During the debate in Committee, it was agreed that the Bill should be recommitted on this Stage in respect of Section 7. A difficulty arises in that connection, inasmuch as many of the amendments which are being proposed to Section 7 involve consequential amendments to other sections. I am still anxious to fulfil my undertaking but I think that, for practical purposes, it would be more desirable to have the discussion of those amendments on Section 7.
Harbours Bill, 1945—Report Stage.
Perhaps the House will agree to take up consideration of amendments to Section 7 now.
Agreed.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider Section 7.
The first amendment to Section 7 is amendment No. 5, in the name of Deputy Corry. Deputy Corry is not present.
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to move the amendment which has been put down by Deputy Corry.
Has the Deputy permission from Deputy Corry to do so?
I have not got the Deputy's permission.
Then, the Deputy may not move the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
As regards amendment No. 7, I am satisfied that the point is met by the Minister's earlier amendment.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
That will govern amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18.
I move amendment No. 8:—
8. In page 10, Section 7 (1), to delete paragraph (c), lines 58 to 62, and substitute the following paragraph:—
(c) two members (in this Act referred to as livestock members) appointed—
(i) in case one organisation is specified in the Order for the time being in force under sub-section (3) of this section, by the organisation so specified,
(ii) in case two organisations are specified in the Order for the time being in force under sub-section (3) of this section, as to one of such members by the first organisation so specified and as to the other of such members by the second organisation so specified;.
It will be recollected that Deputy Hughes on the Committee Stage felt that it was undesirable that these live-stock members should be described as cattle-trader members and one of the changes proposed in this amendment is a change of title for these members. The other change is somewhat different. The Minister for Agriculture feels that it is undesirable to have a statutory obligation that only one organisation of this kind should be given the right to nominate members of harbour boards. While it is undoubtedly correct that the national executive of the live-stock trade might be regarded as representing the biggest section of the live-stock trade, circumstances may arise in respect of the major harbours, or any one of them, where another organisation, say representatives of pig exporters, might have a prior interest in the harbour development and in such circumstances it is considered that there should be power to nominate by two live-stock organisations, each of which will have the right to nominate a member. That is the change which is proposed in this amendment.
I agree with the amendment. You might have an organisation nominating for Cork which would be different from that nominating for Dublin.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
9. In page 11, Section 7 (1), to insert before paragraph (e), line 1, the following new paragraph:—
(e) two members (in this Act referred to as labour members) appointed by the organisation specified in the Order for the time being in force under sub-section (4) of this section in respect of the harbour authority;.
This is the amendment to which Deputy O'Sullivan referred. I propose that this right to nominate members to the harbour boards concerned should be given to labour organisations to be designated.
Mr. O'Sullivan
That meets my point.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 11, Section 7 (1), paragraph (e), line 1, to delete the word "two" and substitute the word "four".
In the Bill, as originally framed, the size of the harbour boards for the four major harbours was 15 members and it was proposed that, of the 15, two should be elected by qualified electors to represent shipping interests. As a result of the amendments which have been adopted in Committee, and of amendments which are being proposed here to-day, the size of the boards will be increased, and I feel, having regard to the larger boards, that it is desirable that the number of elected members should also be increased. I am proposing, therefore, that the number of representatives of shipping interests shall be increased on the major harbour boards from two to four.
Is there any indication that the shipping interests wanted this larger representation?
They have made representations for larger numbers.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 11, Section 7 (3), lines 40 and 41, to delete the words "of cattle traders shall appoint the cattle trader" and substitute the words "or two specified organisations of livestock traders shall appoint the livestock".
This is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 11, before Section 7 (4), line 42, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(4) The Minister may from time to time by Order (which he may at any time by Order revoke or amend) made in respect of a harbour authority mentioned in the first column of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act declare that a specified organisation representative of labour interests shall appoint the labour members of such harbour authority.
This is consequential also.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 12, Section 7 (8), line 61, to insert before the word "shall" the words "mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act".
