Harbours Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is described in its Long Title as an—

"Act to make further and better provision in relation to the membership of certain harbour authorities and to the management, control, operation and development of their harbours,"

and to provide for certain other matters connected therewith. I presume that it is not necessary to attempt to convince the Dáil of the necessity for, or the importance of, this Bill. I should think that, in so far as the principle of the measure is concerned, it can be properly described as non-controversial. Neither is it necessary to deal at any length with the details of its provisions because the explanatory memorandum which was circulated to Deputies with the Bill gave in general non-legal terms a full account of what the Bill proposes to accomplish. Ports and harbours are an integral factor in the transport economy of the country. They provide the links between the land and sea routes for external trade, and, to a smaller degree, for internal coastwise communications.

The development of industry and commerce may influence the character of the facilities required in the case of particular harbours or may alter their relative importance, but it does not lessen the importance of the harbour facilities to the State as a whole. Good transport services are vital to the expansion of industry and commerce and harbours provide an essential feature of transport in an island country such as ours. Previous legislation related to internal transport was based on the principle that undue competition in transport is not for the ultimate good and that the public interest is served more efficiently and progressively by the concentration of transport facilities in large units. That principle has not been accepted by the Government in relation to harbour facilities. I know that some argument has been made, possibly will be attempted during the course of the debate, in support of the view that the concentration of harbour facilities at a few large ports would suffice to meet the requirements of this country. That point of view was considered by the Government when this legislation was being prepared, but it was not accepted. We consider that a false analogy can be made between the concentration of harbour facilities and the principles upon which legislation related to internal transport facilities was based. We regard harbours as being more akin to roads than to commercial transport businesses, and on that account it is our view that centralisation such as has been suggested in some quarters is not a means of securing greater efficiency. Other methods must, accordingly, be found to ensure the most efficient operation and development of this most essential part of our transport organisation.

The history of harbours in the country shows that, prior to 1922, a general state of confusion and mismanagement existed. It was early recognised after the establishment of the Dáil that something would have to be done about it and in 1926, by resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Ports and Harbours Tribunal was appointed to inquire into the position of the several ports and harbours. That tribunal undertook its work with great thoroughness and produced an elaborate and informative report in 1930. That report is available to Deputies and has, no doubt, been studied by them. The tribunal found that the administrative control of our harbours was governed by a large and unco-ordinated volume of legislation, both general legislation and local legislation, and that a wide diversity existed as between one body and another in relation to their character, in relation to the extent of their powers and functions as well as in their constitution and membership; there was great divergence in methods of administration and there were many instances of uneconomic and inefficient management. The tribunal drew attention to the fact that no attempt had been made at any time to co-ordinate the activities of the various ports, to assist and supervise their operation and development or to protect the interests of the users of the ports. They found that proposals for legislation and for schemes of development had, in almost every instance, been purely local in their conception.

The general conclusions reached by the tribunal were incorporated in two recommendations. Their report contains a large number of recommendations, but the two main recommendations which establish the need for new legislation were, first, that the provisions of the various general Acts relating to harbours should be replaced by a general consolidating Act embodying in modern form such of the existing statutory provisions as experience has shown to be valuable and desirable with such other provisions as may be necessary; and, secondly, that the Department of Industry and Commerce be given the general oversight of harbour administration and be placed as regards harbours in much the same position as the Department of Local Government and Public Health occupies in relation to local authorities.

The tribunal further proposed the adoption of a fresh policy, based upon their suggestions and recommendations, to the end that the various harbour undertakings might, under wise guidance, be brought to the highest level of efficiency in the interests of the trade and commerce of the State.

This Bill, as has been made clear by the explanatory memorandum circulated, is based upon the recommendations of the tribunal. It was prepared before the war and was ready for introduction in 1940. Owing to the abnormal circumstances affecting the ports and harbours of the country which then existed, its introduction was postponed. It will be appreciated by Deputies that the preparation of the measure entailed a very great deal of work owing to the highly complex nature of the existing harbour legislation. Practically all the tribunal's main recommendations have been accepted and are embodied in the measure.

The Bill applies to the four principal harbours of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford and to 21 other specified harbours. Power is, however, given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Bill to add a harbour to the number to which the Bill relates. All the specified harbours are covered by the tribunal's report with the exception of Buncrana, which has been added to the list of harbours with which the Bill deals on account of the considerable expenditure incurred in the development of that harbour since the tribunal reported in 1930. The Bill does not apply to the State harbours administered by the Office of Public Works or to harbours which are owned and managed by county councils or by railway companies. The provisions apply equally to all the specified harbours with the exception that the harbour authorities for the four principal harbours are comprised of a larger membership and each of them is required by the provision in the measure to appoint a general manager and secretary and to promote a superannuation scheme for the benefit of officers and for established staff. The provisions of the Bill which relate to the reconstitution of harbour authorities, to the general procedure of harbour authorities, and to the removal from office of members of harbour authorities for stated reasons will come into operation on a date in an appointed year which need not be the same for each authority. All the other provisions of the Bill will take effect from the date on which the measure is enacted.

I do not know that it is necessary to argue at any length in support of the case for the reconstitution of harbour authorities. At present many of the existing harbour authorities are constituted in a manner which is not only obsolete but inconsistent with democratic principles. There is considerable diversity and each harbour board is constituted on a basis peculiar to itself. For instance, in Cork the harbour commissioners are largely composed of members appointed by the corporation. At Foynes, the commissioners co-opt their successors. At certain large harbours the provisions relating to the appointment of commissioners have become obsolete and impracticable and vacancies exist which cannot be filled under the existing legislation. The number of members varies from as few as seven in one case to as many as 37 in another. The system of election of harbour boards is, as a matter of fact, practically one of co-option and of nomination of representatives by those firms and shipping companies which were actively interested as users of the harbours. In many cases the harbour undertakings have come to be regarded as close corporations. The principle of election is not followed generally. For example, there were no contested elections at Dublin and Sligo for many years before the emergency. At Dundalk, a contested election is exceptional. Out of an electorate of 500, only eight persons exercised the franchise at an election held in 1944.

It can be fairly stated that there has been a lack of interest in matters affecting harbours on the part of the community. The fact that the public are not directly rated or taxed for the upkeep of the harbours may account to some extent for that lack of interest. The average citizen is aware of the existence and of the functions of local bodies because he uses the public services which they provide and because he has to make a financial contribution towards their provision. Harbour undertakings are maintained by charges levied on goods and shipping. Though these charges are paid in the first instance by the carrying companies and the merchants, they must ultimately be recovered from the producer and from the consumer as freight charges or in the price of the commodity when offered for sale. The public, although they pay indirectly for the upkeep of the harbours, fail to realise their liability to the full extent or their interest in efficient and economical management.

The general scheme which is now proposed recognises that the management of ports and harbours is largely a matter for local bodies. It is intended that the new harbour authorities should be representative of the class of persons and of interests directly concerned in the use of the undertakings. It is desirable that each authority should comprise a reasonably compact membership to facilitate the expeditious and efficient discharge of business and, at the same time, not be too unwieldy. It is proposed, therefore, in the Bill that the harbour authorities, when reconstituted, will have the following membership. In the case of the four main harbours, Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, a total of 15, divided as to five to be appointed by the corporation, four to be appointed by the chambers of commerce, two to be elected by persons paying tonnage rates of £20 or more, and four to be nominated by the Minister, one of whom it is proposed should be a person representative of labour interests. The other specified harbour authorities will consist of nine or 11 members; 11 members where a chamber of commerce exists and nine where there is no chamber of commerce. Four of the members will be appointed by the local authorities, two by the chambers of commerce where such exist, two to be elected by persons paying tonnage rates, and three to be nominated by the Minister, one of whom should be representative of labour interests.

The continuity of an existing harbour authority is not affected by the change of membership, nor are the provisions regarding property, liabilities, mortgages, stock, contracts or agreements altered in any way. The general aim is to constitute the harbour authorities in such a way that there will be balanced representation of the various interests concerned and likely to be concerned in the development and management of the ports. The members appointed by local authorities will be representative not only of those bodies, but of the citizens generally, and the giving of that representation to local bodies should help to promote understanding and co-operation between the harbour authorities and other local administrative bodies. The members appointed by the chambers of commerce will represent the purely business interests. Shipping interests will be adequately represented by members elected by the payers of tonnage rates. Effect is given to the recommendation of the tribunal that some members should be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and it seems desirable that labour should be represented on each of these authorities and, therefore, it is provided that one of the persons to be nominated by the Minister shall be chosen by him on the ground that he is representative of labour interests.

It will be noted by Deputies who have studied the report of the tribunal that the proposed constitution of harbour authorities follows closely on the lines recommended by it. There are, however, two important deviations. The first is that county councils are given representation as well as urban district councils in the case of the smaller harbours. The second is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is required, as I have stated, to include a representative of Labour amongst his nominees. Property qualifications are no longer required. In some cases, existing property qualifications are considerable. For instance, at Waterford the members of the existing board must be possessed of real or personal property of no less than £800 in value or occupy premises rated at £25 or upwards. The members of the corporation have protested strongly against that undemocratic state of affairs. It is proposed that the term of office shall be three years for all members.

The tribunal recommended that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be given a general power of oversight of harbour administration. It also recommended the attendance of officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce at harbour board meetings, but that particular recommendation of the tribunal has not been adopted, because it seems to me that the course proposed is neither necessary nor desirable. Provision is made in the Bill to enable members of a harbour authority to be removed from office on certain stated grounds, such as refusing or wilfully neglecting to comply with the statutory requirements, or if, after an inquiry, it is found that they have failed in the discharge of their statutory duties.

Provision is made for the holding of local inquiries, where necessary, into the performance by harbour authorities of their powers, functions and duties, and into a variety of matters, such as the harbour finances and borrowing, the condition of a harbour, the rates charged, the accommodation and facilities provided. Certain requirements are laid down with regard to tenders and contracts. Regulations can be made to provide for competitive tenders for all works of importance. In future, harbour accounts will be audited by an auditor to be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The continuity of office of existing officers and servants is maintained. As certain positions fall vacant, they will be filled through the Local Appointments Commission. As I have mentioned, the four principal harbours will be required each to have a general manager and secretary. There are already general managers at Cork and Waterford and such a position has recently been advertised by the Dublin Port and Docks Board. When the position of secretary falls vacant at Limerick, a general manager and secretary will fall to be appointed to that harbour. It is contemplated that the appointment of a general manager should ensure that matters of routine administration and expenditure and minor appointments will be dealt with expeditiously, leaving the harbour commissioners free to devote themselves to important matters of finance, administration and development.

It is proposed also that the four principal harbours should be required to submit superannuation schemes for their officers and for their established staff, within two years from the date of the enactment of the measure. Similar schemes are also contemplated for other harbours where the financial position warrants that course. It is not considered practicable to make it a statutory obligation, upon those smaller harbours to prepare and bring into force such superannuation schemes. The operation of a scheme of that kind involves a long-term contract with the staffs of the authorities, which may not be fulfilled if the harbour revenue should disappear. Consequently, it is proposed to sanction the adoption of a superannuation scheme for established staff only in the case of smaller harbours which can show that the harbour revenue justifies that course.

