minister should use in his discussions with EEC members. The fish are just not there. The catches decrease although our boats are larger and our techniques improve. That is the point we must drive home.

Of course, the continentals will look for increased quotas. They will look for more and more fish, but the fish are not there. I could give a lot of statistics on those lines. The continentals are notorious for inventing paper fish. They demand higher quotas. They ruined fishing in the North Sea by working along those lines and they have ruined the herring fishing in the Celtic Sea by the same attitude. They will continue to do so unless we put a stop to them.

In 1974-75 the North-East Atlantic Fishing Commission estimated that 25,000 tonnes of herring could be taken from the Celtic Sea without harming the stocks, but the continentals demanded that they take 32,000 tonnes. In 1975-76 the quota set by this commission was 25,000 tonnes but the continentals demanded more. Despite their best efforts all they could catch on this occasion was 18,000 tonnes. They could not catch what they set out to catch because the stocks were not there. The end result has been that the Celtic Sea has been closed completely to herring fishing.

The position is similar in area 6A off the Donegal coast. In 1975 the quota for herring was set at 156,000 tonnes, but as a result of political pressure from the very same people, our partners in the EEC, the figure was eventually fixed at 205,000 tonnes. The result was that in the following year the quota had to be reduced to 66,000 tonnes because gross overfishing took place in 1975. This is the history of those people. There is gross overfishing and an invention of figures to suit themselves so that they can get everything that is there while the going is good. There is no interest in conservation.

I implore the Minister, in the discussions on the fishing plans, to make sure that any quotas based on fishing plans coincide with the views of the biologists in the Department of Fisheries. Our biologists must know how much fishing the stocks can stand up to. There are some wonderful people in the Department of Fisheries. I have seen some of them working. They told us in the early seventies that the Celtic Sea over-fishing was chronic and that the stage would be reached where nothing would be left. They were right. Mr. Molloy in particular, a young biologist, was very definite about this fact, which unfortunately proved to be correct. People like that should be allowed dictate the amount of fish that can be caught. The continentals should not be allowed call the tune on that point.

There are other aspects of our fishing industry that need attention, especially marketing. There is something drastically wrong in the fishing set-up here when the price the fishermen get is so low and the price paid by the consumer is so high. We see reports every day from the Dublin fish market of fish fetching 10p, 20p and 30p a pound. When one goes to buy the same fish one has to pay the best part of a £1 for a pound of it. The fisherman is not getting a proper return for his produce. Some middlemen along the line are making fantastic profits. The Minister should introduce some mechanism to ensure that this profiteering is not allowed.

People in various parts of the country, particularly inland areas but also some coastal areas, cannot get fresh supplies of fish when plenty of fish are being caught. The marketing system is haywire. I cannot understand why something cannot be done to make fish freely available in inland towns throughout the country. I have been told that fish consumption in Ireland is less than in the city of Manchester. If that is true it is an astonishing indictment of our marketing system.

There is a great demand for fish if people could get it. Something should be done to rectify this. There is something drastically wrong with our marketing system when a fisherman on the quay at Killybegs at the moment will get only £360 for a ton of herring. If he is lucky he will get about £65 for a cran. I believe in Castletownbere last week they were getting only £50 a cran. The most he will get is about £360 for a ton of herring, while in Holland a fisherman will get £4,500 for the same amount. Is that not an incredible breakdown in our marketing system? We are equal in the EEC. There are no tariffs, import duties or anything else on such commodities, but there is that colossal difference between £360 given to the fisherman here and £4,500 given to the fisherman in Holland for the same quantity of fish.

All our ills are not because of foreigners, their over-fishing and foul methods. Many of the problems in the Irish fishing industry are of our own making. It is a pity the Minister could not wait to hear all the speakers at the seminar in Letterkenny last week because he would have got some valuable information from some very able people in BIM and the Department of Fisheries. Are they being listened to by the Minister or are they getting the finance to put their ideas into being?

I should like to refer to the script of Mr. McGrath, the senior engineer in the Department of Fisheries. He reinforced some information I previously received. This concerns the lack of training which our fishermen are getting. It would seem that a large proportion of our fishermen, in particular our skippers, are not fully versed in manning the vessels which they operate and are not fully versed in using the sophisticated equipment which those vessels contain nowadays. Courses have been provided in the National Fishery School in Greencastle. It is a sad thing to relate that they are not being properly utilised. There are two different types of courses conducted at this school. One of them is for trainee fishermen, young men of 16 to 18 years of age. They are usually fully taken up. There are plenty of applicants.

