asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the proposals, if any, he has for the surveying of fishing grounds out to the 200 mile limit, the length of time it is estimated that such a survey will take, and if he has sought financial aid from the EEC for such a project.

I am in the process of placing an order for a new fisheries research vessel which will be capable of operating out to 200 miles from the coast.

As surveys of fishing stocks are on-going it would not be possible to place a time limit on completion of the task.

EEC funds are not available towards the cost of fisheries research undertaken by member states.

Is the Minister quite certain that EEC funds could not be made available for such a survey, has the Minister made a formal approach?

As the Deputy is aware I have done reasonably well in getting £30 million for surveillance activities. I sought to get money for research but research is regarded by the Commission as a national endeavour.

This vessel is a modern Norwegian designed vessel. We purchased the design and the drawings from Norway. The vessel will measure 150 foot long. I hope to have the construction of the vessel put in hands very shortly at the cost of about £3 million and I hope to have it finished within the next 18 months.

When was the decision made to purchase this vessel?

The decision was made some months ago and I decided that the quickest way to get some action in the matter was to purchase the drawings and the design from a Norwegian firm in Bergen, who had constructed a number of up-to-date fishery research vessels for the Norwegian Government. Therefore, we are assured of having a top-class, modern design. It will, of course, be built in an Irish shipyard. There is no question about that—the order will be placed in an Irish shipyard.

I should like to question the Minister's priorities. I know protection is vitally important and that the Minister is getting £30 million for protection vessels, aeroplanes and so on, but surely £3 million for research is extremely little in comparison? As we know so little about our fish stocks in that area surely we should be spending a far greater amount.

I agree with the Deputy that research is important. We are making a start now—we have got one—and I would hope to have another one. In the meantime the more urgent necessity was to ensure the protection of our 200-mile limit. We could not have afforded that protection out of our own resources having regard to the costs involved. We are now proposing to spend £40 million on the construction and purchase of protection vessels, helicopters and planes by 1981. It was a substantial advance to secure £30 million from the EEC. Research is really outside the scope of this. Research is our responsibility, and is the responsibility of every member country of the EEC. The surveillance aspect was different because there we are protecting, if you like, our part of general Community waters. Therefore we could make the case very strongly that our protection there against third country vessels was performing a Community function as well as a national one.

Is not it a fact that the bulk of the fish in our waters is caught by other member states? Furthermore, because of that, should not there be an onus on the EEC to pay for this surveillance?

I am afraid I tried that and it is not on. But I was very happy to be able to secure the other money in the other area I have mentioned.

I want to ask the Minister two questions arising from his reply. The Minister said that the decision to buy the design for this new vessel was taken some months ago. Could he tell us just how many months ago it was taken?

I have not got the exact date, Deputy. If the Deputy wants that information, I will convey it to him by letter.

Could the Minister give us the name of the firm from which the design was bought?

Certainly, I will get all that information for the Deputy.

The Minister has not got it on his file?

I have not got it on the file, no.

Was the transaction with this firm—whichever it was and whenever it was negotiated—part of a package deal involving other elements?

That is so obvious and so futile. I thought the Deputy was coming to that; he did it very painfully. It has nothing whatsoever got to do with it. The Deputy should not be chasing hares.

Does that mean the answer is "No"?

The answer is "no", Deputy.

It is very hard to extract answers.

When the Deputy asks stupid questions it is very hard to be nice to him.

The Minister should not be abusive.

7.