This is also consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
As I have not been permitted to move the amendments standing in the name of another Deputy, I should like to say on the section that in the constitution of the harbour board every interest is represented except the agricultural community—the people who purchase most of the stuff coming through the ports, who have to pay freights and charges of that kind and who, therefore, should have some voice in saying what these charges should be. They are also the people who produce the live stock which is exported from these ports, who contribute practically the entire revenue of the harbour board and yet they are given no representation. Every other interest seems to have got representation whether it is a secondary interest or a primary interest. I am not concerned with the question whether the county council should represent the people for whom I speak. Personally I have no desire to be a member of this board. I think some Deputy last week here suggested that they had no right to be on the board as they did not subscribe to taxation. I say that that is entirely wrong as they provide almost the entire revenue of the port in the case of Cork, both from what is imported and what is exported. I think it is essential that these people should have representation through some body on the board. I am not concerned, as I say, whether that representation should come through the county council or through the county committee of agriculture, but these people should have representation through some body.
I do not think there is any case to be made on these grounds. It is proposed, of course, in accordance with the recommendations of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal to constitute the harbour authorities for the four major harbours on a similar basis and it is not contemplated that there should be any county council representative on the harbour boards for any of these ports nor do I see the need for such representative. It is, of course, completely fallacious to talk about producers of live stock and of agricultural produce having a direct interest in the facilities available at ports and harbours. These facilities are the concern of those who trade in these commodities or who are involved in their shipment or in their importation.
Do these sections not merely act as agents for the primary producer?
Not at all. In so far as there is a direct interest to be represented, I think we have met that position by providing for the direct nomination to these harbour authorities of representatives of the live-stock trade.
They are only acting as agents.
They are the people concerned with the shipping facilities in the harbour.
They are acting only as agents for the producers of live stock, to find a market for them.
Nonsense. I am sure there are other Deputies who know as much about the circumstances in which the live-stock trade is carried on as the Deputy and they will admit, I think, that 99 per cent. of the live-stock produced here are sold by the producer at the local market or fair. After that stage the producer has no interest as to their ultimate destination—whether they are slaughtered for home consumption, exported for consumption abroad or whether the purchaser passes them into a circus. The only question in which the purchaser is concerned is whether there is available at the ports the necessary lairages which he requires, whether the management of the port is efficient and whether his business of trading in live stock is facilitated by the harbour authorities. The same applies to every commodity whether agricultural or industrial. The merchandising business that is involved is a concern of the harbour boards and ample provision is made in the constitution of the harbour boards to ensure that these trading interests are fully represented on the harbour authorities. I do not think that there is any case whatever for giving representation upon these harbour authorities to the county councils for the adjoining counties. No doubt, that position did exist in Cork previously but I am sure that Cork wants to get out of the position of being a second-class port and develop to the status of a first-class port, the same as Dublin and the same as it is proposed that Limerick and Waterford will be. In the case of those smaller harbours, the harbour revenue is not always likely to be sufficient to defray the cost of harbour improvements. In such cases is is not unusual for the harbour authorities to go to the county council for financial help. Where the county council undertakes to give such financial help provision is made in this Bill to secure for the county council representation upon the harbour board concerned. That circumstance is not likely to arise in Cork, I understand, but if it did arise and if the Cork Harbour authority required financial help from the Cork County Council, then arrangements could be made to give the Cork County Council representation on the harbour board. Otherwise, I do not think that it is desirable that the county council should have that right to representation. It is, certainly, not proposed to give the Dublin County Council any representation on the Dublin Harbour Board or the Limerick County Council representation on the Limerick Harbour Board, or the Waterford County Council representation on the Waterford Harbour Board. In each of those cases, the board will be constituted as proposed in the Bill. Unless there is a very special reason why Cork County Council should be given representation on Cork Harbour Board, I should be disposed to resist that claim. I do not think that there is any reason why they should have such representation.
