When I was speaking last night, I referred to some objections which I had to this Bill. In the first place, I objected because I considered it to be wrong in principle to hand this industry over to a State controlled body. I am convinced that no Government Department can run a business successfully. It can run it all right, but it cannot run it successfully. The method under which the board is to be appointed, for a period of two years, clearly indicates that there is to be no serious attempt to build up a skilled and trained body of men who would be competent to deal with the matter. One could understand them spending a period of apprenticeship, but here we have an organisation dealing with what should be a great industry and it will be changed every second year.
I would say that even at the end of two years no man appointed to this board would have a full grasp of the organisation, management, control and erection of an industry of this kind. Of course it is impossible to think that this body, recruited every two years, could make a success of the industry. They will be mere apprentices, each and every one of them. That is the first weak link in this proposal, that they are mere apprentices and never can get a grasp of the industry. This body, whether a private body or a body nominated by the Minister, would require two things, one a short-term policy from which it could move successfully into a long-term policy. We shall be told of course that these men, after they have been in office for two years, can be re-nominated. They can, of course, but will that happen? We shall have changes of Government, and after two years has expired the Government in office will appoint its own nominees. I had to refer to this Bill last night in language that I do not like using. I made a deliberate charge of political bias in nominating these men. The remarkable thing about this Bill is that there is no section dealing with disqualification so far as this Government-controlled body is concerned. That creates a sinister feeling towards the Bill. I could not avoid the conclusion that the omission of such a section was done for the deliberate purpose of giving a political slant to the Bill, that it was done so as to leave it open for politicians to be appointed to the board. If that were done, it would, in my opinion, be a shocking thing. This House would be wanting in its duty to those who are dependent on this industry if we consented to do anything like that. It would mean disaster right away.
In every other Bill passed in this House since the foundation of this State, under which a statutory body was being set up—controlled by the Government as it were or by a Government Department—there was a disqualification clause in it. It was effective up to the point that no active politician could become a member of the board. Was the omission of such a clause in this Bill deliberate or accidental? One can hardly imagine that those responsible for the promotion of the Bill could have been guilty of such an oversight. I expressed regret about that last night, and I had to use strong language. I will never wince as regards the expression of my views or in the doing of my duty in a matter of this kind.
One has to think of the many people and the many families throughout the west, south and the east who had hoped to get a good livelihood out of this industry. It will mean the wrecking of the entire industry and that the people who have been making a living out of it will have to emigrate unless we set up such machinery as will have inherent in it the prospects of success. If this body is going to be directly controlled politically there will be no hope of that. I hope that, on the Committee Stage, the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to accept an amendment calculated to eliminate any suspicion as regards bringing this organisation directly into politics and of having it politically controlled.
I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is substantially acquainted with the way the industry is run at present. He will know that men all around the coast of Ireland have put money into this industry in a small way but in a big way for them. They are not wealthy men but they have put their savings into the provision and building of boats. Locally they give continuous employment to quite a number of men. They have built up their own organisation. When fish are landed they deal with the fishermen. Some of the fish is sold locally and the balance is sent to Dublin or, perhaps, to England. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what he proposes to do with those men. We cannot summarily dismiss them and wreck their careers. I hope the House will not be guilty of an outrage such as that. On the Committee Stage I hope to take steps to ensure that the interests of those men will be protected.
I regret, again, that this industry has not been handed over to private enterprise. I fail to understand why it is now to be State controlled in view of the fact that some months ago we had the Undeveloped Areas Bill which to a large extent deals with the very same areas. Under that Bill the principle of private enterprise was asserted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He absolutely refused to play any part in setting up State industries in the areas embraced under his Bill. I believe that if this were handed over to private enterprise it would lead to success. I see no future for the industry under this Bill. It will be a drag on the taxpayers. They will be called upon to keep the thing struggling along, and we will never get anywhere. The men appointed on the board will not have the knowledge or experience or the time to get a grip of the job that is envisaged in the Bill and to make a success of it. I think that the whole structure outlined in the Bill is bad and is definitely bound to fail.
