'Sé an t-athrú is mó atá ar scéal an iascaigh ó anuraidh ná go bhfuil Bord nua istigh agus an sean-cheann curtha chun bóthair. Níl mórán sa mhéid sin féin, ach tá rudaí áirithe le sonrú ina thaobh. 'Sé an chéad rud nach bhfuil éinne ar an mBord nua seachas an Státsheirbhíseach nach bhfuil baint aige le tionscal na hiascaireachta, agus ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé sin le moladh. Ní dóigh liom gur ceart lámh istigh a bheith ag gach duine ar an mBord, lámh istigh san iascach. Ceartaíonn agus cothromaíonn neamh-spleáchas na ndaoine nach bhfuil baint acu leis an iascach aon tsort leath-taobhacht nó claonadh chun féineachais a bheadh sa chuid eile de na baill.
Tá rud eile ann freisin, 'sé sin, go dteastaíonn eolas faoi leith ar mhaisiní agus ar innill ag na daoine a bhíonns ag stiúradh tionscail an iascaigh, agus an stáid ina bhfuil sé inniu. Bhí beirt ar an sean-bhord a raibh an cháillíocht sin acu go maith, seachas na státsheirbhísigh. Nuair a bhí Bille an Iascaigh á rith tríd na Dála chuathas go bog agus go cruaidh orm in aghaidh státsheirbhísigh a cheapadh don bhord. Ní raibh mise fiáin i ndiaidh státsheirbhísigh a cheapadh don bhord ach ní raibh mé ag iarraidh lámha mo chomharba a cheangailt le alt do-lúptha a chur sa mBille agus, sa deireadh thiar, socraíodh nach mbeadh thar triúr státsheirbhíseach in-cheapaithe don Bhord. Ar ndóigh, níor ceapadh ach aon státsheirbhíseach amháin.
Cad tá tuitithe amach anois? Bhí seisear ar an mBord. Ceapadh seisear, duine amháin ina státsheirbhíseach agus cúigear eile de na ghnáth-dhaoine amuigh faoin tír. Anois tá an cúigear curtha chun bóthair agus níor coinníodh ach an státsheirbhíseach agus, má coinniodh, coinniodh fear maith, fear inniúl. Níor coinniodh é i ngeall ar a mhaitheas ach coinniodh é i ngeall ar a status oifigiúl. Taispeánann sé sin nach raibh 'sa chaint in aghaidh státsheirbhíseach, agus an Bille ar siúl sa Dáil, ach gaoithearacht.
Do léigh an Rúnaí Pairliminte ráiteas amach ina bhfuil cur síos ar chuid den chlár forbartha a réitigh an sean-bhord. Níl ann, ar ndóigh, ach cuid don bhliain reatha seo. Is dóigh go dtógfaidh sé cúig bliana leis an gclár ar fad a chríochnú agus go gcosnóidh sé idir £300,000 agus £400,000. 'Sé mo thuairim féin, má táthar chun rath a chur ar na monarcana min éisc, go dtógfaidh sé idir £100,000 agus £150,000 sa bhreis, mar thacaíocht le praghas an éisc. Má caitear na suimeanna seo ar fad tiocfaidh sé suas go £500,000. 'Sé mo thuairim gur fiú an £500,000 sin a chaitheamh, i ngeall ar an rath atá tagaithe go nuige seo.
Ós ag caint air sin atáim, ba mhaith liom a rá gur mór an bhuíochas atá ag dul don tsean-bhord i ngeall ar chomh hinniúl agus chomh héifeachtúil is a d'oibríodar agus chomh tairbheach agus a shaothruidear don tionscal seo. I mo thuairim-se ba shuarach ón Rúnaí Pairliminte gan an bhuíochas sin a chur in iúl agus 'sé mo thuairim, freisin, gur fearr a chuirfeadh an dream sin an clár atá luaite agam i bhfeidhm, ach sin scéal eile agus beimid ag caint arís air.
Tá buíochas freisin, ag dul don tsean-bhord as ucht scéim bád na Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn agus, arís, 'sé mo thuairim gur suarach ón Rúnaí Pairliminte nó ón Aire, pé duine acu a bhí ciontach, tabhairt amach an chéad bád acu a chur ar athló go dtí go raibh an sean-bhord as oifig agus nach mbeadh ar an Aire cuireadh a thabhairt do na daoine a chuir an scéim i bhfeidhm.
D'ainneoin na rudaí seo, tá sé sáthach soiléir go bhfuil beartas buan leanúnach i bhfeidhm agus go bhfuil chuile chosúlacht ann nach dtiocfaidh arís ar thionscal an iascaigh an meath a thainig air go minic san am atá caite.
Is dóigh go bhfuil chuile dhuine sa Dáil buíoch go bhfuil an oiread sin réiteach agus comh-aontú sa Tigh seo i dtaobh na bpleannanna agus an bheartais ab fhearr. Ní thógaim ar éinne é ar an dtaobh eile den Teach má bhíonn sé ag iarraidh an chreidiúint do thúirt do féin as ucht na rudaí maithe atá déanta agus an milleán do chur ar an dtaobh so i ngeall ar na rudaí atá le lochtú. Sin é nádúir an duine. Is iondúil go gcuirtear an milleán ar an bhfear thall.
I spoke in Irish, not because of the rumour which I heard that the Fisheries Branch is to be incorporated in the new Gaeltacht Ministry, but because on practically every occasion upon which I speak, I use the little Irish I have. I think we should not reserve it merely for the Vote for the Department of Education or for Oifig na Gaeltachta. I do not know whether the rumour that Fisheries is to become part of the new Ministry is true or not. I am not going to find a great deal of fault with it, but I do not think it would be very wise because, after all, though it would be a compliment to the Gaeltacht—and a very large part of my constituency is in the Gaeltacht—the fishing industry is one that must be fostered on all parts of the coast. We in the Gaeltacht do not make any special claim that all the plums be reserved for those areas. During my term I think they got some little bit of extra attention, but there are many grounds upon which that could be justified.