Under the existing legislation, in order to create a new harbour authority or to revise the constitution of an existing authority or to authorise the construction of new works or provide additional borrowing powers, it is necessary to have first a provisional Order under the General Piers and Harbours Acts, to be confirmed by a special Act of the Oireachtas. The number of such special Acts has multiplied and the statutory position has become more and more complex. As Deputies who have been in the House for some time will remember, many of those special Acts dealt with only quite unimportant matters. At present some of our harbour authorities have exhausted their authorised borrowing and require extensions to enable them to proceed with urgent works of reconstruction. Without statutory sanction, they are unable to borrow or proceed with those new works. Cork is a case in point. If separate enactments had to be obtained by each of the harbours requiring special powers within the next few years, there would be a very large number of those Private Bills, involving an undue claim upon the time of the Oireachtas and delays and quite considerable expenditure by the individual harbour authorities.

Therefore, the Bill is designed to obviate a great deal of that unnecessary legislation. It provides that the Minister for Industry and Commerce may authorise a harbour authority to construct works or to acquire land compulsorily. He may fix or vary the limits of the harbour, transfer a harbour to a local authority or transfer to the management of a harbour authority any specified port or pier. It is provided that, if compulsory acquisition of land arises on a large scale, or if it is proposed to transfer a harbour to a local authority or to make an alteration in the harbour limits, the matter must be brought specifically before the Oireachtas. Provision is made to that effect in the Bill. The procedure for obtaining an Order authorising works provides for the publication of notice of the proposals and allows for the making of representations and objections. If considered desirable, a local inquiry may be held. A survey may be made of the intended site of any works which a harbour authority proposes to construct. Completed works and works in course of construction also may be inspected. These measures are designed to ensure that proposed works of an extensive nature are sound from the engineering point of view.

Hitherto, when moneys were required for capital works, they have been borrowed usually on mortgage on the security of harbour revenue. When the borrowing did not exceed £100,000 and was for the purpose of financing new works, sanction could be obtained by the making of a provisional Order. A maximum was set out in the relevant Act or in the provisional Order and in many cases the borrowings were earmarked for specific purposes. Sometimes a time limit was fixed within which moneys could be borrowed. The Bill provides a general power to borrow, with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If the proposed borrowings exceed £50,000—or, in the case of Dublin, £200,000—the consent of the Minister for Finance is also required. The manner and terms of the borrowing, the purpose for which the money may be applied, the security to be given, the terms and conditions of redemption of any mortgage and the period of repayment for borrowed moneys may be covered by regulations.

The Tribunal, as those who read its report will remember, made certain recommendations in regard to the methods of granting financial assistance to harbour authorities. They recommended that State assistance should be made available for schemes which the harbours are unable to finance out of their own resources, but that, when such approved schemes are not of national importance, a State contribution should be conditional on a contribution from the local authority. They considered that when State aid was given, it should be by way of loan or by guaranteeing loans by the harbour authorities themselves. In the past, local bodies have only been empowered to assist harbour undertaking when a loan from the Local Loans Fund was concerned. The assistance given by local authorities for essential harbour maintenance during recent years was authorised only by an Emergency Powers Order made under the Emergency Powers Act. The legislation which is now proposed provides that a local authority, with the consent of the Minister for Local Government, may assist a harbour authority by contribution or guarantee or may themselves raise a loan where the harbour authority is unable to do so. It is considered desirable to give supervisory power to the Minister for Local Government in that matter, in order to ensure that local authorities will not unduly burden themselves with heavy financial commitments.

In the past, the only methods open to harbour authorities to obtain financial help from the State were in the form of loans from the Local Loans Fund administered by the Office of Public Works, which loans normally required a guarantee from the local authority; or by grants from the Special Employment Schemes Office, or from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote, the grant in such cases being conditional upon the prevailing unemployment conditions in the harbour area; or by occasional grants made on the recommendation of the Minister for Agriculture for the dredging of fishery harbours, or by loans for work of a capital nature guaranteed under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts or, during these last few years of the emergency, by grants administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce towards the cost of essential maintenance.

It has been decided, as a matter of general policy, that State aid should be available in future for harbour development and that such State aid should be given by way of grant or loan in the case of harbours of local interest, subject to the condition recommended by the tribunal, that assistance from the local authorities in the area concerned should also be forthcoming. In cases of schemes which might be classed as of national interest State help will be subject to such conditions as may be considered necessary and desirable by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance. That decision of the Government represents a departure, a substantial departure, from the policy followed heretofore. In the past the State did not accept the position of having any obligation to assist financially in harbour development. It is accepting that obligation now, subject, as I have said, in the case of local harbours, to a contribution to the cost of development being forthcoming from the local authorities concerned, and subject in all cases to the revenue available from the harbour being insufficient to support whatever borrowing is considered necessary.

There are, of course, other conditions which will have to be fulfilled and which are set out in the report of the tribunal. It will be necessary for a harbour authority to demonstrate that any capital expenditure it contemplates will have the effect of increasing the traffic of the harbour, or of lowering the cost of handling goods passing in or out of the harbour, or of expediting the movement of goods through the harbour. Apart from works of a major kind, involving capital outlay, it is recognised that many of the smaller harbours have exhausted their finances during the war years when shipping ceased altogether and, because of that exhaustion of finance, they have been compelled to allow maintenance work to run into arrears. Now that shipping activities are reviving, the clearing off of arrears of maintenance work is in many cases beyond the financial powers of the authorities concerned.

The Government have decided as an exceptional measure that financial assistance may be given to such harbours during the next four or five years, subject also to the condition that there is a fair prospect of reviving traffic or of improving facilities available at the harbours so as to cheapen the cost of using them or securing a more expeditious handling of goods passing through, subject to it being demonstrated that the harbour authority, despite the most economical and efficient management, is unable to meet the full cost by borrowing or otherwise and subject also to substantial contributions being forthcoming from the local authorities concerned. In all cases it is contemplated that supervision of the engineering aspects of schemes for which State aid is requested will be entrusted to the Office of Public Works.

There are a large number of miscellaneous provisions in the Bill to which it is not necessary to make special reference. Some of these provisions relate to the operation of harbours. The existing mass of legislation in regard to management, control and operation of harbours is unified and made of general application. A harbour authority may be required to submit proposals for the dredging of a harbour or may be required to have dredging carried out in the specified manner. A harbour authority is empowered to provide facilities for aircraft and make charges for such facilities. There are other general proposals relating to the charging powers of harbour authorities. The existing maximum rates are preserved until varied by a harbour rates order. Uniform powers are provided in relation to the charging of tonnage rates and service rates. Rates are to be charged equally to all persons and harbour facilities are to be available equally on payment of the appropriate rate. The list of rates must be open for inspection. These provisions are, in the main, a codification of existing legislation.

There is one provision to which I would like to make special reference and that is the provision relating to the registration of dock workers. The section, which is new in harbour legislation in this country, empowers a harbour authority to take steps to improve conditions of casual employment of dock workers by introducing a system of registration of workers and by confining employment to registered workers. It is questionable whether that is a function of harbour authorities. It could, I think, be argued that if any such registration scheme is to be introduced it should be done by agreement between the employers of dock labour and the unions which cater for them. In Great Britain, legislation relating to dock registration schemes is at present before Parliament. They contemplate, apparently, putting upon the persons directly concerned the obligation of producing such schemes subject to power being retained in the Ministry concerned to impose such schemes if they are not forthcoming as a result of voluntary agreements.

I do not know whether it is considered desirable that such registration schemes should operate at Irish ports. If it is considered desirable, I do not know if it is regarded as suitable that the harbour authorities should have any function in relation to them. We propose merely to enable harbour authorities to take steps to secure the establishment and operation of such schemes, but if there is any substantial objection to the giving of that power to harbour authorities, I would withdraw it. I think there is a great deal to be said for the contention that it is not a proper function of a harbour authority. A section appears in the Bill in order to draw attention to the need for putting upon somebody the obligation of taking the initiative in the establishment of such schemes of registration at Irish ports, if there is general agreement that such schemes are desirable.

The Bill provides for the repeal of nine general Harbours Acts which shall cease to apply to specified harbour authorities and over 100 Private Acts and provisional Orders which will cease to have effect in so far as they are inconsistent with the Bill: A copy of the Bill and of the explanatory memorandum which accompanied it has been sent to each of the public bodies and harbour authorities likely to be concerned with it and they have been invited to submit their observations. The Bill, I think, can be fairly represented, as I have said, to be non-contentious, and if arising from the consideration of its clauses by these local bodies or harbour authorities, amendments which would make it more effective in the achievement of the purposes aimed at are suggested, they will be brought forward for the consideration of the Dáil on Committee Stage. I should imagine that, in so far as this Bill will be discussed at all by the Oireachtas, the discussion will take place mainly in Committee. The principle of the Bill is likely to be acceptable and it is only in relation to its detail that differences of opinion may arise.

General Mulcahy

The one outstanding fact which is non-contentious is that our harbours ought to be developed and run efficiently, but what exactly is the principle of the Bill which is to be accepted now is, I think, a matter about which there can be a considerable amount of argument. The Minister stated that while it was regarded that generally in matters of transport competition was undesirable and did not tend to efficiency, in this matter of the ports, they were prepared to resist any suggestion that there should be centralisation— he felt that centralisation in the matter of the using of our ports would not lead to greater efficiency. The Minister will want to do much more than simply make that statement here to get it out of our minds and out of the minds of people throughout the country that this is not a centralising measure.

If we look at what the Bill proposes to do in respect of harbours, we find that, in the first place, it proposes to establish a new corps d'elite of harbour representatives nominated by the Minister to the number of 79—a regular new corps d'elite of persons nominated by the Minister to act on the various harbours as his representatives, with a secretary-manager to be appointed through the Local Appointments Commissioners who is to be irremovable except by two-thirds vote of the harbour board. These persons while acting under the direction of a board will be acting under the direction of a board which can be wiped out by the Minister and substituted entirely by a commissioner. Even if we never had that proposal, without any reference to any analogy with the Department of Local Government and the managers as they conduct some of their business throughout the country under the influence of the Minister for Local Government to-day, it would be very hard to resist the fear that this was an entirely centralising measure.

We have had no review to-day of the general purposes for which we require our ports, or the circumstances in which they will work in future, but there are two important bodies of a monopolistic or semi-monopolistic kind which are, one might say, special creations of the Minister whose interest and work are bound to have an effect on the policy pursued with regard to the development or otherwise of the ports of the country. One of these is Irish Shipping, Limited, and the other, Córas Iompair Éireann. Both of these have their own interests to look after and their own difficulties in looking after these interests, and I feel that both of them are likely to exert a pressure on the development and handling of our ports which is likely to have a strong centralising influence.

We all realise the circumstances in which Córas Iompair Éireann was set up and the very big financial burden which it has to wipe off at the earliest possible moment. It is succeeding in doing that under cover of emergency conditions. We have only to look at the balance sheet and general profit and loss account issued by Irish Shipping, Limited, for the year ending 30th June, 1944, to see more of the difficulties under which that company labours and the way in which it is overcoming these difficulties. In the general profit and loss account for that year, we find that Irish Shipping, Limited, wrote off £1,091,100 as the cost of ships, including initial repairs, in respect of ships which, at the end of that year, were valued only at £100,000. They were able to extract these sums from the importers by reason of the fact that emergency conditions existed, but they will not be able to do it in future.