I have suggested three ways out of this difficulty for the Minister, in so far as Cork County is concerned. One is the reduction of the representation given to the Cork Corporation, the second is the reduction of the representation given to the Cork Chamber of Commerce and the third is the addition to the number of the representatives of the Cork Harbour Board of two additional members, representing agriculture. The difference between Cork and Dublin is that Cork Harbour is actually Cobh Harbour, lying some nine miles outside Cork. Since this Bill was discussed on the Committee Stage I went to the trouble to make some investigations. I found that 80 per cent. of the members of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers in Cork are also members of the chamber of commerce. Some 60 per cent of those paying dues and also entitled to representation are also members of the chamber of commerce. Therefore, the chamber of commerce is getting eight representatives on the new harbour board, that is, two from the federation, two from the due-paying body and four from the two chambers of commerce themselves.
Surely the producers, as represented by the elected representatives of the county council, and the consumers, as also represented by the elected representatives of the county council, are entitled to some representation? Why did the county council, as an independent body, get representation on Cork Harbour Board before? Is this going to be a new body, in which we are not going to have any interest? I have something like 12 years' experience on the Cork Harbour Board and can see what has been happening there for a long period. Outside of the interests of the city itself, the harbour board is not concerned with the general interests of the harbour. When any proposal is brought up in connection with Cobh Harbour, it is immediately put on the long finger, or some committee is appointed, which will report ten years afterwards, and that gets rid of it. Any proposal in regard to the extension of the deep water quays in Cobh or anything that would serve the rural community is put off.
The Minister is now fixing up a harbour board for Cork of 19 members, 18 of whom are to be from the city, and one urban representative from the town of Cobh. That is to be the full representation. How much does he expect the Federation of Irish Manufacturers in Cork to export out of Cork for the next ten years, as compared with the exports of the rural community? The total exports of the rural community are to be catered for by two gentlemen from the live-stock industry. They are not concerned with the export of bacon, eggs, fowl or anything of that description. If we find, as we frequently do, that we have to make representations to the Department of Industry and Commerce, in connection with the manner in which boats are supplied for our services—for instance, for removing that for which we have a big trade in Cork, early potatoes for the export market—to whom are we to go, or what particular interests will represent that side of the farmers' trade in Cork in the future? We have to pay for this and I consider that the least the rural community in Cork is entitled to is two representatives on the harbour board.
I do not wish to delay the time of the House, and I regret I was not here to move my amendment. The Minister has given the traders of Cork three doors into the harbour board—one door wide open from the federation, another from the due-paying body and another from the two chambers of commerce—and I am giving him three doors out. There is no representatives of the consumers; no representatives of the consumers; and no representative of the producers in the county. I appeal to the Minister to consider amendment No. 11, if he does not wish to hurt any of the other interests concerned, that is, if he does not wish to reduce the representation of the chamber of commerce or the corporation, he has an easy way out. I suggest that the Minister has an easy way out there in No. 11. I think it is only fair that this should be done, and I hold that it is really only a small thing so far as this matter is concerned. With regard to the question of Cork deteriorating from a first-class port, I can tell the Minister that any question of the deterioration of Cork from a first-class port is due to the fact that the suggestions put up by county council members on the harbour board were not carried out. I say to the Minister that whatever danger may exist of Cork deteriorating into a second-class port lies in what he suggests now: that outside Blackrock Bend there is to be no representation. It takes a considerable amount of money each year to dredge the river from Blackrock Bend to Parnell Bridge, and the people have to pay that cost in extra dues for the upkeep of the harbour. For instance, when it was suggested to the harbour board some years ago, when Rushbrooke Dockyard was being sold for scrap, that the dockyard should be acquired for the benefit of the port, that was defeated by the gentlemen who could not see below Blackrock Bend. Now, however, the Minister contemplates shutting out from representation on Cork Harbour Board any interest outside Cork City trading interests, and he is giving representation to these trading interests only on the harbour board. The Minister may think that he can do that, but I warn him here and now that if that is his object, it is an object that will definitely militate against Cork continuing as a first-class port in the future.
