In Committee on Finance. - Harbours (Regulation of Rates) Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3.
3.—(1) The Minister may, if and whenever he thinks fit, on the application of the harbour authority for any harbour or on the application of any person who uses or is interested in the use or development of such harbour, or without any such application, by order (in this Act referred to as a harbour rates order) fix all or any of the rates or, where he so thinks fit, the maximum rates to be charged by the harbour authority of such harbour, and may for that purpose revoke, modify, alter, or extend by such order any statutory or other provision fixing, restricting, or otherwise regulating the rates or the maximum or minimum rates chargeable by such harbour authority.
(2) The Minister may if and whenever he thinks fit, on any such application as is mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section or without any such application, by order revoke or amend a harbour rates order.
(3) Whenever the Minister has made or proposes to make, amend, or revoke a harbour rates order, the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, cause a public inquiry to be held in regard to the continuation, making, amendment, or revocation (as the case may be) of such order.
(4) Every harbour rates order shall take effect from such date (not being a date prior to the date on which such order is made) as may be specified in such order.
(5) Every harbour rates order shall be published in theIris Oifigiúil as soon as conveniently may be after it is made.
The following amendments stood in the name of Deputy Dockrell:—
1. In sub-section (1), line 40, to delete the words "if and whenever he thinks fit" and substitute therefor the words "subject to the provisions of this section."
2. In sub-section (1), line 43, to delete the words "or without any such application."
3. In sub-section (1), lines 44 and 45, to delete the words "all or any of the rates or, where he so thinks fit."
4. In sub-section (1), line 49, to delete the words "the rates or" and delete the words "or minimum."
5. In sub-section (2), line 1, to delete the words "if and whenever he thinks fit" and substitute therefor the words "subject to the provisions of this section."
6. In sub-section (2), line 3, to delete the words "or without any such application."
7. Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
No order shall be made under sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section in relation to any harbour until—
(a) the harbour authority for such harbour has caused public notice to be given (which notice shall be given by the said harbour authority on being required by the Minister so to do) in such form and manner as the Minister may direct of the proposal to make the order, and
(b) the Minister has considered any representations which may be made to him in consequence of such notice.
8. Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Whenever in relation to any harbour it appears from a three years average of the annual accounts that the revenue is either insufficient or excessive for the purposes of the harbour, the Minister may call upon the harbour authority of such harbour to increase or decrease the rates (as the case may be) within a specified time, and if such harbour authority does not, within the prescribed time, increase or decrease the rates as required, the Minister may, subject to the provisions of this section, by order fix all or any of the rates to be charged by the harbour authority of such harbour, and may for that purpose revoke, modify, alter, or extend by such order any statutory or other provision fixing, restricting or otherwise regulating the rates or the maximum or minimum rates chargeable by such harbour authority.
9. In sub-section (3), line 5, to delete the words "has made or."
10. In sub-section (3), lines 6 and 7, to delete the words "may if he so thinks fit" and substitute therefor the word "shall."
11. In sub-section (3), line 8, to delete the word "continuation."
I do not know how many of these amendments might be considered together, but down practically to No. 11 they follow a common idea and are moved with one object. I think everybody is agreed that a measure such as this, simplifying the procedure for harbour boards, is desirable and that a harbour authority should not have to proceed by way of a Bill every time it wishes to make an alteration in its powers. Some people, however, feel that in departing from the powers that are conferred on the harbour authorities and practically making the Minister autocratic, we are proceeding from one anomaly to another. The first sub-section of Section 3 reads:
The Minister may if and whenever he thinks fit on the application of the harbour authority ... or without any such application ... fix all or any of the rates or where he so thinks fit ... restricting or otherwise regulating the rates or the maximum or minimum rates chargeable by such harbour authority.
