Vol. 434 No. 4
29 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Finance if he will ensure that a census of the various species of wildlife will be undertaken so that special measures can be taken to see that those species which are endangered can be protected.
It is not possible to census all species of wildlife. The National Parks and Wildlife Service assesses the conservation status of each species and, where it is necessary, special surveys are undertaken as resources permit. If any species is endangered, measures are undertaken to protect it.
The Minister's reply is highly unsatisfactory. He said initially that it is not possible to tell if some species are in danger because the census cannot be carried out, he then said that there is no need to do it. Surely we can do as they do in Britain and have a very precise census of each species of wildlife. During the summer I discovered that at least ten species of birds in this country are in danger of extinction. We do not seem to be capable of doing anything about it. I heard recently that the common song thrush is in danger, not just rare species like the corncrake and the kingfisher. The Department does not seem to have the ability to discern what is in danger. Would it be possible to give the job of carrying out a census in order to protect wildlife to some other Department which has the interest and the resources to do the job? This question is out of place among questions on the World Bank, the IMF and third banking institutions but, unfortunately, it is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. I do not expect the Minister to supervise the carrying out of a census of all the wildlife species in the country but something practical must be done to protect endangered species. It is vital to protect our wildlife because of our dependency on agriculture and tourism.
My reply was not contradictory. I said it was not possible to have a census of all species of wildlife.
It was done in Britain.
Well, it is not possible here. The question was addressed to the Minister for Finance who has delegated the functions of the Office of Public Works to me as Minister of State and we are responsible for conservation. I reject any implication that the Office of Public Works is lax in its conservation role. It has a great interest in preserving wildlife. The conducting of a census does not protect wildlife. The Office of Public Works undertakes specific measures to protect wildlife. It undertakes habitat conservation and has initiated various researches. Under the Wildlife Act, 1976, wild birds are protected by rangers. There are special protection areas for wild birds and more will be designated. A variety of steps have been taken in that area so I would not like anybody to think that, because we do not undertake to conduct a survey of all species of wildlife, we are unconcerned about their survival and conversation. One could argue that to use up scarce and valuable resources to carry out such a survey would take vital people away from the protection duties which the Deputy sincerely wants in place.
In saying that it is not important the Minister of State has contradicted himself. On the one hand he has said he does not have the resources and on the other he is looking after it. He cannot look after it if he does not have the resources. This is ludicrous.
The Deputy may ask questions but I would prefer if he did not answer them or misinterpret my answers.
I have been given contradictory replies.
The Minister of State should be allowed continue without interruption.
I have made it clear that the Office of Public Works is involved in a big number of projects to protect wildlife, conserve habitats, etc. All I can do is answer the question and I do not think the Deputy should misinterpret my answers.
The Minister of State is being dishonest; nothing is being done.
I do not accept that and the Deputy should withdraw the allegation that I am being dishonest.
Nothing is being done; there has not been a census.
I will ask the officials of the Office of Public Works to go through the full list of conservation and protection programmes with the Deputy.
That would be a good idea.
It is not fair of the Deputy to say that the Office of Public Works is not doing its job.
I did not say that.
It is doing its job and a considerable sum of money is being spent.
The Minister of State should not twist Deputy Deasy's words; the Minister of State is being mischievous.
The officials of the Office of Public Works should attend a meeting of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs so that we can question them.
They were present at a meeting of that committee.
Why has the Minister of State, since taking office, consistently refused to meet the National Association of Regional Game Councils, the premier body for the promotion of wildlife?
Why does he insist on the National Heritage Council and the Wildlife Council having the same membership even though the National Heritage Council has no interest in wildlife?
That is a separate question.
However, the Deputy's information is incorrect. The policy and functions of the National Heritage Council are matters for the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
The Minister of State referred to wildlife rangers. Does he realise that there is one ranger in County Dublin and none in many counties? While we have programme managers, the Civil Service and the Cabinet to look after one species we have one person to look after the rest. It comes as no surprise to hear the Minister of State say what Deputy Deasy has requested cannot be done. I suggest to the Minister of State that the solution to the problem lies in habitat conservation rather than in trying to save each species in a cage or by any other method. Does the Minister of State intend to increase the number of wildlife rangers, bearing in mind the difficulties he has identified?
As the Deputy is aware, wildlife rangers are appointed on a regional rather than on a county basis. I am sure the Deputy will agree that habitat conservation is one of the most important functions of the national parks and wildlife service. Under that heading statutory protection has been given to a number of representative eco-systems which include 72 nature reserves, five refuges for fauna, 68 wildfowl sanctuaries and five national parks. In addition, 20 special protection areas for wild birds and 21 important wetlands have been designated under international obligations. If I understand the Deputy correctly, he agrees with me that it is important to conserve habitats and that this is the best way to protect the various species that are under threat. This will continue to be the case.
Will there be any increase in the number of rangers.
I do not know why the Minister of State considers a constructive question to be a criticism of the Office of Public Works. It is the responsibility of the wildlife rangers to enforce the legislation. As the Minister of State said, they are employed on a regional basis. In my county we have one wildlife ranger who could be called the Lone Ranger. Is the Minister of State aware that concern has been expressed that the proper equipment has not been provided to wildlife rangers to allow them carry out their task effectively? Is the Minister of State also aware that there is widespread use of what is known as a bird line within which song birds are being trapped and exported?
The Deputy has gone wide of the mark.
These are the birds to which Deputy Deasy referred. Will the Minister of State provide the extra resources to allow the Office of Public Works do its job?
I am sure the Minister of State appreciates this is outside the scope of the question tabled.
I intend to abide by the Chair's ruling. The Deputy, who is obviously concerned about wild birds, should table a question to which I will give a full reply.
That is typical of the Minister of State; he cannot answer my question.
I should add that I did not react to constructive questions by Deputy Deasy; I welcomed them. I reacted to his misinterpretation of what I said or his attempt to distort my answer.
The Minister of State thought Deputy Deasy was criticising the Office of Public Works which was not the case.
In response to Deputy Sargent, it is our intention to expand some of the habitat conservation areas.
Will there be an increase in the number of wildlife rangers?
