Recently a very important announcement appeared in the newspapers, an announcement which was of very great significance to fishermen throughout Europe and particularly in Ireland: that after 30 years of discussion, consideration and effort on the part of Norway the International Court at The Hague had decided that that country was entitled to extend its fishery limits beyond the existing three mile boundary which had been in operation for so long. I think—and it is felt too by fishermen all around our coasts—that the authority which is being set up under this Bill should make it one of its principal objectives to win for this country a right similar to that which has been achieved by Norway; in other words, that our fishing limits should be extended by law and recognised internationally up to at least ten miles as is about to be the case in Norway and possibly in other countries. That principle has been established by the appropriate international authority. It has this significance for our people: we have been reading over the years of the poaching of our fishing grounds by foreign trawlers and anybody who has journeyed around some of our southern fishing ports such as Bantry and Valentia in Cork and Kerry and who has spoken there with the inshore fishermen is aware of their complaints that these Spanish trawlers which regularly find shelter in these ports have, because of the nature of their operations, been doing a good deal of damage to the fishing grounds off our southern and south-west coasts. One of the principal reasons for that damage has been the fact that our fishing limits are confined to three miles and that boats which fish slightly outside that limit cannot be interfered with. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any steps have been taken by the Government to improve the position in that regard; whether any representations have been made to The Hague on behalf of this country to extend our fishery limits because not alone is it a matter of concern to our fishermen but, as will be seen by every Deputy in this House and by most people in the country, also a matter of considerable importance from the point of view of the extension of our national sovereignty, the extension, if you like, of our territory.
This board, which is proposed to be set up under the Bill, is an organisation with regard to which we should like to have some information. First of all, is it proposed that the chairman of the board should be, as heretofore, a civil servant? I do not think that the board should be so constituted. By reason of their background and occupation civil servants are not adequately equipped from the point of view of outlook for the job which must be tackled: the rejuvenation of our inshore fishing industry. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and recommend very strongly that if he cast about he might possibly find even within the limits of our existing public services some more suitable type of official such as a master mariner. It is of interest that in Britain the board which controls the fishing industry has as chairman a seaman, a rear admiral, and a man of that type is required in that post in this country, a man who knows the sea and who knows the job as it were from its beginnings to its logical ending. I do not think that a person who has had no seafaring experience, who has not been a fisherman himself, who has not the hard practical knowledge of the industry, would be a suitable person for the chairmanship of this board.
Secondly, I think it right that the board should be organised on as near as possible to a vocational basis. Why should not the fishermen have the right of nomination, selection or election of their own representatives to the board? Why should not the democratic principle of election apply in this case? Surely, if any good is to be done by this Bill, it is essential that the fishermen around the coasts will have confidence in the board set up to operate its provisions. I would commend to the Parliamentary Secretary consideration of the point of view that the various interests, at least the interests of the fishermen, would best be safeguarded by giving to them the rights to appoint their own representatives on the board.
The question of fish prices is of paramount importance. Last week during the discussion on the Bill I heard some statements about private enterprise and its advantages. Some Deputies seemed to decry the fact that the Bill proposes, to some extent at least, what could be described as State enterprise and seems to put its main reliance upon the State's ability to provide the wherewithal for the regeneration of this industry. Anybody who has studied the industry knows that private enterprise has done more damage to the inshore fishermen in this country than any other single force could have done. The real trouble with the inshore men at the present time is that they are completely at the mercy of private enterprise and of certain interests whose only desire is, not that the inshore men should prosper or thrive, but to make the maximum amount of money out of the fish that is landed and pay as little as they possibly can for it to the men who go down to the sea and come back with the catch and who sometimes do not come back. Private enterprise in this context would, in my view, if given a free hand, reduce the inshore fishing industry to an even lower and worse condition than that in which it now finds itself. There was a good deal of wishful thinking by Deputies when they addressed their minds to this problem of fish and, as I indicated last week, I think it is just ridiculous to be talking of building up here a fishing industry comparable with that existing in Norway or countries of that kind. I do not think that we can hope in our generation or possibly for several generations to be able to capture world markets. For that reason, I fear that if we venture too quickly with the proposition of providing a deep sea fishing fleet we will, in the end, not do very much good, but will succeed in wiping out a great deal of our present inshore fishing fleet, not that it is very large indeed.