There was a report made by the Ports and Harbours Tribunal, and in paragraph 1085 of that Report a recommendation was made that the harbour rates to be fixed by the Department of Industry and Commerce, either in the first instance or subsequently on revision, should be the maximum charges and not the actual rates leviable. In paragraph 1086 a recommendation is made that the fixing, within the limits of the approved maxima, of the actual rates to be charged on vessels and goods should continue to be made by the harbour boards. The Report recommends that a simpler system of fixing rates should be introduced. The amendment of the section standing in my name provides for the simpler fixing of the maxima rates. Anyone interested can apply to the Minister who, under Section 5, must give notice before he makes any order. I do not see any necessity for the Minister to act on his own initiative except in a case where the revenue of any harbour is insufficient or excessive and the harbour authority refuses to increase or reduce the rates as required. These amendments are really a slight alteration of the procedure under the Bill. Some harbour authorities in the past have gone wrong and possibly some in the future will go wrong in regard to certain rates that they charge. At the same time, they are conversant with local conditions and, usually, all the interests necessary are represented on those boards. I suggest to the Minister that if he takes out of their hands the fixing of maximum and minimum rates, or rather the alteration of the rates within those limits, he will take from the local harbour board a very desirable scheme or a very desirable system by which they have to budget for their own needs, and they will lose a certain amount of interest and feel that a considerable amount of authority has been taken out of their hands. The Minister, I am sure, is aware that certain individuals may from time to time make representations to him and it would be very difficult, without long and protracted investigation, to find out whether it is some individual who has made representations or the harbour board on the spot. I suggest to the Minister that the amendments cover practically all the phases that will occur during the present time when rates have to be varied. The harbour authorities are left with certain powers to vary the rates according as local conditions may dictate that they should be varied. Provision has also been made for the Minister, where harbour authorities have either charged too much or too little, to bring them to book. I suggest to the Minister that the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, provide an easier, a simpler and a better way of carrying out the work of the harbour boards than is outlined under this Bill.
Section 3 of the Bill, as the Deputy has stated, gives the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to alter harbour rates, whether maximum or actual rates, whether on an application made to the Minister or on the Minister's own initiative. The Deputy's amendments —I think the majority of the amendments standing in his name down to No. 18—seek to limit the Minister's power to the alteration of maximum rates only and for the purpose of securing merely that in any case the general level of rates will be sufficient for the purposes of the harbour. In that connection the Deputy quoted the recommendation of the Port and Harbours Tribunal. In relation to this matter, however, the Port and Harbours Tribunal made a number of recommendations, of which the Deputy quoted only one. The recommendation which he quoted related to the procedure necessary where a harbour authority desires to change its rates.
Yes—1085—and in such cases where application is made by the harbour authority it would certainly be the ordinary practice that maximum rates only would be fixed; but the Port and Harbours Tribunal made other recommendations. I would refer the Deputy to paragraphs 1087 and 1088. Paragraph 1087 relates to the possibility of complaints being made concerning actual rates. It reads as follows:—
"There remains the question of dealing with complaints by traders or shipowners who may consider themselves aggrieved by the rates actually charged in particular cases. The Department of Industry and Commerce should have power to deal with such complaints, and, after due inquiry, to vary by order any rates charged by a harbour board, which, in the opinion of the Department, operate unjustly or have been fixed as a result of prejudice or unfair partiality."
Paragraph 1088 reads as follows:—
"We recommend, further, that the Department should be empowered to move with a view to varying maximum rates and, in certain circumstances, to enforce the levying of actual rates without an application from an interested party."