However, there is a second course conducted by the National Fishery School which is called the skippers' course. It only takes something like ten weeks but there are very few applicants to utilise the facilities provided. Mr. McGrath tells us that in 1974, while there was room for 46 people to be trained, there was only one applicant. In 1975 there were two applicants. In 1976 there were nine applicants and, in 1977, there were 11 applicants. I was up at the school about two months ago and there were only two people attending the trainee skipper's course while there were places for 23. The course is run twice yearly. This is an extremely sad state of affairs Our fishermen are not availing of the courses designed to teach them the type of techniques essential for the operation of modern trawlers. It has been stated—I do not know how true it is—that many people are getting very sophisticated equipment just for the sake of having it. There is a certain prestige attached to it. They do not know how to use it. If that is true there is something radically wrong.

We know our fishermen catch much less fish than other countries do. The catch per fisherman is extremely low in comparison with countries like Holland. Perhaps the fact that they are not capable of utilising the sophisticated equipment they have is to blame for this and the Minister might set about ensuring that every fisherman is trained to the utmost in the techniques necessary. Not alone should there be one man on each vessel capable of handling this equipment but there should be at least two so that one can relieve the other.

Mr. McGrath also says:

There is also need for obtaining uptodate information about new methods of fishing or about improved techniques. Efforts to introduce such a Scheme at the School in Greencastle in the last year or two failed due to the inability to persuade the person selected to come to Ireland for the purpose at that time.

Basic training in the use of Decca, Radar and Echo-Sounders is now being provided at the School at Greencastle. Arrangements are in hand to provide instruction and training also in the use of Sonar. But even more will have to be provided to meet the needs of the fishermen.

We obviously need a great deal more training and we probably need several more schools. One of the speakers at the seminar in Letterkenny made the point that the regional technical college there should be utilised for training fishermen in electronics. I go so far as to say that a number of regional technical colleges around the country should be used for this purpose because the training facilities at the moment are obviously not sufficient. The money paid to the trainee skippers is not sufficient to entice them away from their work and that is probably the most likely reason why these courses are not being utilised. One or two utilising the facilities in a year is absolutely ridiculous. I would like the Minister to refer to this when he replies because it is a great drawback. Our industry will not progress if we do not have people properly trained in the necessary skills.

The second part of this Estimate deals with the inland fisheries and primarily with the salmon industry. The Minister talks about poaching and pollution and other illegal practices taking place at the moment. Last October the Minister promised he would introduce legislation early in 1978 to implement the main recommendations of the Inland Fisheries Commission. It is now early 1978. Another salmon season has commenced and there is no new legislation. I do not know if new legislation will be the answer to the wrongs perpetrated at the moment, but new legislation is imperative.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would point out to the Deputy that we may neither discuss nor advocate legislation on an Estimate. That is the rule.

Mr. Deasy

I am merely emphasising the fact that legislation is needed. We have been promised legislation and I would like to see it in a matter of days or weeks because our salmon industry, a major industry and a very valuable one, is greatly in danger of extinction. There will have to be drastic measures to deal with a drastic situation. What has been happening along the west coast over the last number of years can no longer be tolerated. What measures is the Minister taking to eliminate the wholesale illegal fishing? I am referring to drift netting at sea with trawlers using miles of nets. Not all of these trawlers have got licences but they are getting away with it. Last year some of these boats were challenged by water keepers in inferior craft and with inferior equipment and the water keepers were absolutely intimidated. So far as I know none of these people has been apprehended. Drift netting, if properly controlled, can be tolerated and can provide a very lucrative living for thousands of people but, if abused, the whole structure of the industry will collapse. It has been abused and I would like the Minister to tell us what he is doing to stem the dreadful overfishing and poaching going on on the west and south-west coast.

I asked the Minister on an earlier occasion if he would provide more salmon licences and he said "No"— there were plenty in existence. In the Minister's introductory statement, under the heading Control of Fishing for Salmon, he says:

Following a review of the Control of Fishing for Salmon Order 1974, at the end of the 1977 fishing season, I considered that the exclusion, by the terms of that Order, of certain fishermen, who derived their livelihood mainly from fishing, was inequitable.

Accordingly I made provision in the Control of Fishing for Salmon Order 1977, whereby fishermen who derived their livelihood mainly from fishing and who in the opinion of persons to whom a licence should be issued, may be considered for the grant of a licence.

