The Minister made a lot of capital out of his association with the British Minister on this issue when many of us in this House said it was unwise of the Minister to go cap in hand to the British on this issue, that it would have been preferable had we stood and been seen to stand alone fighting this issue, that we had a special case to plead in Brussels and that it would have been better in our negotiations there had we not been seen to be allied to the British or anyone else. It was the Minister who chose his British colleague and he knows best why the relationship broke down.
The question was posed by my colleague, Deputy Deasy, as to whether anything can now be salvaged from this sorry state of affairs. I do not know. This decision of the Minister must have increased the pall of gloom and disillusionment that pervaded the industry in recent months because all those vitally concerned were adamant that a 50-mile exclusive zone was a prerequisite to the advancement of the industry and its proper protection. With that gone and nothing in its place but a lot of woolly sentiments expressed here by the Minister the future of the industry is indeed gloomy.
In earlier debates I have placed on the record of the House the sentiments expressed by certain Fianna Fáil spokesmen on this fisheries issue, but I deem it appropriate to repeat them on this occasion. Lest there be any ambiguity or doubt as to where the party stood, the Minister for Defence, then Deputy Molloy, speaking on 27 October 1976, at column 449, Volume 293, of the Official Report, said:
On behalf of the people in my constituency we will not deviate from our insistence that a 50-mile limit exclusive to the Irish fishing fleet shall be established. That is the attitude of my party in this House and we represent 50 per cent of the electorate.
On the same day the present Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Deputy Haughey, at columns 432 and 433 of the Official Report said:
I believe that our national interest, the development of the fishing industry, the livelihood of our fishermen, can only be secured for the future by our insisting on a 50-mile fishing limit exclusive to Irish fishermen...We intend to press this Dáil to make a clear and unequivocal demand for an exclusive 50-mile limit for Irish fishermen.
On the same date the Minister for Foreign Affairs, then Deputy O'Kennedy, made it clear that he too emphatically favoured a 50-mile exclusive limit, as did the Minister for the Gaeltacht, Deputy Gallagher, the then spokesman on Fisheries who is on record on numerous occasions as insisting that we must, at all costs, secure such a limit. Indeed, on 14 December 1976 the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, then Deputy Haughey, speaking on the Second Stage of the Maritime Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill, 1976—one of the effects of which, had it been passed by the House would have been to reserve the first 50 miles of a 200-mile coastal band exclusively for Irish vessels operating from ports in the State—said, at column 633 of the Official Report of that day:
It is clear to anybody who considers the situation that the only way in which the future of Irish fishing can be secured and guaranteed is by this country declaring that the first 50 miles of these new limits will be reserved exclusively for Irish fishing.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the present Government's attitude then was that they favoured a 50-mile exclusive limit and opposed vigorously the approach the then Government adopted towards the achievement of that objective. Despite the Minister's attitude I must say it is still the attitude of the Labour Party in this House that a 50-mile exclusive zone is the proper thing for this country, proper for the preservation and advancement of the Irish fishing industry, and we will not condone its abandonment. We repudiate its abandonment here this evening. We are convinced that it is the right thing. I am sure the Minister must have been convinced also at some stage but what led him to betray us all in this matter is difficult to understand. He went to Brussels with the unanimous support of this House, with allegedly the support of his party and of his Ministerial colleagues, that the issue was 50 miles and nothing less. Why we have to step down and place the whole industry in jeopardy is difficult to understand.
The Minister will have an opportunity of replying. It is up to him to give the reasons, to indicate honestly for the first time on this issue what are his real intentions, apart from the issue of the 50-mile limit which is the essence of this debate, the nub of the affair, the cardinal point. That is why I mentioned that this Estimate is the end of an era in which we legislated for the fishing industry. We provided the money and said how it would be spent. We policed our own coasts, we protected and advanced the industry as best we could. It now seems that that important role, that right which we possessed has been filched from us and we are now being dictated to from Brussels. The audacity of any man to come to Ireland and tell us as Mr. Gundelach did that we would not get a 50-mile exclusive zone, and threaten that if we persisted in this battle cry, we would lose out in respect of other EEC benefits. It is Cromwell in a new guise. This is the man the Minister brought to Letterkenny as a prop for himself. I say to Mr. Gundelach on behalf of the Labour Party, that this is a sovereign State, we are elected here by the will of the Irish people and we have a right to govern our own affairs particularly in respect of this important sector of our economy, the fishing industry. We shall govern our own affairs in spite of the dictatorial attitude of the Gundelachs and the rest in Brussels.
When one analyses this whole sorry episode and gets back to fundamentals, the real reason why we have failed to control the destiny of the Irish fishing industry is that in the original negotiations for entry into the EEC by the then Fianna Fáil Government no provision was made for the safeguarding of the industry. Is that not a fact? The fishing industry under Fianna Fáil was always the Cinderella of our economy, and the estimates of money which they provided down the years are proof that it was utterly neglected. The fishing industry was forgotten when we were negotiating our entry into the EEC. No provision was made in respect of such fundamental zones, protection and preservation. There is nothing in the Treaty as negotiated by Fianna Fáil which shows the slightest respect or concern for the future of the fishing industry. That is why the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, was so hamstrung, so inept and so unable to cope with the situation. His predecessor and the present Taoiseach failed to recognise the significance of fishing in the whole context of the EEC and it was not provided for in the agreement. Be that to their eternal disgrace and shame.