From the statement read out by the Parliamentary Secretary, it is obvious that both sides of the House have agreed upon a certain broad, general outlook in relation to the things that should be done to stabilise the industry. If, in the carrying out of these plans, claims are made from either side of the House as to who should get the credit and who should be blamed for the things that have not worked out quite exactly as was thought, I suppose in the by-play of politics that it not any great fault.
I think, however, that, when attempting to place blame, Ministers in particular should be a little careful about their facts. I was charged on the Vote for the Gaeltacht Office that I had committed a large sum of State money to a very wasteful project, namely, the purchase of derelict fishing vessels. I should like the critics to remember that there were various objects to be served by the addition of three large-type vessels to the fishing fleet. The catching of fish was not, perhaps, the primary one. There were other problems to be faced as well as the catching of the necessary fish to eliminate imports, and one very important one was the training of young men in the competent handling of a modern fishing boat, and another which was present to my mind—I cannot now recall whether An Bord Iascaigh Mhara was as conscious of this need as I was—was, the need to make a good show on the high seas near our own shores.
I remember often discussing this question of the adequate protection of the fishing fleet against impudent interference of foreigners within a few miles of our shores and asking seasoned fishermen what they thought was the best thing to do about it. They said: "No scheme of official boats such as is operated by the naval service can be devised to meet this problem adequately, but if you acquire a number of boats that can compete with these interfering foreigners and put them out fishing in the places where they appear most frequently, you will probably, provided you can make as good a show as they make, either warn them off or at least teach them manners."
When I agreed to the purchase of these three boats—after all, they are built of steel—in my mind, even if I did not express it to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, was the conviction that that was the best service they could give. Recently, I put down a question to the Minister asking to have some units of the fishing fleet incorporated in our fishing defence service. I was given the reply that the Minister did not understand what I meant and would I elaborate upon the idea. If the head of the Department of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary could not apply their imagination to the matter and interpret exactly what the question meant, I think they are greatly lacking in this matter of fisheries protection.
It may be thought that I am encouraging something in the nature of piracy on the high seas. I am not doing any such thing, but I imagine that the people who have, in fact, been acting more or less as pirates may be induced to take a more considerate view of Irish ships fishing on the high seas near Ireland if there is some display of fishing strength made available. In my opinion, boats of this kind could do that job much better than any corvette. One of the bad spots, one of the places from which most of the complaints in this respect come, is that strip of the west coast from the Aran Islands down to the south coast. If these boats were put to fish in the areas where these occurrences are most frequent, I believe that would produce the desired result in a short time.
In any event, that was one purpose. Another purpose was to train young men. How is it expected that men can be trained to handle a modern fishing boat if some boats under the immediate control of the fishery authority are not available for the purpose?
A scheme was put into operation for that purpose. Of course, the other purpose was to reduce the imports. I know an olagón was raised that the purchase of these three boats was going to crush the inshore fishermen.
I was very interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary giving a definition of the term "inshore fisherman." As a matter of fact, it is not now necessary for me to ask that that be done, but it had appeared to me for a long time that such a definition was badly needed. If anybody cares to read the remarks of the present Minister for Agriculture on the final passage of the 1952 Fisheries Bill, he will find what is tantamount to a panegyric on the passing of the inshore fisherman. He became quite emotional about it, and I think he indicated that the 1952 Fisheries Act was singing the swan song of the inshore fisherman.
When they came on the scene, the three German boats, as the Minister for Local Government called them, were cited as further proof that this policy of killing the inshore fisherman would be pursued to the fullest. I cannot let the occasion pass, however, without reminding the House that on that occasion, in a certain crossfire between the Minister for Local Government and myself, he referred to these inshore fishermen as "gentlemen fishermen." He did not seem to be on the same note as Deputy Dillon, as he was at that time, had been. But who would have thought that the Deputy who became so emotional on behalf of the inshore fishermen would have, within the past month, as was referred to by Deputy Breslin the other day, revoked a by-law operating between Bloody Foreland Point and Dawros Head in Donegal, which protected the inshore fishermen from the incursions of these trawlers?
In the 1952 Fisheries Act, we very deliberately inserted sections designed, as occasion demanded, for the protection of these inshore men. I think at that time we all had practically the same conception of the term "inshore fishermen"—that it meant a man who was, in the main, a part time man, doing a bit of farming and doing a bit of seasonal fishing, whether he caught lobsters, salmon, herrings and so forth, and that he did not depend entirely on either of these avocations for his livelihood. I was prepared to accept that definition of the inshore fisherman, although I knew at the time that it was not the technical or official definition. The Parliamentary Secretary thought it desirable, in view of the change of outlook on this matter on his own part and on the part of the Minister for Agriculture now, to give us the technical definition of an inshore fisherman. That is being done to justify the taking away from these inshore fishermen, popularly so-called, of the protection which they had from 1908 onwards.
I am not criticising this action on its merits because I am not sufficiently acquainted with what led up to it to do so. What I do want to point out is that it is quite unfair for responsible people to attack a newly-appointed Parliamentary Secretary who is trying to do his best for all sections in the fishing industry with an insincere and dishonest campaign of this sort; and it is now proved to have been such by the revocation of this by-law, which, in my opinion, is prima facie evidence of the hypocrisy of the talk about the protection of the inshore man.