Do I take it that means an additional number of salmon licences will be granted?

Mr. Lenihan

No. The maximum number remains the same. These would be to offset reductions.

Mr. Deasy

That is what I wanted to clarify because, if it meant an expansion in the number, I would be taking issue.

Mr. Lenihan

I assure the Deputy there will be no expansion.

Mr. Deasy

It is a matter of substitution where people fall out.

Mr. Lenihan

That is right.

Mr. Deasy

There are great pressures on Deputies on the south coast, where we have a great many licences, and on the west coast also for the granting of more licences, because it is a very lucrative form of fishing. I am pleased to learn that there will not be additional ones granted. What is happening at present must not merely be curtailed but stamped out. I am pleased to note that the Minister has made additional moneys available to the present boards of conservators for the employment of more water-keepers. It was brought to my attention recently that there is one waterkeeper only for approximately 150 miles of the west coast. Is that possible? From what we read in the newspapers this is where there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of boats fishing illegally each season.

There must be some drastic measures taken. I agree with the Minister that the Naval Service should be employed to eliminate this. Apart from the damage it is doing to the fishing industry generally and to the salmon stocks, it is very unfair to the genuine salmon fisherman who has a licence and who is dependent on it for his living. He is becoming tired of reading articles in the newspapers by certain interests who want to stamp out drift-netting completely. He feels he is carrying the can for the poachers. There is plenty of ground for retaining the number of licences we have as long as they are properly controlled.

Too much emphasis is being placed on the effects of drift-netting on stocks. There are two other practices doing considerable damage, both of which are illegal and should be eliminated. One is poaching up the rivers. In many cases district justices are far too lenient when dealing with persistent poachers. Some people are up in court several times a year and seem to get away with fines of a couple of pounds each time. The damage caused through this up-river poaching is immense and should not be tolerated.

The other source of danger to the industry is pollution. In this respect we are not doing justice to the industry. Fishermen tell me there are considerable quantities of salmon out at sea. They feel the salmon are not going up rivers because they are too highly polluted. The salmon, just like any other creature, is sensitive. When it senses that a river is too toxic or has some repellant substance in it that does not agree with its constitution, it will not go up that river. It appears that there is an enormous amount of pollution in our rivers. Now and again we hear of thousands of trout and salmon being killed. But there must also be that in-between stage in which salmon will not go up river, will not spawn and, therefore, there is a considerable reduction in stock. Pollution is not being tackled as it should be.

While the Minister tells us that under the Water Pollution Act, 1976, a whole lot of officers have been appointed to monitor estuaries and rivers, I still believe sufficient action is not being taken. Nobody will convince me that the matter is being attended to in the manner warranted. I know that local authorities recently gained power to employ engineers and clerks to monitor waterways in their areas. I hope this will be successful, because I honestly believe the pollution aspect is being played down. There is the old concept here that industry is more important than scenery, tourism and so on. That is ridiculous because good fishing rivers attract an enormous number of tourists, who in turn provide money and employment. Pollution constitutes a retrograde step and allows industrialists to lobby people in an endeavour to avoid being prosecuted. Such people should be laid on very heavily if proven guilty of polluting rivers.

We look forward to the reorganisation of the inland fisheries. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea when that legislation will be introduced. The present boards of conservators have a pathetic financial set-up. They are making the best of a bad job, but that is not sufficient. While on that subject I should like to refer to a particularly ill-advised Bill introduced by the Minister some months ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, I must remind the Deputy that he cannot criticise or advocate legislation on an Estimate.

Mr. Deasy

There was an amount of agitation for the introduction of a deeper net in a certain part of the south coast. While there was historical justification for such an extension in one area, the Minister allowed the extension of the net to cover the whole fisheries district. This has engendered very bad feeling in neighbouring districts. Now there is the anomalous situation in which people fishing out of the same port have to do so under different conditions. For example, half of the fishermen at Helvick Head, which is the major fisheries port on the south coast, have licences in the Lismore area and the others have licences in the Waterford fisheries area. While the Lismore people can fish with nets of 45 meshes the people in the Waterford area have to fish with those of 30 meshes. This had led to considerable ill-feeling.

This is definitely a case of discrimination against one group. I wonder will the Minister do anything to rectify that anomalous situation. Either we should have 30 meshes or the whole lot or 45. There may be a certain historical case for the Lismore fishermen who always used a deep net but there is justifiable ill-feeling on the part of people who can use nets of only 30 meshes in the same area. The Minister made a serious error there. Either he should have confined it to the traditional area or made it 45 for the whole coast. I am sure the Minister will hear a lot more about it from time to time.

