I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Bill is not of very great importance. It is designed primarily to bring within the scope of the Harbours (Regulation of Rates) Act, 1934, certain Orders authorising increases of charges at various harbours made under temporary legislation arising out of post war conditions, and to effect certain consequential repeals. The Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920, under which those Orders were made, was expressed to expire in 1923, as were the original Orders which were made under it. The currency of those original Orders however was extended by the Statutory Undertakings (Continuance of Charges) Act, 1923. Both of those Acts have continued in force to date under successive Expiring Law Acts. For convenience, I will refer to them, in explaining the necessity for this measure, as the "1920 Act" and the "1923 Act" respectively. Under the powers conferred by the 1920 Act, further temporary Harbour Orders were made, limited in duration however to the life of that Act. By Section 2 of this Bill both the original and subsequent Temporary Increase of Charges Orders are given the statues of Orders made under the Harbours (Regulations of Rates) Act, 1934, that is they will remain in force until they are revoked or until they are modified by further Orders made under that Act. As the Harbours (Regulation of Rates) Act, 1934, makes permanent provision for the regulation and control of harbour charges, the provisions of the 1920 Act in this regard are no longer necessary, and it is consequently proposed to repeal the 1920 Act in so far as it authorises the making of Orders modifying harbour rates. Certain provisions, however, relating to the revision of existing Harbour Orders made under it by the 1923 Act were made applicable to certain Canal Orders regulating canal charges which were scheduled to the 1923 Act——
Conditions of Employment Bill, 1935. - Harbour Docks and Piers (Charges) Bill, 1936—Second Stage.
This is getting clearer and clearer.
—— I think my statement is understandable by the average intelligence. It is necessary that the power and method provided for the revision of those Canal Orders should be preserved, and hence the necessity not to repeal and to continue in force for this limited purpose the sections of the 1920 Act specified in Section 1 of the Bill. The amendment in the procedure effected in the Railways Act, 1934, was the substituting of the Railway Tribunal for the Rates Advisory Committee. Portions of the 1923 Act relating to the continuance in force of certain of the Temporary Harbour Orders being no longer necessary, it is proposed by Section 3 of the Bill to repeal them. It is a high contentious measure.
If this Bill were of any importance whatever the procedure adopted in its introduction would turn the proceedings in this House into an appalling farce. No Deputy in the House has the faintest notion of what is the significance of this Bill.
Speak for yourself, please.
And the Minister's contribution to the debate has been "worser and worser" because it has made the confusion more confounded. In an endeavour to appear spontaneous he would not take up the Departmental brief that he got and read it out verbatim, which we would have been glad to allow him to do, and there would be some head or tail to it, but proceeded to read extracts from it and, of course, no sense of any kind was communicated to the House. How ever, the Minister will have an opportunity of checking over his statement before it appears in the Official Reports and I hope he will do such checking on it as may be necessary to elucidate his meaning for posterity.
I want to ask two questions in regard to this Bill. One is a general question. Would the Minister, when dealing with highly technical matters where legislation is exclusively by reference, ask the responsible officers in his Department to prepare a memorandum which may be circulated with the Bill? Where a Bill consists of three or four sections, all of which are sections legislating by reference, it is absolutely necessary that a short memorandum, similar to that which accompanies the Expiring Laws Bill, should be circulated with the copies of the Bill sent to the Deputies. Otherwise, the Minister is in an impossible position, because it is quite impossible to give a lucid explanation of legislation of this character in a statement, such as he has made.
The second question I should like to ask is: Do any sections of this Bill deal with the kind of situation that obtains on the West Mayo coast, between ports like Westport and Newport, where you have Westport with fixed harbour dues and charges on vessels going into it, and, within a very few miles of it, a port like Newport, where I do not think there are any harbour dues, which seems to be constituted under some quite different kind of authority? Is there power in this Bill, or is it the intention of the Minister, under the Bill, to regularise a situation of that character? Has the Minister any special information about the Newport-Westport situation, and is he in a position to say whether any similar situation obtains in any other part of the Irish coastline?
I cannot help observing that on a very important measure relating to harbours, docks and piers there is not a single representative from the City of Dublin on the Opposition Benches; in fact, there is only one of the Opposition Party present. I think that calls for some observation on my part as a representative of the City of Dublin. This deals with a very important matter, and Dublin is the largest port in Ireland.