We all appreciate the difficulties under which Irish Shipping, Limited, is likely to work, and we do not know exactly what kind of future there is for it, but we do realise that Irish Shipping, Limited, will endeavour to be continued, with perhaps some accommodation with other countries as to how its work will be carried on. We must appreciate that there will be a strong tendency on the part of Irish Shipping, Limited, to endeavour to force concentration of imports, so far as Irish Shipping, Limited, is concerned, to particular ports, so that there are the highly developed and the carefully planned machinery for giving the Minister complete control over port management and development and these two organisations of his creation which are likely to tend in that direction. The Minister, therefore, will want to persuade us by something more than his statement that this is not a centralising measure and will have to be prepared for a very considerable amount of questioning and criticism from the country on the point.

The Minister has indicated that he has circulated a copy of the measure to the various bodies likely to be affected and is awaiting their reports. It would have been much more useful if we had had a longer time before coming to discuss the Second Reading, because we, too, were interested in ascertaining what the various harbour boards thought about the measure. In some places the information is that they had no idea that the measure was being introduced at all, even though some of the boards have, as members, members of the Minister's Party, but, so far as we are concerned, we shall have to wait until the boards have more time than they have had up to the present to consider the proposals, before we can even be clear ourselves as to what is likely, in the end, to be regarded as the principle of this measure.

The Minister proposes to introduce the idea of a secretary-manager. There is very little information either in the explanatory memorandum or in the Bill itself as to what the powers of the secretary-manager will be. In the past, in most important posts, you had a harbour master and a harbour engineer, and, either as a result of tradition or of regulations, each had a clearly defined sphere of action and responsibility. Now some kind of an individual is being erected over these two without any special definition of what his powers are to be, or any attempt to make clear what his relationship is to be to either of them. I think that before the Bill is passed something should be done to make clear how the introduction of a secretary-manager is going to impinge on the duties of a harbour master and a harbour engineer, and particularly on the inter-relation between these two important officers.

The Minister has stated that in future the State will provide contributions towards the development of harbours. It is rather a pity, particularly in the case of Cork Harbour, that, if that idea was developing in the Minister's mind, something was not done four or five years ago to assist the Cork Harbour Board, even by way of guaranteeing the loans which it wished to borrow to carry out important and necessary development in the case of Cork Harbour. These works could have been carried out during the emergency. I was present on a deputation from the Cork Harbour Board which met the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy MacEntee, and which put forward a substantial number of improvements that the board required to have carried out. The deputation emphasised how necessary it was to get these improvements carried out during the emergency when men were available for the work. They showed that these improvements could be carried out with the materials at their disposal. Much valuable work could have been done at that time. The then Minister for Industry and Commerce was adamant, and would not guarantee the loans of the board in any kind of way. He did not offer any suggestions or give any assistance. The result is that the execution of these important works has been left undone. The work, as I say, could have been done during the emergency, and much employment given in Cork during those years.

There is one particular class that is going to disappear off the new boards. In the past, it proved itself to be a valuable class. I refer to the representatives of those who paid import and export dues. The Minister is, perhaps, quite right in saying that these payments ultimately fell either on the people who were the producers of the stuff that was exported, or on the consumers of the goods imported. A glance at the map published in the report shows clearly that the ports in Ireland are, to a very large extent, in competition with one another. The areas that the ports serve run into one another in many directions, and, as I say, the ports are in competition with one another. That acted as a stimulus towards the efficient and proper running of a port. The representation of the exporters and importers who pay dues is going to be substantially reduced in present circumstances. I think that is wrong. The chambers of commerce are going to have a certain number of representatives, but there is no definition of what a chamber of commerce is going to be in the future. I think that the Bill will want to be changed with regard to strengthening the position of those who pay import and export dues, so as to give them representation on these boards. It is true, of course, as the Minister has said, that these payments ultimately fall back on other people, but the point is that the harbours were maintained by the payment of these dues. The ports, as I have said, were in competition with one another. The Minister will find that some ports were particularly well run. They were efficiently run by reason of the fact that they were managed by the people who paid the import and export dues. Therefore, I say that that particular class was a valuable one. I do not think it will mean increased efficiency in the management of a port, or in the doing of a board's work, if the representation of that class is to be reduced.

I think that the provision of having Ministerial representatives to the extent of one-third or one-quarter of the total membership of a board, a board that the Minister can wipe out after inquiry, is a quite unnecessary one. If the Minister is going to take power to wipe out a board, then I cannot see why he should want to have representatives on it at all. If he is going to have representatives on a board, then he should remove from the Bill the provision enabling him to wipe it out.

I feel that the principle that is enshrined in the Bill is one to increase the grip that the State is getting on everything. I do not want to refer to the details of the various statements that have been made from time to time by Ministers, or to the various things that have been done, but the Minister for Agriculture, the other day, indicated in the most emphatic and clear way that State power was going to be increased, and that State power, acting through the managerial hand, was going to be increased. This Bill seems to me to be prepared in the spirit of the declaration that was made the other night by the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Cogan

This Bill is desirable in view of the fact that over a period of years harbour authorities have found it very difficult to cope with the work entrusted to them. That was due to the fact that, in the case of many harbours, there was very little trade being done. The result was that revenue declined and harbour authorities found it very hard to keep their harbours in repair. It is therefore desirable that comprehensive legislation should be introduced now to put all our harbours on a sound basis. This is a very contentious Bill. It is one that, as the Minister has pointed out, requires to be studied by the local harbour boards. After they have given it careful study it may be possible to amend it and improve it considerably.

One of the questions about which there may be a good deal of controversy is as to the constitution of the harbour authorities. In setting up a representative body to carry out work such as this, it is, I admit, always difficult to ensure that every interest is fairly represented. As far as the principal harbours are concerned, the representation provided is: five representatives of the corporation, four representatives of the chamber of commerce, two representatives of persons elected by persons paying tonnage rates of not less than £20 and four representatives nominated by the Minister. One important consideration arises in regard to the large harbours, namely, does the board give adequate representation to the most important interests in the country? Taking the long view, the most important interests in this country are the agricultural and manufacturing industries. It is mainly by production that this nation must live. It is surprising that on the boards as constituted under this Bill there is no direct representation of organised agricultural interests or organised manufacturing interests. One would imagine that on the Dublin Harbour Board there should be representatives of the stock-raising and stock-exporting industries. Export of live stock would be one of the most important functions of the port of Dublin. I think it is an oversight that representation is left to the chambers of commerce which may or may not provide adequate representation for agricultural and manufacturing interests. At least such an organisation as the Cattle Dealers' Association should have direct representation on a board of this kind, and manufacturers, through their organisations, should also have direct representation.

I know some of the smaller harbours on the east coast. In most of the harbour districts there are extensive and enterprising manufacturers who are deeply and vitally concerned in the development of their local harbour and in the accommodation for vessels which bring their raw material and take away their products. As far as these local harbours are concerned the local manufacturers may get some representation, indirectly, through the local authorities; they may get some representation, indirectly, through the chamber of commerce, but I think they would be entitled, in view of their importance, to direct representation. These harbours will have very little useful function to perform unless there is adjacent to them some manufacturing industry. There is also the case of fisheries. Surely some organisation representative of the fishing industry should have adequate and direct representation on these boards.

It is, as I said, a difficult matter to constitute a properly representative board and to ensure that every important interest is fairly represented but the interests to which I have referred are by far the most important ones in relation to import and export trade. The Minister has power to nominate four representatives as far as the larger harbours are concerned and there is provision in the Bill that one of these must be representative of Labour interests. That, of course, is a desirable provision, but why is it that only Labour interests are considered in this respect, and why is it that the interests to which I have referred are not also given specific protection to ensure representation for them?

I welcome the provision that no harbour authority may be dissolved without special inquiry. That is desirable. There is a grievance in connection with local authorities that they can be abolished without inquiry. In the Bill there is provision for a local inquiry and I think it might be desirable to provide that it would be not only a local inquiry but a sworn inquiry. That may or may not be implied.

I regret I was not present for the entire statement of the Minister, and I am not quite clear as to the provisions in regard to the financing of the measure. I understand that local authorities—which include county councils—may make contributions towards the financing of harbours and harbour development. That is a desirable provision. It is also desirable that a substantial contribution should be made by the central authority, because in many of the counties which should be called upon to contribute to the harbours, the resources may not be very great. Many of our harbours require extensive constructional development, and it is desirable that constructional work on a large scale should be undertaken because unless that is done we shall have heavy maintenance costs year after year, and the money, to a large extent, will be wasted. On the eastern seaboard the harbours are inclined to silt up very rapidly and I am told by experts that that condition can be remedied by extensive constructional development. It would be desirable that such work should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Harbour development depends to a large extent upon the development of export and import trade and it is difficult to decide to what extent harbour development should be undertaken unless we have a clear conception of what our import and export trade will be in the future. In connection with harbours, there is this great difficulty, that there may be a conflict of interests, for example, between the transport company which has to do with internal transport and particular harbours. It may suit the transport company to divert trade from a particular harbour and it is in connection with that aspect of the question that definite provision must be made to ensure that no harbour or port will be unfairly treated in the matter of trade. It is, of course, a difficult and delicate question, but the interests of each exporting and importing centre must be fully borne in mind. I think it will be admitted by all Deputies that the best interests of the nation will be served by having as wide a distribution of trade as possible amongst the largest number of harbours.

It is also, of course, desirable that manufacturing industry should be decentralised and distributed over the largest number of areas. Development of harbours will assist in the distribution of industry because, if any manufacturer contemplates setting up a new industry, one of the first questions he will naturally ask is: "What are the harbour facilities in the area?" Therefore, there may be possibilities of unfairness and injustice as between one district and another, and for that reason it is necessary that a Bill of this kind should receive the most painstaking and careful consideration.

Up to the present, of course, the whole position with regard to harbours has been rather chaotic in regard to financing development and so on. There is no need to dwell upon that aspect of the question, inasmuch as this Bill sets out to remedy that state of affairs. I hope that when it is finally drafted it will provide effective remedies for many of the grievances under which our various harbours labour. I particularly recommend to the Minister that he should reconsider the allocation of the representation on these harbour boards and see that agriculture, the live-stock exporting industry, and the fishing industry are fairly represented.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

The attitude of the Minister in seeking to ascertain the views of interested bodies in connection with this Bill is, in my opinion, to be commended as well as his intimation to them that any suggestions they are prepared to put forward which it would be possible to incorporate in the Bill at a later stage will be incorporated. That attitude is in welcome contrast with our experience of other Ministries, especially one in particular which always seems to frown on that particular sort of approach. I think the Minister will be rewarded for his departure in this particular instance by the assistance which he will receive from the public bodies concerned.

In my opinion, this Bill is a necessary corollary to the report of the Harbours Tribunal, more especially as its remedial effects will apply particularly to ports outside the City of Dublin. So far as the port of Dublin, of which I have some experience, is concerned, I would say that it was efficiently managed and that it gave exceedingly good services to those who needed those services. The Dublin Port and Docks Board at all times took the long view so far as making arrangements for planning ahead for future services was concerned and they have been engaged in these operations right up to date. So far, therefore, as the Bill is concerned, I can only express my opinion as regards its effect on Dublin port. I do not know what the reactions of the present board are, but I venture to say that they would not be violently opposed, in any case, to a number of suggested changes here. Contention will chiefly centre around constitution of the board. Dublin is classed as a major port in the No. 1 category. In so far as the local authority is concerned, there will not be very much grumbling because of a reduction of its membership by one in relation to the reduction of the membership as a whole.