I should like to see the Inland Fisheries report acted on immediately. I should also like to see legislation introduced under which foreign fishing boats will be fined an adequate sum when apprehended in Irish waters. The loophole obtaining there at present cannot be tolerated. I do not see why the Minister cannot bring in legislation overnight to plug that loophole.

Mr. Lenihan

It is somewhat more difficult than that. There is a legal technicality involved, but I will bring it in very quickly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot advocate what the Minister should do. He can refer to the fines as being inadequate, but he must keep away from the legislation.

Mr. Deasy

What is happening at present is that a Spanish or any other foreign boat can come in and catch hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of fish right in around our coast and the maximum fine is £100, whereas I believe in Britain for a similar breach of the law the fine is £50,000. In the Isle of Man, apart from the fine of £50,000, the skipper and mate of such a boat can be sent to prison. Certainly we need something to plug the existing loophole.

Mr. Lenihan

We do.

Mr. Deasy

The Spaniards seem to be making hay while the sun shines. They were getting caught at the rate of one a month. Recently they were getting caught at the rate of one a week and now it is two a week. I would ask the Minister to seriously consider withdrawing the concessions that are being granted to Spanish fishermen, because they are abusing those concessions wholesale and are doing immense damage to our fishing industry. Like the French they persist in catching under-sized fish. They have a concession to catch hake, one of the most valuable species off our coast. We should not tolerate their antics. Their methods are foul and they do not seem to give a damn about our existing laws. Not many would give a damn if they knew they could catch up to £100,000 worth of fish and the maximum fine is only £100. Something drastic needs to be done to plug this loophole.

In relation to the Forestry Estimate it is pleasant to see that instead of a drastic increase the increase is relatively small. This seems to stem from the fact that the value of our forestry products has increased substantially. As a rural politician I get requests from progressive and small farmers, that land which the forestry section have acquired for reafforestation, should be given to them for agricultural use because it is arable. The question of what is fit and what is not fit for afforestation will be a great bone of contention as time passes. It is a difficult question to answer. People who are quite convinced that they can use land for agricultural purposes feel very sore at the fact that the Forestry Department went ahead and planted that land. With the value of land and the thirst for land it will be difficult for the Minister to meet his target of 10,000 hectares annually for afforestation, and I can see the problem becoming more and more difficult. I do not see how the Minister can meet his programme as he will have to pay huge prices for what was formerly very cheap land. Not so long ago people got thirty shillings an acre from the Forestry Division for land. Now even the worst mountain land will fetch £200 an acre. I would like to see the Minister follow up an idea that has been bandied around with regard to afforestation, that is that people should be heavily subsidised in return for allowing their land to be planted. The land should not be purchased for afforestation, but it should be planted by the Forestry Division and the owner of the land should be compensated for the use of the land right through the 20 years or so that it takes a tree to mature. Not many farmers would agree to wait 20 years to reap the benefit of their work. This is a practical way of overcoming the shortage of land for afforestation.

I have always been intrigued by an anomaly in the planning law which affects the Forestry Division. If one has a marvellous scenic view one cannot build a house between that view and the public road or between the sea and the public road, depending on the location. However, the Forestry Division seem to be able to come along with impunity and plant miles of trees blocking off fantastic views. Surely there should be some regulation whereby trees would be planted so far back from the public road that that view would not be impeded. Trees planted right beside a public road can have another effect in weather such as we had recently. The greatest trouble when driving along frost or snow covered roads is that trees obliterate the sunshine for weeks and months thus the frost or show does not melt and skids are likely to occur. Trees should not be planted where they block a view or where they overhang a road so as to obliterate the sunshine. I know that trees in themselves are beautiful but there is no great beauty when they are overhanging a road. While the Forestry Department are probably exempt under some regulation, they should see to it that this type of obstruction does not occur and that they do not create grave traffic hazards by helping to keep roads frost-bound in difficult weather.

The Minister in his report spent a considerable length of time referring to the Wildlife Bill enacted last year many parts of which became law last June. The Wildlife Bill was one of the most wonderful pieces of legislation introduced in this House for many years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Deasy move the adjournment of the debate. We have a very limited motion. When I say limited one never knows what is going to happen, but we should be back on the Estimates again in a short time.

Mr. Deasy

The Wildlife Bill is anything but limited.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am talking about the motion not the Estimates.

Debate adjourned.