Who said that?
Mr. Kelly
I say it.
Nonsense!
Mr. Kelly
Do you want to make out Cork is larger?
Will Deputy Kelly be good enough to inform me, as he takes such an interest in this Bill, what does this Bill purport to do? Has he any idea of what can be done or will be done under the power which the Minister seeks in the Bill?
Mr. Kelly
Of course, I have my own ideas, but there is no necessity for wasting the time of the House. Who is going to speak to a collection of empty benches?
You are a prudent man.
Mr. Kelly
I am.
Ask the other members of your Party do they understand it.
They do not. Neither does Deputy Corry, nor any Minister nor any Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches. The Minister has not the faintest notion of what is the purpose of the Bill, over and above the contents of the Departmental brief resting on the bench before him.
For the information of Deputy Kelly, I may say that this Bill does not affect the position of the Dublin Port Authority. The rates and charges of the Dublin Port Authority were regulated by Order made under the Regulation of Rates Act, 1934. After the war, however, when charges were increasing generally, the various harbours and piers which were under statutory control were authorised generally to increase the charges to meet the higher costs then operating. That was done by a temporary measure. That temporary measure was due to expire in 1923, but another Act, which continued the operation of these Orders authorising the increase of charges, was continued in each year under the Expiring Laws Act.
In 1934 we introduced a Bill which implemented the recommendations of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal in respect of the regulation of harbour charges, and Orders are made under that Act from time to time as required. These Orders are permanent in their operation. They do not have to be renewed in each year. They continue until revoked or modified. The purpose of the Bill is take all the old Orders made under the previous Act and give them the same status as Orders made under the 1934 Act. That is to ensure that they would continue in operation until revoked or modified by new Orders. We thus get the whole position in respect of the regulation of charges and harbours standardised so that the one statute controls them all, and the power of the Minister in the regulation of them is uniform throughout. That is the purpose of the Bill.
Will the Minister answer the two questions I put to him?
I think the Bill is made clear to anybody who studies it and that it is not necessary to circulate a memorandum to explain it.
Might I draw attention to the fact that reference is made to the Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920; that reference is made to the Railways Act, 1924; that reference is made to the Expiring Laws Act, 1935; that reference is made to the Statutory Undertakings (Continuance of Charges) (No. 2) Act, 1923; that reference is made to the Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920; that reference is made to regulations made by the Minister under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Harbours (Regulation of Rates) Act, 1934; that reference is made to the Statutory Undertakings (Continuance of Charges) (No. 2) Act, of 1923?
Is this a question?
Yes. In view of that fact, is it reasonable to introduce a Bill, circulated only a few days ago, which can be correlated with these statutes, when a memorandum extending to a half sheet of foolscap would elucidate the entire contents of the document? I would be glad if the Minister would say whether the situation to which I referred as existing as between Westport and Newport has engaged his attention and whether matters of that character will come up for review under the standardisation of the regulations that he contemplates in connection with this legislation.
I think the statement I made in reply to Deputy Kelly explains the function of this Bill in relation to harbour authorities generally.
The Minister did not explain what happened to the Opposition this afternoon—where it has gone.
I cannot get beyond that. Might I submit that, if civil inquiries are made from the Front Opposition Bench for information the Minister ought to be glad to give, he ought to give it. It does reflect upon the proceedings of this House if a civil application for relevant information is insolently rejected by the Minister. There is no use coming to the House if Deputies cannot look to Ministers for essential information that they require in connection with legislation.
Under what authority are charges fixed for Westport and Newport harbours?
That is what I am asking the Minister.
I am asking the Deputy.
I do not know. If I knew that I would not ask the Minister. If the Minister replied that the position obtaining in Westport and Newport was not present to his mind at the moment but that he would make a note of it and that at a later stage he would answer the inquiry after he looked into the matter it is understandable that the Minister should make that reply. I ask for no more than the courtesy of a reply. But, in my respectful submission to the Chair, it is injuring the dignity of the House for any Deputy, no matter what his personal feelings towards another Deputy may be, to prostitute our proceedings out of any personal animus that may exist.