From such information as we can obtain it appears that there are only approximately 181 boats of between 18 feet and 50 feet at present operating off our coasts. It would seem that, in all, the total number of vessels and boats engaged in fishing is roughly 4,000 and of that number only 710 are equipped with any kind of motor power. Approximately 3,500 depend on oars and sails. Roughly 10,000 people try to seek their living by fishing. If we cannot organise the industry so as to enable these people to get a fair living and a continuous return for their efforts, what is the use in our talking about building up world markets with a deep sea fishing fleet?
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he proposed to provide deep sea boats which would fish in distant grounds. Yet the impression has got abroad that the biggest boat which will be provided will be an 80ft. boat. Fishermen tell you that an 80ft. boat will not be fit to fish distant grounds. It will be unable to travel to distant grounds to fish. It can do an immeasurable amount of economic harm if we have a number of 80ft. boats, allegedly for use as a deep sea fleet, in competition with our inshore fleet. We can easily see what can happen to our inshore fishermen who are inadequately equipped with smaller boats, boats of considerably less horse-power and considerably less storage space, and so on.
I am strongly of the view that we should be, first of all, concerned with looking after those who are now engaged in fishing around the coast and putting the industry into some kind of economic condition. We should take every possible step that is necessary to achieve that end but we should take no steps whatsoever which might even remotely result in harming the men whose generations before them have depended upon this industry and upon fishing for their living. We are faced again with the eternal question of the difference between the price that is paid to the man who risks his life fishing and the price that is asked of the Dublin housewife, the Cork or Galway housewife, or the housewife in any town or village throughout the country who buys fish. We can lay the blame and the responsibility at the door of what is euphemistically called private enterprise, which is very often a good cover-up for highway robbery.
Catches have been landed at Howth and brought to the Dublin markets, and we have seen the men who have worked hard to get this harvest paid next to nothing for their catches. Fishermen have gone into Dublin shops to buy the fish for which they were so scandalously paid, and were unable to purchase it. Thereby hangs the tale of private enterprise. If that problem is to be solved, it can only be solved by control of prices from the time the fish is landed at the quay until it passes over the counter. Guaranteed and fixed prices should be and must be set down by this board, and there should be heavy penalties imposed in any case where the regulations relating to such prices are contravened.
On the other hand, if the question of price fixing is left to the old survival of the fittest idea of competition, whoever may benefit by it there is one thing certain that the primary producer, the fisherman, will not benefit by it. As in agriculture, the man whose sweat and blood produces the goods to keep this nation alive gets the least possible money for his efforts. The interests that do the least simply take the goods from him, and hand them across the counter and get the highest possible penny for them. That which applies to agriculture now applies to the fishing industry, and will continue to apply unless the Parliamentary Secretary and the board which it is proposed to set up under this Bill decide to put an end to that condition of affairs.
I should like also to refer to the situation which exists in relation to boats which sail from ports within the jurisdiction of the Republic, and sometimes put into Northern Ireland ports. What is the position in regard to the exclusion of our boats from Northern Ireland ports? Why are our boats being excluded from these ports? Anybody can go along at any time during the fishing season, when it is at its height, and have a look at Northern Ireland boats lying in Howth Harbour, where they get a céad míle fáilte, and where they are regarded as being entitled to come.
Sometimes, if you look a bit closer, you might see the set-square and the compass on the wheel-houses of those boats, but nobody minds them, because their crews are fellow-Irishmen of ours. But when our boats put into Kilkeel or some such port in the North, their crews are not allowed to land their catches. That is something that should be taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary and by this new board. English boats, manned by Grimsby men, which happen to land their catches at Irish ports, do so without any interference, but if, by chance, a Howth or Balbriggan boat is forced to land a catch at a Scottish or English port, it has got to pay a 10 per cent. tax. These are things which might seem trivial to some people, but they are of very considerable importance to the fishermen who carry out the job.
I hope that this new board will give consideration to fishermen in respect of the amount of deposit which is being asked in connection with the purchase of new boats. While 10 per cent. of the total amount of money required to purchase a boat may seem to be a small amount when thought of in percentages, it should be realised and remembered that fishermen find it very hard to come by sums as great as £500, £600 or £700—and sometimes they are asked to pay as high as £1,000. In that connection it is of interest to note that a boat is lying at Killybegs and is not in commission. Why? It is not because no purchaser can be found for it. It is because the man to whom it was allocated is unable to put down a sufficient deposit.