I do not think there is any great need to dwell at length on the mess in which our fishing industry finds itself at the moment.
I think it is agreed on all sides of the House that energetic steps must be taken to try to get this very important industry out of the doldrums. It is accepted in this House that the most important industry in the country to-day is agriculture. Many Deputies will also accept the fact that the fishing industry, if properly developed, would be, and should be, second only to agriculture. Yet we have the extraordinary position to-day that, after 30 years of native government, two industries—one the major industry of agriculture and the other, fisheries, which could be made another major industry—are in a parlous state and that, since we achieved the limited political freedom that we have to-day, no native Government has succeeded in putting a proper policy into operation either in agriculture or in fishing. I think it significant that both of these major factors in our economic life are under the control of one Minister.
I do not want to be taken here as adopting the attitude that, because things have been a failure in both of these industries, we would be better off under the former régime. The reason I draw attention to the deplorable state of the two industries is simply to point out to the House the necessity, from this day forward at any rate, of concentrating more on economic matters and forgetting, to as great an extent as we possibly can, this practice of political flag-waving. I think it should be accepted here and now, if we are what we are alleged to be, that political freedom alone is not sufficient. As I said last night, the fact that we are able to fly a green, white and gold flag over our State buildings, that we are able to paint our buses and letter boxes green, does not mean that every-body is happy in this land. All this talk of political freedom is so much eye-wash so long as we have not got economic freedom and it is quite apparent from this debate, and from the debate on the Vote on Account which has taken place to-day, that we are far from having achieved any reasonable measure of economic freedom in the past 30 years.
This Fisheries Bill is, to my mind, a belated attempt to try to remedy the position. As a genuine attempt to do something I sincerely welcome it and I wish the Parliamentary Secretary luck in his efforts. I think, however, it is essential that the House should examine the type of legislation which is envisaged to revive the fishing industry. Deputies on both sides of this House—that is to say, members of the two major Parties—have declared themselves in this House and outside the House as being in favour of the system of private enterprise. They have deplored time and again State interference in any sphere of economic life. We can take up the daily papers and read the speeches by prominent members of both these Parties, and by prominent people who are not connected with politics, deploring the interference of the State in any economic matter or in any sphere of our social or economic life. Yet here in this Bill we propose to give powers to the State that are completely dictatorial so far as the fishing industry is concerned.
I wonder do Deputies realise the power they are about to give to the new board to be set up? I do not want to be taken as being personally opposed to State interference. I think in major matters such as fishing, agriculture, industry, health and so forth, it is essential, if we are to have a proper social and economic system, that the State must play its part and play an increasing part every day in all these major spheres. But I do not like this hypocrisy on both sides of the House that deplores at one moment State interference in certain aspects of our national life and at the next moment tries to conceal the truth when legislation is brought forward under which the State takes absolute control. Should we not be quite frank about these matters, and say that we believe the State is the only body in a position to revive the fishing industry.
I believe our approach to the revival of the fishing industry is all wrong. I think that in our approach to this problem, our aim should be to reap the greatest possible harvest we possibly can from the sea. Our aim should be to seize with both hands all the wealth we can from off our shores. That is the policy pursued by other countries—by Norway, Portugal, Italy, Spain, France and Great Britain. The objects of this Bill however are put very briefly in the explanatory memo-randum. It says that the principal objects of the Bill are to ensure improved outlets, with particular reference to the home markets, for landings made by the inshore fishermen. I think it can be established that under this Bill it is quite possible for the State to limit the landing of fish in this country and to limit the catch of fish, to protect a small or certain group of our people.
I do not think it a right approach to legislation of this kind that we should come along and say: "Oh! if you catch too much fish, the inshore fishermen are going to suffer." If that were our outlook in regard to agriculture we would be worse off, if that were possible, than we are to-day. No steps are taken in agriculture to suggest to the farmer that he should reduce the output of wheat, barley, oats or live stock in case he might not get a sufficiently high price. No steps are taken to suggest to the farmer that he should not produce the maximum from the land. He is encouraged, actually, to produce the maximum. Instead, however, in this Bill power is being given to limit the landings of fish here by Irishmen who have boats registered in the country for fear that, if the Dublin housewife or the Galway housewife, were to get a plentiful supply of fish the profits obtained by the fish factor, the wholesaler and the distributor would be reduced if there was a glut of fish. That danger lies in this Bill.
We have off our shores a major source of a food supply for man and beast. Apart altogether from the food value, there are numerous by-products which the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of that could be processed from fish. I think that, instead of limiting this Bill to ensure a livelihood for the inshore fishermen, we should try and grasp the opportunity that is now available of reaping the rich harvest that is just off our coast out in the deep. I do not think that the inshore fishermen are going to suffer, but even if there was a question that the limited number of them available here would suffer under this Bill, is it not a fact that a properly organised deep-sea fishing fleet would absorb, and could absorb, any of them whose livelihood was likely to be affected by the Bill? Is it not a fact that the families, friends and relations of those inshore fishermen could gain permanent and useful employment in factories established along our west coast for the processing of this fish if we went into the business in a major way? As it stands, there is not a livelihood in it for anybody.
I see mention in the Bill of boats or vessels exceeding 35 feet in over-all length. When I see mention of 35 feet at all, I feel like saying that any boat under that measurement is as useful in connection with sea fishing to-day as a man with a rod and line. As far as I can see, our aim in this Bill is merely to protect the inshore fisherman. At the present time he is suffering inside his own area from the depredations of the foreign trawler. I am sure that other Deputies have mentioned the various trawlers that visit our coast—the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the French and the others. They come into Bantry, Galway and the other ports, and fish constantly within our three-mile limit. The only protection that we have for our own fishermen in that regard is that provided by some vessels under the Department of Defence whose job it is to patrol the coast-line. It is admitted that these vessels are not able to carry out that duty in a satisfactory manner. The fact is that we are not tackling the problem in a proper manner by simply depending on the protection given by defence units such as torpedo boats. That is useless. The real defence for our inshore fishermen, and for our fishermen as a whole, is to give them the opportunity, with proper boats and equipment, of being able to go out into competition with these foreign trawlers. Give them that opportunity and give them the boats, and once you allow them to go into competition with these foreign trawlers the question of protecting them will no longer arise. They will ensure themselves that the protection will be available.
I have some figures here in connection with our inshore fishermen. I would like to give a comparison with one or two other countries, one in particular. My information is that the number of fishermen employed in this country in 1950 was approximately 2,000.