If I might give my personal experience to the Minister, it would be that a board of 15 members is not quite adequate so far as representation of the various interests is concerned and that a board of up to 20 would not be by any means unreasonable in the light of the administrative form of the port board's work. So far as the local authority is concerned, its representation is practically unchanged except to the extent of one member, but there will be, I think, a great deal of controversy around the nomination by the Chamber of Commerce of four members. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the Chamber of Commerce to pass any judgment on its working, except for the fact that when I was Lord Mayor I had the pleasure of addressing that chamber on one occasion and I was most cordially received by them. But whether they are the most desirable type of nominating body for a board of this kind is questionable. I do not know whether they have to have any qualifications for membership beyond nomination by a fellow member, or whether they have displayed at any particular time any particular interest in the working of the harbour authority. I think it may be stated without offence that a very big percentage of the membership of that chamber, for a number of years in any case, would be made up of manufacturers' agents, and in that way you might have representation coming forward from a chamber of that particular character which would, say, be more interested in coastwise traffic and with keeping the charges in Dublin port as low as possible to the exclusion, perhaps, of the very serious consideration that obtains in the port of Dublin so far as deep-sea traffic is concerned. It has been the policy of the port board for a number of years to give special attention to and concentrate on the question of deep-sea traffic for the very obvious reason that deep-sea traffic is a valuable factor in our economic life in that it cuts out any question of intermediate trans-shipment. I am not so sure that the Chamber of Commerce is competent to give to the board the type of member who would be desirable for harbour administration.

Then, it could be possible for the four nominees of the Chamber of Commerce to have amongst them several representatives of shipping, since the chamber has a rather widespread form of membership and includes members of shipping concerns. In that case, the section of the Bill dealing with the composition of the board might very easily be defeated. There is provision for two shipping members, but that could be augmented, as nominees of members of the Chamber of Commerce might also be shipping members.

There is also the question of the democratic character of the nominations, so far as a chamber of that kind is concerned. Right through this whole constitution of the board there would seem to be absent that democratic form of representation which we would like at this particular stage. In point of fact, the only form of election that might be said to be a popular one in the final constitution of the board comes through the local authority. It is true that there will be an election for the shipping members, but obviously the number who will be placed on the electoral roll there will be of a very limited character indeed.

I am not quite satisfied that the designation of the chamber of commerce as the form of nominating authority is an ideal solution, and it would appear to me as if, in retaining that designation, the Minister was actuated by a meticulous desire to adhere to the recommendations of the tribunal rather than to the actual value of the nominating body itself. An alternative might be provided by having the election by popular vote of the traders of the city, as was done before. It might be tried on a different scale, so far as valuation was concerned. Perhaps, at a later stage, we will have an opportunity to extend the constitution of the major ports boards and see if this method of the chamber of commerce is the most suitable. I do not exactly like the idea of nomination in regard to a board as it continues the undemocratic form of representation; but in so far as the Minister makes place for Labour in that nomination of four, my criticism naturally is somewhat restrained. By the way, may I say that, since he is appropriating one place to Labour there, he might save himself a spot of trouble later on by making it two?

Deputy Cogan has introduced a question which I intended to introduce, that is, the absence of any representation for the cattle trade. As long as I can remember, the cattle trade have constituted a very valuable portion of our economic life here and are very large users of the port. They have always been represented on the board and have been very useful members in the past. If the question of the Minister's nominees is continued in its present form, I would strongly advise him to make a specific allocation for the live-stock industry. Also, if he is adhering to the principle of nomination, we might have from him in his reply the other types of interests that will be placed on the three remaining seats filled by nominees.

I feel I am interpreting the Bill correctly when I say that the old and very obnoxious system of plural voting is being abolished. I take it that that applies to the election of the shipping members.

In regard to the general manager, Section 39 sets out that, subject to the overriding authority of the harbour authority, the general manager has complete control of the staff. Then the next sub-section says that he has power to engage, dismiss and suspend all employees except those to which the Officers and Employees Acts of 1926 and 1940 apply. I am not quite clear as to whether the sub-section is in conflict with the previous one. It appears to me that the one relating to the general manager having power to suspend is very closely related to the enactment regarding county managers in the 1940 Act. If that be so, I would say there is no case—even if we assume there was a case in so far as the local authority was concerned— which can be made for it where the harbour authority is concerned. My experience is that this is a purely commercial board and while the members very rarely interest themselves in or interfere in any way in staff matters, they, as reasonable businessmen, would resent any preclusion from interference by the proposed transfer of the power to the general manager. I hope I am wrong, but it appears to me that the sub-section would read in that way.

Another comparatively small item is the question of the quay police. It is proposed in the Bill to eliminate provision for them and in Dublin to retain them only until such period as the Minister for Justice may see fit to make other arrangements. As Dublin is the only port where there is a very large staff of that character, I suggest that the Minister see to it that the occasion for the abolition of personnel of that kind be postponed as long as possible, on the grounds that police work on the docks and quays is of specialised character. So far as Dublin is concerned, in any case, I think that the Minister will be advised that there have been excellent service and complete satisfaction from the type of men engaged there, because of the continuous form and nature of their duties. That would not apply to members of the Gárda coming along and changing their routine, say, from day to day.

The question of the registration of dockers is, as the Minister says, a rather novel one and at this stage I am not prepared to comment on it, but I hope to make a contribution on that particular paragraph on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Costello

It would be quite impossible for any ordinary Deputy, without the assistance of experts in harbour matters, within the time allowed since this Bill was circulated to give any detailed consideration to the very complex provisions in it. Therefore, we can only search for some general principles behind the Bill, to see whether they are as they should be and whether such proposals, in so far as they can be ascertained, are in accordance with our ideas as to what they should be. Searching for those principles, I find one to which I take the greatest exception. It comes as a surprise to me that neither Deputy Cogan, one of the chief spokesmen of Clann na Talmhan, nor Deputy O'Sullivan has adverted to it, although it was mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy, Leader of the Opposition.

Before I make the remarks I have to make on this particular principle to which I object, I think there should be placed on record the expression of the view of this House on the work done by the members of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal. I am not sure that anybody so far has referred to the enormous amount of work, detailed and heavy work, done by the gentlemen who were appointed on that tribunal and who presented their report in 1930. Deputy O'Sullivan has stated that he welcomes the principle of the Minister seeking assistance from harbour authorities and experts in this matter. To the extent to which that assistance is being sought, we give it our welcome too. But it appears to me that it would have been very much more effective if, instead of this Bill being circulated to harbour authorities within the last fortnight or three weeks, leaving a very limited time between such circulation and the date of the Committee Stage to consider proposals and prepare amendments that could usefully be put into this measure, it was circulated at some time during the last 15 years, after the report of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal was published. It would also have been better to have ascertained the views of the Cork Harbour Board, the Dublin Port and Docks Board and other harbour authorities before this Bill was put into its present form rather than seek their assistance now, obtaining what must be their comments on the Ministerial proposals rather than their views and constructive propositions which would give effect to the recommendations of the tribunal.

The explanatory memorandum which was sent round draws attention to the two main recommendations incorporated in the tribunal's proposals. The first of those recommendations of the tribunal was:

"That the provisions of the various General Acts relating to harbours... be replaced by a general consolidating Act embodying in modern form such of the existing statutory provisions as experience has shown to be valuable and desirable, with such other provisions as may be necessary...."

I sought, in the short time at my disposal, to see whether or not that recommendation has been carried out and I found, perhaps with some secret satisfaction from the point of view of a professional lawyer, that this Bill will probably provide ample litigation in the courts in the future because, instead of there being a consolidating Act embodying in modern form such of the existing statutory provisions as experience has shown to be valuable and desirable, we find a Bill containing 178 sections and four Schedules, one particular provision clearly demonstrating that this is not a consolidating statute.

Section 177 provides:

"So much of any enactment mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act, or of any Order, regulation or other instrument made thereunder as is inconsistent with any enactment contained in this Act or in any Order, regulation or other instrument made under this Act, shall cease to have effect as on and from the coming into operation of such last-mentioned enactment."

We look at the Third Schedule and we find that there are three pages of statutes, and Orders having the force of statutes, and anybody who wants to find out what the law is as regards any particular matter must first ascertain what is in this Act, and then must try to find out some statutory Order or rule made under the Act, and then search through a multitude of statutes and Orders having the force of statutes and see where the consistency lies and what is the law. That is not my idea of a consolidating statute.

During the 15 years since the report was published it would have been possible to examine these various Acts and Orders, and provisional Orders, which are set forth in the Third Schedule, and to have found out which of those, to use the expression in the report of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal, experience has shown to be valuable and desirable, to re-enact them and get rid of rules and orders which it is now almost impossible to find. There are some provisions in private Acts dealing with ports, and it is almost impossible to ascertain them. These have sometimes been utilised in an effort to defeat a private individual's right of action against a harbour board. One particular harbour authority with which I am familiar claims to have a provision in a Private Act prescribing that before any action could be had against the harbour authority, certain notification had to be given to the harbour authority. That was essential before proceedings could be instituted. It is hardly possible to get the particular Act in which that harbour authority is so protected. Any individual, say a workman, who is injured through the negligence of a harbour authority, will find himself faced with that as a defence.

It is impossible, even in this Bill, which should be what the tribunal said it should be, a consolidated measure, but which is not a consolidated measure, to find out what the existing law is in reference to a particular set of facts. That is my first criticism, and my second criticism, a much more serious one, arises on another recommendation of the tribunal—the second main recommendation referred to in the explanatory memorandum. This recommendation reads:

"That the Department of Industry and Commerce be given the general oversight of harbour administration and be placed as regards harbours in much the same position as the Department of Local Government and Public Health occupies in relation to local authorities."

At the time that tribunal report was published the Department of Local Government had not acquired that grip upon local administration which it has been the policy in the last 10 or 12 years to pursue in reference to local authorities. The kind of control which the tribunal envisaged, so far as I can see, would appear to be exemplified by the recommendation which they made, that one or some of the officers of the Department of Local Government should be empowered to attend the meetings of harbour boards and to report to the Minister. That is translated into the modern policy of the Government of placing the nominees of the Minister, in almost every respect political nominees, on boards of every kind, class and description. They have been placed upon hospital boards; they are now to be placed upon the boards of the harbour authorities. That was not, I imagine, the idea behind the recommendation of the tribunal, but that is the way this Bill has been drafted, and if there is any principle at all in this Bill, it is the principle of Ministerial control over the affairs of harbour authorities.

The tribunal, in the summary of its recommendations, stated that they wished to direct special attention to the absence up to the present of any well-defined harbour policy on the part of the State. So far as I know, this Bill shows no such well-defined harbour policy on the part of the present Government, nor during the period when I listened to the Minister's statement was there an indication of any such policy. Leaving that aside, however, there certainly is a further extension of Ministerial control over the affairs of the people. Let me refer again to Section 177. Deputy O'Sullivan deplored the representation of chambers of commerce because, as I understood him, it indicated in some way the absence of a democratic form of representation. I think it would have been advisable for Deputy O'Sullivan and for the chief spokesman of Clann na Talmhan to consider the very grave extent to which the aspect to which I and Deputy Mulcahy adverted eats into the principle of the democratic rights of the people.

I have shown the state of confusion which may arise, and probably will arise, as a result of the failure properly to consolidate legislation dealing with harbours, but in sub-section (2) of Section 177 the Minister has power to make adaptations of the whole or any part of any enactment mentioned in the Third Schedule, or of any Order, regulation or other instrument made thereunder as are, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary or proper having regard to the provisions of this Act.

