asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if his attention has been drawn to the growing tendency to dump fish rather than make it available for human consumption and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I am aware that at times fish withdrawn from the market by producer organisations of fishermen under EEC price support arrangements is disposed of by dumping. Such fish is, however, first offered for sale for human consumption and is only withdrawn from the market where it fails to reach certain price levels.

Withdrawn fish is the property of the producer's organisations and its disposal according to the methods permitted by EEC regulations which exclude disposal for human consumption is a matter for determination by those organisations.

Will the Minister not intervene to stop this dumping scandal? Will he not try to stop the destruction of fish around our coasts by dumping, irrespective of who is responsible?

The Deputy seems to be assuming that I have not already shown an interest in this. I have. The dumping of fish is not a new situation. I should like to see all surplus fish processed.

Is there not some contradiction between the statement the Minister has just made, that such fish cannot be used for human consumption, and his reply to an earlier question that it can be given free to charity through charitable organisations? Why cannot arrangements be made to use the fish in that way? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that that will be done?

It would be a matter of economics. Fish which has been withdrawn has to be carried somewhere and presented to other people, and the question becomes an economic one.

Surely it would be possible to make prior contingency arrangements with charitable organisations that when fish become available they will be communicated with and they could send a van to collect the fish? It requires little imagination and little action.

The Deputy referred to prior contingency regulations. He must understand that the intervention system was brought in on the assumption that when fishermen go out to fish they do not know how much fish they will catch. One would not expect fishermen to go out with the knowledge that they would catch fish they may have to dump. Fishermen go out to catch fish that they can sell when brought ashore, and when they find it does not reach a certain price on the market they dispose of it to the producer's organisation who pay the intervention price. Prior contingency regulations could not be made in respect of a situation we could not be aware of in advance.

I spoke of "prior contingency arrangements", under which charitable organisations would be notified that at certain times fish might become available unexpectedly and they could be asked to dispose of it if they could collect it. That should be a simple thing to do. The dumping that is going on at present is indefensible.

I have often had experience of offering things to institutions but they could not take them.

Does the Taoiseach favour the policy of dumping prime fish? He was very interested in fishing at one time and I am sure he has interests now.

I have total and complete confidence in the Minister answering the question.

Then the Taoiseach has complete confidence in the dumping of fish around the coast.

Order.

Out of courtesy I explained a point to Deputy FitzGerald.

Does the Minister agree that the kernel of the problem is that third countries are flooding our market with fish? Many of these third countries have a 200-mile exclusive limit which we do not have. They should be banned completely from our market.

The Chair will not allow the widening of the question.

Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that at the next EEC talks he will try to have the supply of fish from third countries banned?

Not alone can I guarantee that, but I can also inform the House that I raised the matter at the last meeting. It is not as easy a solution as one would imagine.