asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the criteria, if any, that have been laid down for issuing drift licences in the 1974 season.

The criteria for the issue of salmon drift net licences in practically all areas during 1974 are set out in the Control of Fishing for Salmon Order, 1973, a copy of which is available for inspection in the Library. The Deputy's question may relate, however, to the tidal waters of the river Shannon which are subject to separate regulations under which the number of drift net licences that may be issued by the Limerick Board of Conservators is restricted to 70. Preference is required to be given to anyone who held a licence in 1934 and the board have sole responsibility in the allocation of any remaining licences.

Since the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that these new restrictions were brought in for the purpose of conservation, how can he reconcile that with the fact that there are more licences held today than before the scheme was set up?

The number of licences approved this year is similar to the number last year, and I am satisfied that the allocation of licences is reasonable and fair. We have to take into account that a number of people depend largely on these licences for their livelihood, and I think the regulations as set down are quite reasonable.

My question was how does the Parliamentary Secretary reconcile the situation in which this was brought in for the purpose of conservation and yet more licences were issued?

The answer is that I can carry on doing a better job in a more reasonable way than my predecessor.

12.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why an applicant in County Kerry (details supplied) did not receive a drift netting licence in 1974.

The application referred to by the Deputy was for a drift net licence in the river Shannon estuary and was considered, among the others received, by the Limerick Board of Fishery Conservators, which has the sole responsibility for allocation of these licences.

I should like to know whether a breach of a fishing law is considered sufficient grounds for withdrawing a licence.

Apparently in this case it was. The subject of the Deputy's question held licences for some years up to 1974 but on 17th January he was convicted for operating a fixed engine and for having three salmon illegally in his possession. He was fined. Although the conviction does not debar him from holding a licence, in my view, the board of conservators considered him a less meritorious applicant for a licence than others who were fighting for a limited number of licences.

Is this the first time this criterion has been used?

It may be. As Parliamentary Secretary, I do not condone breaches of the fishery regulations, but if this is an isolated offence on the part of this person I should like to see next year the board reconsidering his application. If on the other hand he has had previous convictions, I think the board were quite fair and quite reasonable.

Is my recollection correct that some weeks ago the Parliamentary Secretary stated quite clearly in the House that no more licences were issued this year than last year, no matter whether disqualified people were involved or not?

The number of licences in the area of the Limerick and District Board of Fishery Conservators is 70. I assume that the number of qualified applicants exceeded that number and that the board were able to make a choice. What happened in the case of this person was that the board rejected his application and gave it to another qualified applicant. As the law stands, the board have the sole responsibility for the allocation of licences. If there is a demand, as far as the Limerick estuary is concerned, for a change in the regulations, we can have another look at the position.

What I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary is whether he said in this House a few weeks ago that the overall number of licences granted by the various boards this year does not exceed last year's total.

That is quite correct. That is what happened in the Limerick case. A licence was withdrawn from one man and given to another.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the reason for the original refusal in that case was that the Department felt it was a request from the other Deputy Lynch?

It was determined solely by the Limerick board of conservators. It was brought to the Department's notice by virtue of representations made by Deputy Lynch. I do not see the other Deputy Lynch's name associated with the query but if the other Deputy Lynch had made representations he would have got the same type of reply as his namesake from North Kerry.

Is it the position that the courts having dealt with an offender, that offender is to be dealt with again by the board, adding to the conviction a penalty already imposed?

That was the position when Fianna Fáil were in power but the law is now being administered justly and fairly.

Not in this case.