asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the reasons why the waterkeepers of the Board of Conservators No. 12 District were dismissed.

I assume the Deputy is referring to three members of the protection staff of No. 12 district who received dismissal notices from the board on 3rd October last. I am informed by the board that the men were dismissed due to repeated failures to carry out the instructions of the board and their inspector. The board are fully empowered under the Fisheries acts to terminate the employment of any of their officers.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware these men were dismissed because of their inability to act against organised fish-ins?

They were dismissed because of their inability to carry out their duties, according to the board, or alternatively because of their unwillingness to do so. From the information supplied to the Department, the dismissals were justified. I do not know if it is wise on the Deputy's part to ask for detailed particulars of the reasons for the dismissals of particular individuals. If he does so I will answer him.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not given any answers to questions I have asked him.

The three men were warned over a considerable period of time.

When the "fish-ins" were in progress they were unable to act.

Because of their inability or unwillingness to carry out their duties the board had no alternative but to dispense with their services.

Because of their inability to act?

They were dismissed because they were incapable.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one of the reasons, if not the main one, for the dismissal of the three men is because they seized nets belonging to a member of the board?

That is completely wrong, according to the information I have.

Three men have lost their jobs because the Parliamentary Secretary will not act.

I have no say with regard to the termination of their employment or their reinstatement. However I have information on the matter and I shall give it to the Deputy. All three men have other employment and the board are satisfied they did not devote their fulltime efforts towards fisheries protection although they were told to do so. One man, in addition to being a cattle owner, drives the town's school children to school in his own minibus and the other two are farmers. Despite repeated warnings all were frequently absent at markets when they were required for duty. As the situation steadily worsened, in December, 1973 they were informed they must devote all their time to their duties. In March, 1974, they were warned in writing that failure to carry out instructions—namely, to be available for duty when required by the inspector—would lead to summary dismissal. In August, 1974, they were given a final warning. There were frequent complaints from anglers and others that the men were not present to protect the area and some members of the anglers' association expressed satisfaction and pleasure at the dismissal of the men.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the notification of their dismissal it was stated it was due to lack of work, that the board did not have sufficient work for them, that it had nothing to do with the service they had given?

How could they do the work required of them by the board when they were at the mart selling their cattle?

They were appointed by the board years ago.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary be prepared to apply the same criteria to TDs? Does he think that if they are engaged in other work they might not be doing their work as public representatives in a successful way?

What function has the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to TDs and their duties?

Why are two different kinds of criteria applied?

The board of conservators applied the criteria and, in fairness to the board and from the information at my disposal, I must say I think their action was justified. If the allegations made by the board to the Department are incorrect I should be very pleased to hear from any Deputy on the matter.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into the following two questions: the inability of the men to work during "fish-ins" and the fact that they seized nets belonging to the board?

That had nothing to do with their dismissal. It is an unfair reflection on the personnel of the board.

I am calling Question No. 17.