That, in essence, is the power to legislate. Instead of submitting these proposals in the form of a consolidating Bill, as they should have been submitted, the whole hotch-potch is thrown into a Schedule, and the position is then stated to be that, wherever anything in the Bill is found to be inconsistent with anything in these statutes, rules, Orders and provisional Orders, the Bill is to prevail. But, in addition, the Minister may chop and change these multitudinous rules, Orders and statutes referred to in the Third Schedule in any manner he thinks fit, without bringing the matter before the House. That is a power the Minister is taking to legislate and legislation should only be a function of the Oireachtas. I know of no more striking example of control by the people through its Legislature being taken by the State.

Let us look at the way in which the harbour boards are constituted. The very explanatory memorandum draws attention to the "wide measure of control which it is proposed that the Minister should have over harbour authorities" and the fact that he may appoint some members of each authority is set out in the memorandum itself. "The wide measure of control which it is proposed that the Minister should have" is one principle and the second is the power of the Minister to appoint his own nominees. "The wide measure of control" is an understatement of the position as disclosed in this Bill, because the constitution of these proposed new harbour authorities is framed and designed to give the Minister complete control, either directly or indirectly, over all the functions of harbour authorities and to facilitate the Minister in abolishing such of those authorities as are not subservient to Ministerial policy and direction. Is that in accordance with up-to-date views of democracy and democratic principles? Yet there is no objection from the spokesman of Clann na Talmhan.

The secretary and manager under Section 39 cannot be removed without the sanction of the Minister, and the chief executive officer of each harbour authority is, therefore, in essence a servant of the Minister. The Minister can appoint, as is apparent from the Bill, very nearly one quarter of the membership of the Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford boards. He can appoint members varying in proportion from one-third to just over one-fourth of the membership of the boards of the smaller ports. Each of these men, as experience has demonstrated, who will be appointed by the Minister will be an adherent of the political Party to which that Minister happens to be attached at the moment. These men are appointed there for the express purpose of being watchdogs on behalf of the Minister.

The Minister, in addition to the powers to which I have already adverted, has power to elect other members where there is failure to elect to a board. That power is given in Section 10, and, under Section 11, where he is of opinion that the persons who paid tonnage rates are so few in number as to render inappropriate the holding of an election, the Minister may appoint two persons to represent those paying tonnage rates. The Minister's opinion is the sole criterion, and if he wants his own nominees to represent that particular interest, there is no way in which his opinion can be controverted or tested. The Minister has power to make regulations governing elections and specifying the qualifications of candidates. He may make regulations with regard to procedure and may require copies of minutes, and he is empowered to make regulations in respect of tenders for contracts.

There is a very significant provision with regard to the acquisition of land compulsorily by harbour authorities. All the Minister has to do is to make an Order empowering the harbour authority compulsorily to acquire land. There is a half-hearted provision in the Bill requiring that certain of these classes of Orders providing for compulsory acquisition of land should not be effective until sanctioned by the Oireachtas; but the Minister has again the power to express his opinion as to whether a particular Order is of that kind and should be sanctioned by the Oireachtas, and it is only the Minister's opinion which is the effective judgment in the matter.

I take these examples for the purpose of demonstrating what Deputy Mulcahy has already adverted to, that is, that this measure, in so far as it has any principle at all, merely continues the principle to which we strongly object of the extension of State control over what are, in reality, business activities. No harbour policy is adumbrated in the Bill or suggested by the Minister's speech. This measure is not a consolidating measure. It is a measure from which there may ensue complete legal confusion which will render it extremely difficult for any of the legal advisers of harbour authorities to give anything in the nature of a definite opinion. The Bill has the twofold principle to which objection ought to be taken and taken very emphatically: the power of Ministerial control extended beyond legitimate limits and the power to appoint political nominees on the harbour authorities of this State.

The Minister has power to abolish these harbour authorities. As if it were not enough that he has control over their procedure, control over the audit of their accounts and control, to some extent, over the persons who will be elected and with the power to appoint: as if it were not sufficient for him to have that measure of control which is stated modestly in the explanatory memorandum to be a wide measure of control, and which I would say is a completely unjustifiable measure of control, he is taking power to abolish these harbour authorities and to run the harbour concerns of the State by commissioners. There has been the experience in recent times—it is a matter on which I am not going to comment—of the fact that, whatever the rights or the wrongs may be, the dissolution of a hospital authority caused public uneasiness. That principle is being carried into this Bill. Power is being taken to hold a local inquiry. There is power in the Bill to have that inquiry in secret under Section 156 (2), paragraph (c). Therefore, the public should realise that these local inquiries, which were operated in the case of the Cork Street Hospital, are now to be operated in the case of harbour authorities. Great public uneasiness may ensue as a result. Those inquiries may be secret, the public may never know the evidence which was given at them even through the columns of the newspapers. If the precedent of the Cork Street Board is to be followed, the report or judgment of the person who holds the inquiry will not be published. The public will only know the result, and it is certainly a widespread and well-founded belief that these local inquiries fulfil no other function than as a prelude to the abolition of the body whose affairs are being inquired into. These inquiries are not regarded by any section of the public, except those who must be regarded as only blind adherents of Government policy, as anything other than machinery whereby an excuse may be had, under cover of legal procedure, to abolish a board which has become inconvenient and no longer subservient to the policy which the Minister wishes to carry out.

Mr. Roddy

The Minister stated that harbour boards were constituted upon a non-democratic basis. I accept that statement. I suppose, according to our present ideas of democracy, one must say that harbour boards as we know them were constituted in an undemocratic manner, but I am not so sure that the method proposed by the Minister in the White Paper, or in this Bill, can be regarded as a truly democratic method either. It is perfectly true that, in the case of some of the existing boards, elections were never held. Vacancies were invariably filled by co-option or by nomination. In some cases there was a sort of right of succession. When a father died or resigned his son automatically took his place. It is now proposed that local bodies shall have representation on these new boards. In the case of Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Waterford their respective corporations will be entitled to have five members appointed on the new harbour boards. I assume that it is the intention of the Minister to link up the local authorities with harbour administration. It is advisable that local authorities should be represented because we know loans have been guaranteed by local authorities for many of these harbour boards. Already, as a matter of fact, in some cases there are representatives of local authorities on harbour boards.

With regard to appointments by chambers of commerce, I am not so happy. Many of the chambers of commerce in provincial centres are composed of the general body of citizens. They may be regarded as a promiscuous gathering of citizens, many of whom have no interest whatever in the local port. I think that the Legislature should ensure that men appointed to these boards by chambers of commerce should have some interest in the local harbour, that at all events they should be local traders who are using the harbour for the purpose of bringing in their goods by sea, or that they should have some trading interest in the development and progress of the harbour. Unless steps are taken to ensure that the right type of people will be selected by the chambers of commerce you may have men who will not have the slightest interest in the harbour or in its development. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter between now and the Committee Stage so as to ensure that under this legislation the men selected by chambers of commerce shall be men who have an interest in the development and progress of harbours.

There are two people to be elected by persons paying tonnage rates. That provision will apply to ports like Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, but it would scarcely apply to Sligo and the smaller ports mentioned in the White Paper. I understand that tonnage rates are paid only by the masters or owners of vessels. There are no ship-owners in ports like Sligo. The shipping companies have agents in Sligo and in some of the small provincial towns. According to the phrasing of the White Paper and the Bill itself, these agents would not be entitled to representation on the harbour board. In cases where tonnage rates are not paid the Minister is taking power to nominate two members. I suggest to him that a better and more democratic method would be to permit the people in the local town served by a port, who are paying goods rates, to select two men to represent their interests on the harbour board. It seems to me unfair that the Minister should reserve to himself the right to nominate these two representatives. The proper way, I suggest, would be to allow the people paying the goods rates in the local town to select the two representatives.

The Minister said that the Government had decided that the centralisation of transport was not advisable. I can assure him that the opinion prevails generally amongst harbour authorities, large and small, throughout the country that it is his intention to centralise all shipping in Dublin and Cork, and that there is no future for the smaller ports like Sligo, Killybegs, Tralee and so on. While I am glad to know that the Government have decided that there will be no centralisation I do think that is not sufficient to remove the suspicion which undoubtedly exists in the minds of many people who are interested in harbour development. I suggest to the Minister that he will want to go much further, and to state categorically that it is his intention to preserve at least the ports which were shown on the maps circulated with the report of the Harbours Tribunal as serving important areas of the country.

There were other ports also marked on the map which serve only local areas. I think the Minister should avail of the opportunity, when replying, to assure the people of the country that it is not his intention or the intention of the Government to close up the smaller ports throughout the State, that it is the intention of the Government to develop these ports by every means in their power, to their utmost capacity, and to take steps, wherever it is necessary, and it is necessary in most cases, to reorganise and modernise them, and to remove whatever handicaps and difficulties are at present experienced so that they may be used to the best advantage and in the interests of the parts of the country that they serve.

I want to assure the Minister that the impression to which I have already referred has been fostered very largely by the legislation establishing Córas Iompair Éireann and Irish Shipping Ltd. To some extent the impression has been fostered by Irish Shipping Ltd. itself. I have heard that the directors of Irish Shipping Ltd have allowed it to be understood by people interested in shipping in the country that it is their intention to utilise the port of Dublin only, and that the railways will be availed of for the distribution of goods to other parts of the country. Furthermore, the directors of Irish Shipping Ltd. have refused to send their vessels to certain ports on the western seaboard. That act of refusal in itself has helped still further to encourage the belief that centralisation was the policy of the Government. However, I am glad the Minister made the statement that he made to-day and I invite him seriously, in his own interests and for the purpose of allaying the fears of many people interested in port development, to elaborate that statement and to give the assurance that it is the intention to keep the smaller ports in existence and to help them in accordance with the provisions contained in the Bill.

I am interested, of course, primarily in Sligo harbour. As shown in the Schedule to the Bill there were four different Acts of Parliament governing and controlling the conditions appertaining to that harbour. These Acts are now being repealed by this Bill. The members of the Harbour Tribunal were satisfied that this harbour serves a very large area but that it needs State assistance to modernise its equipment and to carry out certain essential repairs to the harbour entrance. The harbour is served by three railways and, at least up to 1931-32, it catered for six or seven counties. It is hoped that, with the development which will take place in future, its trade will be resumed and that it will be able to pay its way.

In one section of the Bill it is provided that the secretary and the general manager to be placed in control of the harbours will be appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners. I wonder if that is the best machinery to utilise for the purpose of appointing these men who must possess special business qualifications in a high degree. The Local Appointments Commissioners were established for the purpose of filling vacancies in local boards and, judging by the type of commission that has been set up to deal with these matters, I would not say they are men who can claim any very special knowledge in business matters. Perhaps the Minister will go outside the ordinary selection panel and select men of outstanding business experience in the City of Dublin or even outside it. I think it would be necessary in this case even to go outside this country and to get men of experience in harbour development and harbour control in ports like Liverpool, Cardiff and other British ports. It would be advisable to get men of experience in the management of ports of that description so as to ensure that the men appointed would be able to carry out the duties expected of them. I suggest that some other form of tribunal should be established for the purpose of making these selections. The Minister should set up some type of business tribunal comprised of men of the type I have suggested. I regard these appointments as being some of the most important appointments that the Minister will have to make in all his experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is because of that that I am suggesting that he should go outside the country in order to get men with very special experience to assist him in making the appointments.