The fixation of actual rates by the Minister, whether on application by a trader or shipowner or on his own initiative, is necessary to prevent injustice. It has been found that harbour boards, constituted as they are at present, are sometimes prone to favour particular interests, and the same reason can be advanced in justification of giving the Minister power to move on his own initiative in these matters. The Deputy is anxious that the initiative should be taken from the Minister, but I would draw his attention to the fact that Orders made, such as the Buncrana Order, the Foynes Order, and in the case of the Cork Harbour Act, all give to the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to vary the rates on his own initiative. In an earlier part of the Report of the Port and Harbours Tribunal, paragraph 363, the Tribunal drew attention to the fact that the incidence of charges at the Port of Dublin had varied considerably as between the post-war years and 1927, when the Tribunal reported, in respect of tonnage dues and cargo rates. They also drew attention to the fact that a similar state of things prevailed at Cork. Ordinarily the power of direct interference by the Minister will be utilised only on very rare occasions, and where obvious injustice exists or there is obvious need for such interference, but having regard to the circumstances which are known to exist and to the Report of the Port and Harbours Tribunal, I think it would be a mistake that that initiative should be taken away and, consequently, I should be disposed to resist the Deputy's amendments.
Amendments 1 to 11, inclusive, by leave, withdrawn.
Before the section is put to the House, sir, may I ask the Minister whether, in cases where a local authority, such as an urban council, has responsibilities for harbour charges, it is intended to consult the local authorities before fixing the rates.
That would appear to arise more under Sections 4 and 5 than here, where provision is made in certain circumstances for public notification of any application for or intention to modify the rates with power given to all interested parties to make representations. Of course, where circumstances require, and probably in the ordinary case, unless no representations were received, a local inquiry would be held at which a local authority could attend and to which any such body could make any representations they chose to make.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) Whenever the Minister has made or proposes to make, amend or revoke a harbour rates order or an application is made to the Minister for the making, amendment, or revocation of a harbour rates order, the harbour authority of the harbour to which such order or proposed order or such application relates shall, if the Minister at his discretion so directs, publish at such time or times and in such manner as the Minister directs a notice containing the prescribed particulars of such order, proposed order, or application, as the case may be.
(2) Every notice published by a harbour authority in pursuance of this section shall, if the Minister so directs, contain, in addition to the prescribed particulars, directions to all persons interested as to the making of objections and representations to the Minister in respect of such order, proposed order, or application together with directions as to the time, manner, and place in which such objections and representations may be made.
I do not propose to move amendments 12, 13 and 14, as the Minister would resist them. I have quoted from the Report of the Port and Harbours Tribunal and I notice that while I quoted 1085 the Minister quoted 1087 and 1088. 1086 says: "The fixing within the limits of the approved maxima of the actual rates to be charged on vessels and goods should, therefore, continue to be a matter for the harbour boards." Does the Minister agree with that? I am not moving the amendments; I am leaving myself in the hands of the Minister.
It will make the matter clear if I say that there are three circumstances under which rates would be varied. One is on the application of the harbour authority. Recommendations 1085 and 1086 relate to that.
The maxima and minima rates?
Ordinarily, in such cases, it would be maximum and minimum rates would be changed. Within these maxima and minima, the harbour authorities would have discretion. Where complaint in respect of actual rates is received, the Tribunal recommended that there should be power to vary the actual rate on the part of the Minister, on his own initiative if, in his opinion, the harbour board were acting with partiality or in such a manner as to inflict injustice on anybody using the port.
Amendments not moved.
Amendment 16:—
In sub-section (1), line 44, to delete the words "the prescribed particulars" and substitute the words "such particulars as the Minister directs."
This is, in one sense, a drafting amendment. The Bill, as it stands, refers to "the prescribed particulars." On reconsideration, it became clear that it would be impossible to prescribe in advance the particulars which would relate to every order to be made. The particulars would vary from one order to another, and it is proposed to alter the words "the prescribed particulars" to "such particulars as the Minister directs."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 20. This amendment is similar to No. 16 and is as follows:—
In sub-section (2), line 48, to delete the words "prescribed particulars" and substitute the words "particulars mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 15, 17, 18 and 19 not moved.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) The Minister may at any time require any harbour authority to furnish information in the prescribed form ...
I move amendment 21, which is similar to amendment 16, and is as follows:—
In sub-section (1), line 20, to delete the words "the prescribed form" and substitute the words "such form as the Minister directs."
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 to 14 and Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd November.
