I want, first of all, to compliment Deputy Collins and Deputy O'Donnell on their approach to this Bill on this stage, and to pay tribute to the manner in which they have contributed towards making it a better Bill during its various stages through the House. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that there is an inherent conflict between deep sea trawling and inshore fishing. If deep sea trawling were unrestricted and uncontrolled it could, to a great extent, threaten the livelihood of the inshore fishermen. But is not the whole purpose of this Bill to integrate the inshore fishing with deep sea trawling, and to ensure that the whole business of reaping the harvest of the sea in the deep, close to tidal waters, and in the outer reaches will, as far as possible, be regulated, so that in seasonal periods, when it is very difficult or impossible for the inshore fishermen to operate the deep sea trawlers will fill the gap, thereby making available for consumers regular supplies of fish?
Now, I think that is fundamental, and, because it is, I think it makes for the success of this Bill. As I see it, the board will stimulate and control inshore fishing and will, at the same time, promote, as far as possible, a degree of deep sea fishing which will help out the inshore fishermen by ensuring that there is a regular supply of fish available for consumers the whole year round—that they will be encouraged to purchase fish—and that retailers can always depend on getting fair and regular supplies.
I want to say that I do not agree at all with Deputy Dillon's approach to this Bill. His outlook is one of complete despair, because he told us that the only hope he had for the future of the fishing industry was that the Fianna Fáil Party might be speedily eliminated, and that there would then be a change of policy. He made that statement knowing that the Front Benches of the inter-Party combination are in complete disagreement with Deputy Dillon, and are in agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, if the policy of the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong, it is a policy that is going to be operated not only by the Fianna Fáil Government, but by the Fine Gael Government, if, ever again, they come into power. Therefore, I think it is a matter for satisfaction that, at the moment, we have operating this Bill, and determined to operate it, a Parliamentary Secretary who is sincere and enthusiastic in regard to the fishing industry, one who has a complete knowledge of it, and one who, I may say, I think, has an affection for those engaged in that particular industry. I think that is very important, because, no matter what is in this Bill or how carefully it has been drafted, and no matter what provision is made in it for the future of the industry, all these provisions could result in failure, unless it is operated efficiently, honestly and sincerely. Efficiency, of course, is perhaps the most urgent consideration, because inefficiency could completely ruin all the high hopes which are centred around this Bill.
I am afraid that Deputy Dillon's approach to this Bill is very similar to his approach to other questions. It is an attempt to create the impression that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the various interests concerned in this industry, just as, in regard to agriculture, he has preached for years that there is an inherent conflict, an unbridgeable gulf, between tillage and live stock, and between wheat growing and barley growing. In the same way, in regard to this Bill, he sought to show that there is an unbridgeable gulf between inshore fishing and deep sea fishing. Now, I think the whole purpose of this Bill is to bridge that gulf, and to ensure that we should go after all the fish that are in the water, horse, foot and artillery, that we are not going to pull our punches or tie our hands in any way, and that our fleets will go out as far as those of any other country to reap the harvest from the sea. At the same time, we are determined to protect, as far as it is possible for us to do so, those who make a living out of fishing around our coasts.
I am in whole-hearted agreement with those Deputies who have suggested that we ought, as far as possible, seek to extend our territorial waters and thereby enlarge still further a means of living for our own people, and exclude to a greater extent the fleets of other nations. When Deputy Dillon suggests that we should leave deep sea trawling severely alone in order to protect the inshore fishermen, he did not advert to the fact that by doing so we are leaving it to the trawler fleets of other nations. If we could have an assurance that other nations would not engage in deep sea fishing, then there might be some point in leaving it alone. If we make up our minds to concentrate on fishing only in our own territorial waters, do we not realise that other nations will set out, with enterprise and efficiency, to fish in the deep waters, thus leaving only a limited area for our inshore fishermen, and as well, perhaps raiding our territorial waters at every available opportunity. Therefore, I think the fact that the hand of Deputy Dillon has been removed from the fishing industry is a good thing. This Bill has been put through the House backed up by the support of all Parties, except one Party, which is a one-man Party.
In the course of his speech, Deputy Dillon, as on previous occasions, divided Deputies into two distinct classes. He has, perhaps, only two distinct classes into which he divides all people engaged in public life in this country. If you are not a barnacled old warrior, you are a daft person. These are the two distinct categories into which Deputy Dillon divided members of the House in regard to this Bill —those who are not branacled old warriors or dishonest and insincere are daft.