Some of the officials of the smaller harbours at all events are perturbed by the question of superannuation. I assume that in the case of harbours in connection with which a superannuation scheme already exists, if the terms of that scheme are more favourable to the officials than the new scheme that the board will have to establish under this Bill, the old members of the staff will not be compelled to accept the terms of the new scheme. I should like an assurance from the Minister on that point. Some of the officials are nearing retiring age now and feel that perhaps they would get better terms under the superannuation scheme devised by the board probably many years ago. If the harbour is not paying its way, I believe there will be no obligation on the harbour authority to devise a superannuation scheme, except with the sanction of the Minister.

I have in mind at the moment one particular harbour which perhaps is not paying its way according to the Minister's standards, in connection with which a superannuation scheme was devised many years ago. I assume that if an official of that harbour board decided to retire he would be permitted, notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill, to avail of the existing superannuation scheme, despite the fact that the Minister may not see his way to allow the board to devise a scheme because the harbour, in his opinion, is not paying its way. I would ask the Minister to give some assurance on that point when replying because, I assure him, some members of the staffs of small harbours throughout the country are rather perturbed about their future.

There is one other point I should like to mention in connection with the appointment of members of the harbour board. I want to support Deputy Cogan and Deputy O'Sullivan in their suggestion that a representative of the cattle trade should be elected to the harbour board. After all, it is the most important industry in the country. It is at least the most important industry in the west of Ireland. At one time the port of Sligo catered very extensively for the cattle trade of Sligo, Donegal, Leitrim and Mayo. I suggest to the Minister that the Bill should be amended so as to provide for special representation of the cattle trade on harbour boards.

Deputy O'Sullivan called attention to Section 39, which gives the general manager or secretary of a harbour board the absolute right to control and dismiss the staff. I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan's view. After all, the Minister should assume that the people in charge of our harbours in the future will be businessmen with business experience and with a business outlook. In these circumstances, I do not think that the general manager or the secretary, as the case may be, should have exclusive authority over the members of the staff; that the authority should be shared equally by the members of the new boards. As a matter of fact, I think that if authority is distributed in that way it will make for more efficiency and for a better and closer system of supervision. It would be quite all right to give control of that description to the manager in charge of a county council or urban authority. But here we are dealing, or we hope we are, at all events, with a business organisation, and I think it would be a mistake to introduce the same principle into a business organisation as the Minister proposes in this Bill. I suggest, therefore, that this is also a matter which the Minister should look into.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

A number of people are very glad that this Bill has at last arrived. I would like to echo what Deputy Costello said, that it is a pity that this is not a consolidation Bill. It has been represented to me that this Bill may possibly create a great deal of chaos and certainly a great deal of confusion in the future. It does look as if during the last 15 years there would have been time to draw up a Bill which would be, in effect, a consolidation Bill. Nevertheless, as it stands, I think this is a good Bill. I am referring primarily to the way it has been drawn up. It seems to me to have been excellently drawn up. Speaking personally, the only exception that I take to it is on the question of the very wide powers which the Minister has taken on himself. Of course, that seems to be the fashion nowadays. The Ministers of the various Departments are taking all sorts of powers on themselves. I wonder whether in another few years a number of them will be equally anxious to divest themselves of these powers. I think that some of us will live to see that day. However, that does not concern us at this moment. What concerns us is what the Minister will do with these powers. I do not suppose he is just going to go in and kick around the people on these boards in the way some people imagine. But he is taking those powers and I think it is dangerous to give those powers even to a Minister.

This Bill deals with a heterogeneous collection of harbours, from Dublin, which handles something like 60 per cent. of the total trade of the country, down to tiny harbours that are hardly harbours at all. I suppose that no Bill which deals with such widely varying ports and harbours could have any form or principle in it. I agree with the Minister that this Bill is mainly a Committee Stage Bill and my criticisms or suggestions will mainly come on the Committee Stage. Nevertheless, there are some to which I would like to refer now.

In connection with the membership of the new harbour authorities for class A ports and for Dublin in particular, I have had the honour to serve on the Dublin Port and Docks Board for the last few years and I think I have some small experience of that particular board. I say that 15 members will be too small a number, first of all, from the point of view of representation, secondly from the point of view of getting work done, and thirdly from the point of view of getting a quorum. The quorum is to be seven. If the membership of the board is to remain at 15, I think seven is too high a figure for a quorum. The present board has a membership of 28 and there are usually 14 or 15 members present. I have never known a meeting to fail for want of a quorum, but that might very easily happen with a board of only 15 members. These harbour boards are to function for three years and the chairman is to hold office for that period. That will place a very great strain on any man. The position of chairman of the Dublin Port and Docks Board is one of the most important and onerous jobs which exist in this country. I do not know that very many men would be prepared to undertake that very difficult task for a period of three years. However, the Dublin Port and Docks Board are going into the various sections of this Bill and their recommendations will reach the Minister in due course. I do not want to be taken as putting forward their opinions. I am putting forward my own and sometimes they may happen to coincide with those of the port authorities. I think the representation of shippers has been cut dangerously low on the class A ports and on others also. In my experience, the shipping members have a contribution to make to the activities and deliberations of the port authority which no other members are in quite the same position to make. These men spend their lives dealing with shipping matters, they know the port as a trader knows a shop or warehouse, and the port authority would be the loser if their representation were cut too low.

I am not approaching that question from the point of view of the self-interest of shipping members, which is a matter of concern to themselves; but their sitting on the board is of importance from one point of view only, that is, from that of the contribution which they make to the board. They have a peculiar and special contribution to make, which no other section of the community can give. I do not mean by that that they make a better or bigger contribution than trader members, but rather that they make a different form of contribution and one which they alone can make.

The tribunal report does not lay down very clearly the basis on which the new shipping members should be elected. Perhaps the Minister would give us some indication of the electorate, as it would have a certain bearing on the number of shippers to be elected. As the Minister is, no doubt, aware, shipping interests are divided into three classes—deep sea, coastal and cross-channel, and it does make a very great difference as to what the form of election may be.

I see that in this Bill the Minister proposes to create a port service. That is all to the good, and I believe men in smaller ports will work better when they realise they are part of a service and may finish up in a responsible and highly-paid position in one of the big ports. In Section 39 and earlier in Section 38 the Local Authorities Acts of 1926 and 1940 have been cited and a distinction is assumed to be made there between officers and servants. It has been said, with what truth I do not know, that that distinction, when applied to a harbour authority, will not work and may result in a responsible officer of the harbour authority not being able to take on or dismiss men. That is something which it would be advantageous for the Minister to examine.

Deputy Roddy referred to the elections of shipping members also. It is not very clearly laid down as to whether the principals or the agents are the people who would vote, and if that is not clarified there will be rather chaotic position.

On the question of harbour police, I do not know what the views of the big ports would be. Dublin has its harbour police, but I do not know if any other port authority has. Owing to the short time we have had to consider this Bill, I do not know the views of the board on it. Whilst I have no doubt the Civic Guards do their work very well, it seems to me that in connection with a port you have a highly specialised type of buildings and lay-out generally, and it is of some considerable advantage to have men who know that particular area very thoroughly, who have been dealing with it, who know the personnel of the ports and who is working late at night, and so on. However, that is a matter on which I am not in a position to make any comments.

As I said at the beginning, I do not propose to go very deeply into these matters now. The most valuable work on this Bill will be done on the Committee Stage and I hope the Minister will not introduce that stage until we all have had time to consider amendments.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I wish to express my welcome to this Bill and to congratulate the Minister on having had the courage to come forward, in these difficult times, in an effort to put right many things which have been wrong for a very long time in the history of our harbours. The method of election to harbour boards is well recognised as being very obsolete and confined entirely to the privileged class. For that reason, I am very glad that the Minister has taken steps to introduce this Bill and put an end to that state of affairs, so that the plain people would have some say in the administration of the harbours, which they have not had up to this.

I was particularly pleased that the Minister expressed his views regarding the Government's intention not to countenance or encourage centralisation. He might go a little further to satisfy somewhat the fears of some of the provincial harbours that there will not be a continuation of the centralisation which has prevailed particularly during the last five years, notwithstanding all the difficulties of rail transport. We in Drogheda certainly have a grievance and can prove to the Minister's satisfaction, if it be necessary, that there has been by-passing of the port of Drogheda. I would be pleased if the Minister would state the Government's views on the question of zoned services. Every harbour in this country serves a particular zone of this State and it is my contention, and the contention of the board I represent, that there should be specified zones which certain ports would cater for and they should serve those only. We have had the experience of cattle from the rich lands of Meath and Westmeath passing through the port of Drogheda, even being sent by train across it, and going to Greenore and even, in many cases, being diverted to the City of Dublin. I have the numbers of cattle shipped over the last 25 years. I will not quote them now, but when the Committee Stage is reached I hope to do so in order to convince the Minister that there is definitely by-passing of certain ports in the interests of the larger ports.

So far as the management of harbour boards is concerned, it is my opinion that many of the provincial harbour boards cannot afford the luxury of a general manager and secretary. Even if some of them can afford it, I wonder would it be a wiser policy in the long run to appoint one man to take charge of the administration of the harbour board. I find no reference whatever in the Bill to a treasurer. Some of these boards handle large amounts of money, in some cases up to £20,000 a year, and yet there is no treasurer provided for in the Bill, so that the entire administration of the harbour board will rest on one man. Apparently there is no check put on that one man and I do not think that is a desirable state of affairs in the administration of a harbour board whose revenue may run from £12,000 to £20,000 a year.

With regard to the people, who pay £10 tonnage dues, a man may be from Timbuctoo, from the other end of the earth, but the payment of £10 tonnage dues will entitle him to vote for the election of two members of the board, who may attend meetings once a year or once in two or three years. I do not think such people should be entitled to a vote for the election of members of harbour boards in any part of this State.

I cannot but reflect on Deputy Mulcahy's condemnation of the Bill. I suppose that was more or less to be expected in view of the fact that the Bill was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government. During the week-end Deputy Mulcahy was lamenting the disappearance of democracy. This evening we had him lamenting the disappearance of an autocracy, because the harbour boards of this country to-day represent an autocracy, nothing more or less. I think the Minister has given the House an assurance that he is prepared to consider on the Committee Stage any suggestions or amendments that are put forward. He has invited the views of local harbour boards. He is prepared to consider them and, in these circumstances, I do not think there can be much objection to the Bill. For my part, I welcome it.

Mr. Lydon

This is a very welcome Bill. It provides a comparatively simple and elastic method of dealing with harbour matters. It will save, I am sure, many harbours a considerable amount in Parliamentary and other costs.

There is one recommendation of the Port and Harbours Tribunal which does not appear to be covered by this Bill, namely, the making of provision for uniformity in charging tonnage rates and rates on goods. The classification of goods on a basis similar to railway classification would be a great help to traders and harbour boards. The Minister should provide himself with the power necessary to cause such a classification to be made.

The provisions regarding the constitution of the boards are already in operation in Galway and, in general, they have been very satisfactory. I am of the opinion, with reference to chambers of commerce representation, that there should be some provision to the effect that the constitution of such chambers should not contain any objectionable features. The constitution of such chambers should be approved by the Minister and the Minister should provide certain safeguards.

So far as the people of Galway are concerned, the Bill is welcome. With the exception of the rates question and the desirability of having chambers of commerce properly constituted—seeing that there are no objectionable features in their constitution—we believe the Bill to be quite satisfactory and we welcome it.

