asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the stage reached in the programme for improvement of small fishing ports as initiated by the coastal survey in 1969-70.

In 1969-70 reports were furnished to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries by survey teams which examined fishing ports and landing places in Counties Donegal and Sligo. Killy-begs was outside the scope of the County Donegal survey as it was being developed as a fishery harbour centre. The ports and landing places at which the teams recommended improvements and the present position in each case is set out in the form of a tabular statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report.

Following is the statement:

Since it is possible for the Minister to give this list on a county coast basis, is there any reason why the entire report should not be made available to any Member of the House?

I will consider that matter. I have discussed it with the Deputy.

It has been under consideration in individual cases for quite a while. It would save time and effort if the Minister would agree to make the full report available to any Deputy who wishes to have it, rather than that we should have to put down a question about each section of the coast such as I have put down today which elicits from the Minister an excerpt from the report. It would be better to let us have the whole report instead of taking it out in dribs and drabs on the Kathleen Mavourneen system.

We could do that.

What progress has been made in the area of the Donegal coast to which the report refers?

Work has been completed already in nine different places in Donegal: Ballyederlan, Ballysaggart, Ballywhoorisky, Bunbeg, Bunnagee, Burtonport, Cassan Sound, Cladnageragh and Doobeg.

What about Rosbeg, Burtonport, Curransport, Ballyness, Meevagh, Downings——

The Deputy will get the information in the tabular statement.

This is information I am sure I will not get.

The Deputy should be fair. There are four pages of centres in the statement.

Of work not finished?

The Deputy is anything but satisfied. I am asking what has happened to the programme which arose as a result of the coastal survey initiated and put into operation by me which should have been finished years ago and is not half completed. I doubt if anybody really knows what is expected from it.

I appreciate Deputy Blaney's initiative. I was a colleague of his at the time.

The Deputy left before the work was completed.

This is a very detailed reply which sets out where works have been executed, where works have been planned, where works are proposed to be planned.

If the Deputy is not happy with that, let us not have an abuse of Question Time.

There is no point in trying——

Would the Minister answer Question No. 21? We are having an argument now.

It is all there and the Deputy knows it.

The Minister has the tabular statement and is not answering questions because he has practically given us what is in that and it is not what I am asking for. What is he going to do about the ones that have not been done, not to mention the ones that have already been going?

It is there in detail, at what stage each project is at present. I do not understand the Deputy. I am being very reasonable.

The Minister is being not very generous. That is what matters here.

All right. I can see in the dark too.