I wish to discuss many other aspects of fisheries but one is simply frustrated in attempting to go into detail as to how best one could develop our industry in the light of the cardinal failure to secure an exclusive zone. Everything hinged on that. When we lost that we were left open to the ravages of the marauding boats from many parts of the world. We had hopes of seeing the expansion of the processing of fish here. We had hopes of seeing a situation whereby the large catches of fish within designated zones around our coasts would be brought to our harbours and processed, providing much gainful employment. We wanted very much to see better landing facilities provided. We wanted to see the establishment of ice plants and so on. We wanted to see our trawlers modernised and equipped and capable of competing with the best in Europe. We wanted very much to see an intelligent conservation programme embarked upon. We wanted to see our fishermen properly protected in adversity, in sickness, in unemployment and in old age by way of a proper pension scheme. We wanted all these things but they were conditional on the protection zone of 50 miles to which I have adverted again and again. What one can do in the circumstances is difficult to envisage. We shall have to wait and see.
In respect of inland fisheries, I have expressed my concern about the incidence of pollution which has reared its ugly head in so many rivers and lakes, particularly in respect of the river Suir which flows through my constituency in Tipperary. We have been shocked and appalled at the number of fish kills which have been in evidence there in recent years resulting from pollution. I have also expressed concern that the responsibility for the elimination of pollution lies with the board of conservators. We know full well how limited they are in respect of the tools, equipment and finance to deal with pollution. We only hope that the legislation to which the Minister has adverted will take care of that situation and will enable the board of conservators to continue to have the responsibility to deal with pollution and to have the necessary finance and equipment to deal with the problem.
Naturally we support the Minister in his efforts in the area of the elimination of unfair practices in respect of the catching of fish, whether in the sea, in the rivers or in the lakes. The element of poaching should be dealt with. At the same time one is concerned to find that members of boards of conservators, especially men who have held high positions on the boards —in some cases chairmen—and who have given long and devoted service to this State in carrying out a thankless, difficult and sometimes dangerous job, should find it necessary now to resign. There have been reports in the Press recently in regard to the resignations of important personalities—in the Lismore area of County Waterford, for instance—who have given tremendous service but who because of differences of opinion concerning the attitude to adopt in dealing with the various problems are resigning from the board. I do not claim to be au fait with the intricacies of issues involved but I trust that the Minister and the people concerned will reach a mutual understanding so that goodwill and co-operation may again be established.
I shall turn now to the Forestry Estimate. I take this opportunity of paying a sincere tribute to the Minister, to the Department and to all concerned for the wonderful work being done in the various areas of forestry work. I refer in particular to the opening up of our forests to the general public. This amenity is being availed of widely and is affording many people the opportunity to engage in nature studies. The Forestry Division have done a very good job in providing more roadways through the forests and in providing picnic areas, thereby encouraging people to visit those beautiful woodlands and to observe there bird life, animal life and so on. Some very fine brochures have been provided detailing various forest walks. In addition the foresters have given of their time to take groups of people through the forests, pointing out items of interest.
I need hardly emphasise the importance of accelerating the drive for more forest areas. I have always contended that investment in forestry brings a rich reward not merely in terms of finance but in terms of the better life to which I have adverted briefly. I am hoping that the Minister will see his way to pay a reasonably fair price for land suitable for afforestation. No doubt greater areas of mountain land would be made available to the Department if they were prepared to offer better prices for it. Those of us in public life have been involved from time to time in what one might call negotiations between the Department and the owners of mountain or turbary rights. On many occasions we were saddened when negotiations broke down because of a difference of a few paltry pounds per acre. The whole area of afforestation is one in which there is tremendous scope for putting people to productive work.
I am sorry to find that in regard to the timber yards under the aegis of the Department there has been difficulty in regard to expansion. One of these factories is located at Dundrum in my constituency. I know of the valuable employment provided there and of the great service the factory is providing for the people in the neighbouring districts. I trust that these factories can be protected and expanded and that the Minister will take a personal interest in them and endeavour to ensure that the difficulties being experienced can be overcome. The factories provide much needed employment for local communities.
It is gratifying to note that the conditions of forestry workers have been improving considerably in recent years. We recollect that a number of years ago these people had very bad working conditions in terms of wages, pensions and so on. They work in conditions that are arduous and in some cases very dangerous. Their wages can now be said to be fair and they are protected in their old age by being paid reasonable pensions, a facility that was not available to them up to a few years ago. They are looked after also at times of sickness or infirmity.
However, there is room for improvement. In this regard I appeal to the Minister to convey to all those in charge of forestry workers the need for more concern in respect of the provision of, for instance, protective clothing, proper implements and adequate shelter from the elements. Unfortunately, one finds from time to time that there is a niggardly approach in this area. But let us hope that such an attitude will no longer prevail and that every effort will be made to ensure good conditions for the workers. These people are producing a very valuable asset. Like any other section of workers, they deserve humane and fair treatment as well as being provided for in old age or in times of sickness or infirmity.
I have been sincere in my criticism of the attitude of the Minister to the main issue involved in this debate, that is, the 50-mile exclusive zone for the advancement and protection of the Irish fishing industry. I am not the only one who feels that we have been let down in a big way. The situation in so far as the Minister personally is concerned is such that, having regard to the great loss sustained to Ireland, its people and its economy, having regard to the clear abandonment of his responsibility, his abject dereliction of duty in regard to this issue of fisheries, on behalf of the party that I represent in this House I say that the only honourable course for the Minister at the present time is to resign.