Mr. Hughes

Representing an inland constituency, I cannot claim to have any knowledge of harbour and harbour control, but, reading through the Bill, it appears to me that it bears the hallmark of State control. The Minister is figuring all over it, in every page. He is not satisfied with putting his own nominees on the board, but he proposes to take powers to dissolve any harbour authority as well. I cannot understand why it is that the Government are obsessed with this idea that our people are incapable of doing their business unless they are controlled and directed by a Minister. It is a poor compliment to the people that they have to be led all the time by one Minister or another. This Ministerial idea is very objectionable. The right man to do any business is the man who has an interest in that business, who owns or is using it. The people to direct local affairs and look after the interests of harbours are the people interested in the harbours, the people who are using them. I think there is an undue amount of State control of a particularly objectionable character.

The Minister told us that the representation he proposes in this measure is such as will make for a balance in representation. He told us also that the shipping interests are adequately represented by persons elected by those who pay tonnage rates. I do not think that is so. If you take the representation of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, the people directly concerned, the shippers and traders, have a representation of 21 out of 28. The new representation the Minister proposes to give the people using the harbour and interested in the trade passing through the harbour is six out of 15. I do not think that is fair representation to the people using the harbour facilities, people who may be looked upon as experts, people whose knowledge and ability to direct affairs qualify them in a special way for harbour control.

That is certainly an objection which I see to the representation the Minister proposes. It may have the effect the Minister is anxious to secure: that local authorities will take a keener interest in the efficient operation of harbours. The Minister commented on the fact that that interest did not show itself in the past, but whether this measure will stimulate it is another matter. One thing, at all events, is very obvious: if there is a clash as between the representatives of a local authority and trade interests, his representatives will hold the balance of power and will dominate the position, so that both directly, so far as the Minister's control is concerned, and indirectly, this is a centralising measure.

Deputy Walsh complains of the by-passing of certain ports, but if Deputy Walsh sits down. and examines the proposals, I suggest that he will be forced to the conclusion that by-passing is inevitable if it suits two big interests recently created in this country, Irish Shipping, Limited, and Córas Iompair Eireann. If it suits those interests to by-pass Drogheda, Drogheda will be by-passed, and let the Deputy make no mistake about it. Deputy Walsh tried to be critical in a mealymouthed way. Surely he ought to have the courage of his convictions and criticise the Bill if he thinks it should be criticised. He took exception to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition criticised the Bill and then went on to say that he did not approve of its provisions from the point of view of representation.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

He asked the Minister to guard against it, as the Deputy would have heard, if he had been listening.

Mr. Hughes

The Deputy was not sure that some of the ports would be financially able to bear the burden of a secretary-manager. What I am particularly concerned with is this: as a farmer, I do not see why the Minister should remove the representation which exists from the point of view of the most important trade we have. If the Minister will glance through the report of the Post-War Agricultural Planning Committee and observe the importance it attaches to the live-stock interest, my case might be strengthened in asking him to reconsider that aspect. So far as port facilities are concerned, the people best able to decide what sort, of facilities are necessary for the handling of live stock—facilities for loading, for veterinary inspection and so on—are the people who devote their whole lives to the industry. It appears an extraordinary state of affairs that we should introduce a measure which gives representation to an individual simply because he is a member of a local authority but who may have no particular interest whatever in the live-stock industry, and gives him power to control affairs at a port.

The national executive of the Irish live-stock trade represents six affiliated associations. It has always been consulted by the Minister for Agriculture on matters affecting its interests. Transport of live stock is a very vital matter, as the Minister rightly said in introducing this measure and as he has stressed in the past. Efficient transport is a very important consideration, and the people who ought to direct and control transport facilities, so far as the live-stock trade is concerned, are the people who may be looked on as experts, and to pass over a national organisation such as the live-stock organisation, with its knowledge of the problems of the trade, and to put on individuals merely because they are elected by popular vote, is so much humbug and is not a businesslike approach to the matter.

Surely the Minister ought to be impressed by the consideration that if we hope not merely to preserve but to expand our existing trade in live stock, we must ensure that the interests of the industry in the matter of the transport of live stock are controlled by people whom we can trust and who have the knowledge and capacity to act in the best interests of the industry. It would be a very bad day's work if we neglected to provide representation for such a major interest, and merely trusted to its being looked after by people who may not be competent to look after it at all.

Exception has been taken to the provision in Section 39. It might be the wisest course to leave it to the manager to dismiss and to engage servants because there might be abuses if it were left to the port authority itself. It is really a small matter, but I object to it as being a further step towards the all-powerful State, towards vesting another power in Government, and as suggesting that the Government does not trust, or feel any confidence in, the capacity of our people to look after and direct their own affairs without Ministerial intervention. I think it is the worst aspect of the measure and it is typical of the policy pursued in recent years that every new statute we are asked to pass embodies further State control in some shape or form. I again ask the Minister to reconsider the matter of representation in relation to the live-stock industry.

Mr. Anthony

I agree to some extent with the Minister in his statement that this measure is almost non-controversial, but there are a few features of the Bill with which we in Cork find fault. The Bill sets out that for the Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford boards there will be appointed by the corporation five members, by chambers of commerce four members, and elected by persons paying tonnage rates of £20 or over two members, and nominated by the Miniter, four members, one of whom will be representative of Labour interests. I think we shall join issue with the Minister in relation to the personnel and the numbers in the new harbour boards proposed to be established. When the case is fully presented to the Minister, when we have at our disposal about next week some facts to put before him, I am sure the Minister will agree to giving further representation to the various interests.

Personally, I do not like the provision which prescribes that four persons, one of whom is to be representative of Labour interests, shall be nominated by the Minister, and the Minister may see his way to reduce that number to two, one of whom will represent Labour and the other his own views, because it is only human nature that, when nominating four persons, he will nominate persons who, he thinks, will fairly represent his own views on matters which might come before these harbour boards. Personally, I do not feel that there is any necessity for this measure at all in so far as it relates to Cork. I know something of what is happening in Dublin from reading the Press, but I have been intimately associated with Cork Harbour Commissioners over a long period of years and can claim to know something of the working of that body. The Minister, in the course of his statement to-day, suggested that there was inefficiency here and there and that other faults might be found with the working of various harbour authorities. I challenge the Minister to show that in any act of theirs the Cork Harbour Commissioners, over a long period of years, have ever done anything that would deserve the censure of his Department. They have carefully husbanded their resources, they have improved the harbour facilities and have spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds on dredging to make the approaches to the quays of Cork navigable by some of the largest steamers afloat. That, surely, is something worthy of consideration by the Minister, and I believe will be found to be so when we place fuller information at his disposal. All that would be an argument, I submit, for not being quite so drastic in so far as the Bill relates to the Minister's control over these bodies. The Minister was rather annoyed at the suggestion that he said the commissioners would work and co-operate with the manager, since as Minister he would have less to say in the whole matter. We know there is a rather familiar ring about that and the kind of promises we heard in connection with city management, which by the way, I favour. So far as it relates to Cork it is all right, but in the case of the City Management Act fault will be found with it here and there. We cannot expect human institutions to be perfect. I am not suggesting that we in Cork are perfect, although everybody believes that we are. I have the feeling that when the Minister examines the position fully, and has regard to the very important interests represented in the Cork Harbour Commissioners over a long period of years, he will reconsider the proposals in the Bill. I think that he is amenable to reason. I found him very amenable whenever a good case was presented to him.

On the Committee Stage we can go into details. It is my intention to put down some amendments to the Bill. The cattle trade, for example, has been represented by three members. Perhaps the Minister will be prepared to say that two members would suffice, although it is a very important interest. The Minister is aware, of course, that a very large number of cattle leave the country through the port of Cork. He can get information on that from his advisers and from those responsible for the publication of the quarterly journal. The information contained in it will disclose the fact that Cork is one of the greatest shipping centres for the export of Irish cattle to cross-Channel centres. That trade, of course, would certainly demand representation on the Cork Harbour Board and on the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The Minister may reply that it is up to the Cork Corporation, who have been so long returning four or five members to the Cork Harbour Board, to look after that. The Minister's proposal in the Bill is that five members should be appointed to the Cork Harbour Board by the Cork Corporation. He may reply that it is up to the corporation to appoint five of the persons in the categories I suggest. I do not think that is clear enough in the Bill. So far the corporation have had the appointment of a number of members to the Cork Harbour Board. Frequently there was no election because the number presented was equal to the number of vacancies.

If, however, the number presented was more than the number of vacancies, then there had to be an election. The Chamber of Commerce may have submitted only five nominations, or whatever the number happened to be at the time. The position was that the Cork Corporation voted on the nominations submitted. On the Committee Stage I am going to suggest to the Minister that the numbers be altered to suit local circumstances and the traditions attached to the Cork board. So far we have given representation to every interest concerned. The dues payers are represented on the harbour board. You have also on it representatives of the cattle trade and the Chamber of Commerce. Labour is represented by two or three persons. Therefore, I suggest that the numbers should not be drastically reduced. A slight reduction might be justifiable, although I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong in having more than the number I have mentioned. What I fear is that if the Minister insists on the representation as set out in the Bill it may have a very adverse effect on the port of Cork. Over a long period a number of people have given their services voluntarily on the Cork Harbour Board. They have given their time, sometimes extending to four hours a week. We know, of course, that there was very little shipping during the emergency period, and that as a result the revenues of the Cork board were drastically cut down. The Minister is fully aware of that because he knows in what circumstances we met him some time ago in our efforts to maintain the harbour as it should be maintained, as well as the south and north channel.

We can go into these matters in more detail on the Committee Stage. I have always had the feeling since I became a member of the House that if we meet a Minister in confidence we may come to some arrangement. I do not want to use the word "compromise". I do not want to compromise myself with the Minister or any members of his Party. I suggest it would be a good thing if we could meet to discuss the question of the numbers, and if the Minister would try to meet the views that have been expressed. I was not able to get to the meeting of the Cork board on Monday, but I was at the previous meeting. The members had not the time to study the Bill, and the most they could do was to give it a cursory glance. I propose to take up with the Minister on the Committee Stage the matters I have referred to.

Mr. O'Donnell

As one who represents an inland district I, like Deputy Cogan and Deputy Hughes, have a certain amount of interest in this Bill. Waterford harbour serves the particular area that I represent. Most of the cattle produced there are exported through that port. A member of the House told me this evening that he passed through a town in my constituency where a fair was held to-day. It is no exaggeration to say that at least 1,000 of the cattle sold there will leave the country through the port of Waterford. Seven-eights of the cattle exported from the districts of Cahir, Clonmel, Fethard, Clogheen, Ballyporeen and other areas are exported through the port of Waterford. The Suir is still navigable as far as Carrick-on-Suir, which is about 30 statute miles from Waterford, and up to Clonmel. There used to be a lot of traffic carried on that river and it may develop again. In the old days the boats were pulled by horses. A boat drawn by, say, two horses carried a cargo of 30, 40 or 50 tons. If it were feasible to put motor or steam launches on that river it might be possible to develop traffic on it and thus save the roadways. I am not suggesting that cattle should be conveyed by boat. If they were that might interfere with the railways. In the old days a good deal of coal was carried on the river up to Clonmel and a good deal of wheat, too. John Mitchel has written of what happened during the famine times when there was enough wheat exported from Clonmel to support two and a half times the population of those days. The railways came in 1854 with the result that most of the traffic from Clonmel and Carrick was diverted to them. There is the possibility that, if you had steam-propelled or motor launches, a lot of the traffic now going by road or rail would be carried on the river. There is one thing in favour of that, and it is that the rivers will not want any repair. The carrying of traffic on the roads is a pretty expensive business for the ratepayers. There is a big export trade from the towns of Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir, and I would suggest to the Minister that both these important towns should get representation under this measure. The river serves both, and there is great possibility of developing traffic on it in the case of both towns.

Of course, the railways are faster in bringing foodstuffs, among other things, to and from Waterford. There is great possibility of development. I would ask the Minister to consider the question of giving representation to the Clonmel Chamber of Commerce and the Carrick-on-Suir Chamber of Commerce to represent the views of possibly the greatest agricultural centre of Ireland, South Tipperary.

Mr. Lemass

When introducing this Bill I stated that the Government had considered the advisability of adopting a policy of concentrating harbour facilities in a few large ports and allowing the smaller harbours to fall into disuse and had decided against it. Deputy Mulcahy intimated that he did not accept my assertion in that connection having regard to the provisions of the Bill. Other Deputies followed suit, casting doubt upon the accuracy of my statement of Government policy and referring either to the provisions of the Bill or to what they assume to be the policy of Irish Shipping, Limited, or of Córas Iompair Eireann as proof of some intention not expressed here in print to effect such concentration of harbour facilities or, at any rate, to work to the deteriment of the smaller harbours.

I do not know what I can do to convince the Dáil that Government policy is as I have stated it to be. We could have provided in this Bill for the concentration of harbour facilities in the larger ports; we could have provided for the elimination of the powers of the harbour authorities in a number of the smaller harbours and if we had thought that good policy that is what we would have done. There is no need in a matter of this kind to carry out some secret policy by hidden methods. If we thought it good policy to effect that concentration of harbour facilities, we would have proposed legislation designed to achieve it. We decided against it and we are proposing legislation designed to give effect to the alternative policy.

This Bill contains provisions for the establishment of harbour authorities for each of the 25 harbours named in it and these 25 harbours include all the harbours as to the position of which the Government was concerned in 1926 and which were mentioned in the terms of reference to the Ports and Harbours Tribunal, plus one additional one— Bunerana. We are proposing to set up these harbour authorities on a similar basis for all harbours, to give them all the same powers to regulate traffic in their harbours, to develop the facilities of their harbours, to effect such improvements as they consider practicable. We have told them that we will do in future what we have never done before and that is, make available State financial help for the development of these harbours in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions.

Is not the enactment of these provisions and the offer of financial help proof that the Government has in fact decided upon a policy of maintaining these harbour facilities? Let me be clear, however, in this respect. The Government can establish harbour authorities and these harbour authorities can develop harbour facilities with or without Government aid but neither the Government nor the harbour authorities can compel traders to have their goods consigned through these harbours unless they regard it as being in their advantage to do so and they will not regard it as in their advantage unless the facilities are such as to permit of a quick discharge or a quick loading of goods, unless the rates are reasonable, unless there are attractions to traders as traders to use the facilities available at one harbour instead of the facilities available at another.

Small fishing piers have grown up into great ports and great ports have diminished into small shipping villages because of changes in the requirements of trade or changes in the facilities which trade and commerce expect to get from harbour authorities. I have not the slightest doubt that many of the harbours which are mentioned in this Bill will in course of time cease to be as important as we now regard them and will in due course tend to fall out of the class in which a harbour authority constituted as we propose will be required. They may eventually be transferred to county councils, to be administered as other county council harbours are administered. On the other hand, there are at present county council harbours which will increase in importance and reach a stage of development when they can be promoted into the class of harbour to which this Bill relates—a harbour that requires a separate harbour authority with the powers this Bill gives it.

Deputy Hughes said that this Bill is undesirable because it establishes the authority of the State in relation to harbours. If he has begun to understand what the Bill is about, that is precisely what we are aiming to do; that is precisely what the tribunal recommended as necessary in relation to the development of harbour facilities in this country. One would think that the tribunal had Deputy Hughes in mind—certainly they had somebody like him in mind—when they wrote their recommendations:—

"We have thought it necessary to emphasise the primary importance to the country of these ports for we have found that there is no adequate realisation of this, not even amongst traders whose business is closely connected with questions of sea transport, and it is precisely because of this lack of appreciation of the key position held by the ports in the economic scheme that the condition of statutory confusion and of administrative divergence disclosed in our reports on the individual harbours has been allowed to develop to a point at which it constitutes a real hindrance to trade and especially to our trade in agricultural exports."

You can have it one way or the other. You can have a number of independent authorities acting independently, established under separate enactments, with separate powers, developing as local interests appear to require and with no central authority responsible for co-ordinating their activities or developing a general harbour policy. If, as the tribunal recommended, and as any independent survey of the national position would appear to indicate to be necessary, we decide to set up some authority that can have the power to develop a general national policy for port development, what is that authority to be?

The tribunal says the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Has the Deputy a better suggestion to make than that? If the Minister for Industry and Commerce is to have that responsibility for framing and carrying into effect a national policy of port development, if the harbour authorities are to be established upon a uniform basis, with a uniform civil service in their employ, with common legal powers, and in a situation where the experience of one harbour can be used in the development of another, you must have some provisions as this Bill contains. That is what we are proposing; that is the policy of the Bill. If the Deputy does not agree with that policy, he can oppose the Bill. But do not oppose the Bill on two divergent grounds; do not oppose because it provides for State supervision of the activities of harbour authorities and, at the same time, blame the State because harbour facilities are unsuitable for the cattle trade or any other particular economic interest.

Again, may I quote the report:—

"Harbour boards, though they dispose of public money and operate public undertakings, are in many respects subject to no State control, and there is no appeal from their decisions other than whatever the law may provide in particular cases —and real grievances may exist for which there is no legal remedy. We think that in the case of public bodies governed by a uniform code of law, such as we recommend for harbour authorities, there should be provision for inquiry by the central governmental authority into matters affecting administration, and that there should be power of remedy. We recommend, therefore, that the Department of Industry and Commerce should be given the general oversight of harbour administration and should be placed, as regards harbours, in much the same position as the Department of Local Government and Public Health occupies in relation to local authorities".

That is another ground upon which this State control is provided for. At the present time, there are harbour authorities responsible to nobody and there are, in many parts of the country, real grievances possessed by traders which there is no power to remedy. There are allegations that in some harbours individual traders get special preferential treatment over others; that harbour property is leased to some traders and not made available to others; that there is discrimination between commercial interests by some of these uncontrollable harbour authorities. I did not make that allegation in reference to Cork, as Deputy Anthony appeared to assume. I am not saying that Cork Harbour has not been efficiently administered. I think the Cork Harbour Board is an efficient body. Perhaps their efficiency is due to the fact that they have a general manager with powers analogous to those which it is proposed should be given to general managers in the major harbours under this Bill. But, whether or not the situation in Cork is so satisfactory that no legislation is required, whether or not the position in Dublin is such that no legislation is called for, having regard to the circumstances of all the harbours in the country and recognising that in some cases there are abuses which should be remedied, it is desirable, in any event, that they should be all put on a uniform basis with similar constitutions, similar powers, similar authority, and be subject to similar control.

That is where we make the case for this control, because that is what the Bill is aiming to do, to get rid of a position which is chaotic, which is unregulated, which has developed by chance, and which is detrimental to the country's economic development, and to substitute for it another system which provides for State supervision of these harbour authorities, which provides for the power to investigate their activities and to regulate any abuses which may develop. At the same time, it gives these authorities ample legal power to effect the development which is possible and which trading interests are looking for. That is the policy. If the Deputy does not like State control, if he does not want uniformity of legal authority, then he can oppose this Bill. He should oppose the Bill on Second Reading if that is his view, because that is the principle of it and all the sections of the Bill are merely provisions designed to make that principle effective. These are the two main recommendations of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal which we have accepted: that there should be this codification of the law, this uniformity of powers of harbour authorities and, in addition, giving to the Minister for Industry and Commerce the authority and the power and the obligation to supervise the administration of these harbour authorities.

It is objected that the Bill does not, in fact, provide for codification because of the provision in one section that the provisions of the existing Acts remain in force, except to the extent that they are contrary to the provisions which we propose to enact. That is true. But, having regard to the multitude of these Acts and statutory Orders, it was considered that it was undesirable to effect a complete codification to the extent of repealing all these existing Acts at this stage. That might create a situation in which some minor question might occasion the need for further legislation and, therefore, we have proceeded on the basis of preserving these existing Acts to the extent that they are not repugnant to this Bill, giving the Minister certain power of adaptation should the need for it arise and with the intention of coming forward at a later stage with a comparatively small Bill designed to give effect to any amendment that experience may show to be necessary and, at the same time, to repeal all these earlier Acts and to complete the process of codification.

Most of the matters to which Deputies referred in the course of the debate are matters which I would prefer to deal with during the discussions in Committee. The question of the size of the boards, the representation of special interests, on the boards, and all the rest, can be discussed. Deputy Hughes, however, stated that we were taking away from the live-stock trade representation which they now have on these particular harbour boards. That is not correct. The live-stock trade has no right to representation on any harbour board at present. In the case of Cork Harbour, the Cork Corporation, which has the right to nominate a certain number of members on the harbour authority, nominates certain representatives of the live-stock trade.

Mr. Hughes

They have representation there.

Mr. Lemass

They have no statutory right to it. The Cork Corporation could withdraw the representation to-morrow. Whether we should give representation to the live-stock trade or not is a question we can discuss in Committee.

Mr. O'Donnell

They are the biggest customers.

Mr. Lemass

This Bill provides that the members of harbour authorities will be nominated by the local authority, by the chamber of commerce and by the Minister and if between them they cannot give representation to all the interests which should be represented, then there will be need to reconsider the position. I think they can do it. That is the way the live-stock trade got representation in Cork—by the nomination of the Cork Corporation. That is the way traders' interests got representation on other harbour authorities existing at the moment. In the case of Galway where, under a special Act, the Minister does nominate certain members to the harbour board, the position has arisen that certain persons who most certainly should be on the harbour board would not be on it if the Minister had not the power of nomination. There is, I think, need to ensure by Ministerial nomination that all the interests that should be represented and that might not secure representation from local authorities should nevertheless have representation on a harbour board. However, these are matters of detail and do not affect the principle of the measure.

The fact of the matter is that, if we want to give representation to one particular interest, we will have to give it to a number, and the obligation to give that representation to special interests that are concerned with the trade in particular ports does not rest upon us alone. It surely is shared by the local authority for the area and by the chamber of commerce for the area. Of these 25 ports, there is quite a majority in which there is no cattle trade. If we want to have a uniform system of administration—and it is necessary to ensure that—it is impossible to provide in the Bill for the special representation of the cattle trade, just because they have a particular interest in some ports.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Minister move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Lemass

Mr. Anthony

Is there any reason why we should not sit in the first two weeks of December—even on Christmas Eve?

Mr. Lemass

I have no intention of sitting on Christmas Eve to take the Committee Stage. I suggest that the Committee Stage be ordered for this day fortnight or three weeks. The date for the reassembling after the Christmas recess has not been decided, so I cannot give a date otherwise.

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken not earlier than 19th December.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 28 Nov 1945

Harbours Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Mr. Burke

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 1945