I have had 20 years' experience of the Cork Harbour Board, and I have found that these people have no interest whatever in the expenditure of any money on the harbour unless there is something to be got out of it for the citizens of Cork City; but the rural community have to provide whatever it costs to keep up the harbour board. Whatever port dues there may be, these people have to pay the cost, and the producers, accordingly, should have representation. I do not think that the Minister will argue here for a moment that Cork Harbour is going to serve the producers and consumers of Cork City alone. It is definitely going to serve the needs of Cork County. Everything that the people of Cork County require, which has to be imported, will generally come in through Cork Harbour, just as everything that the people of Cork County wish to export will definitely have to go out through Cork Harbour. Therefore, the rural community have a very definite interest in seeing to the proper working of the Cork Harbour Commissioners—a very definite financial interest—and they are now going to be deprived, for the first time, of representation on that body. As I have said, I wish to make a last appeal to the Minister on this matter. I do not wish to see the port of Cork deteriorating, but, from my own personal experience there, I can say that it definitely will deteriorate if it is going to be left to depend solely on the interests of the people of Cork City. I make no bones about that. I speak from experience—from bitter and long experience—of what I have seen happening there. The Minister can please himself, of course, but I would make a last appeal to him not to turn down the suggestion that the producers and consumers in Cork County, through their elected representatives, should be given representation on the Cork Harbour Board.
While I agree with some of what the Minister has said, I entirely disagree with what he says about the purchase of stock coming in here or going out from here. Is he not quite aware that the value of that stock depends, first, on its efficient handling, the freight charges that will have to be borne, and so on? Whoever is the purchaser takes the net value and whatever profit there is, and, accordingly, the agricultural community throughout the country are very vitally interested in the efficiency of their harbours, and very vitally interested in seeing that there should be reasonable charges and proper facilities for delivery. It is fundamentally their right to see to that, as it is a matter that is of very definite importance so far as the value of their cattle and other produce is concerned. I have already said that I am not particularly interested whether you give representation to the Dublin County Council, the Waterford County Council, and so on. Where I come into direct conflict with the Minister is where he says that the producer has no other interest in his stock once that stock has been purchased from him. I have pointed out that other things happen subsequently, such as the handling of the stock, the freights to be charged, and so on, and that all these things have a decided bearing on what is required internally. In that way, I think that the agricultural producer has a more vital interest in this matter than any other section of the community. If these people are contributors to the cost by direct taxation, then they should be given direct representation. Painful experience in this country has shown that the biggest revenue can be derived by indirect rather than by direct taxation, and I think that in no case is that of such vital importance as in the case of our harbour boards. So far as direct taxation is concerned, nobody can realise the value of Cobh Harbour, not alone to Cork City and County, but to all Munster. At the recent interview I stated that no matter what expense was involved in keeping up that harbour and making it what it ought to be, the corporation were prepared to give, through the county council, any sum that was necessary: they have not put any bar against it. If I have not convinced the Minister, on all these grounds, of the vital necessity for this, I am afraid that I shall have to ask for the opinion of the House on the matter.
I have already expressed the view that the representation here is loaded, in view of that section. I hold that our predominant industry here is agriculture, and that the Minister should aim at getting representation on the harbour boards for that industry, so as to ensure the efficient handling of goods, and particularly agricultural goods. If the Minister looks at the volume of trade in this country, I think he will find that the goods which dominate that trade consist of agricultural products and the raw materials for them. The representation that is given here and the source from which it is drawn is not representative of the trade passing through the port. If we have to sell our exports against keen competition from other countries, transport and transport facilities are an essential matter and a primary consideration so far as the element of competition is concerned. With the Deputies who have already spoken in the matter, I feel that the representation in that respect is not adequate. I think something can be said, too, for the point of view expressed by Deputy Corry, that representatives from commercial interests may not give the attention to goods produced from the rural districts that they deserve, and I think the Minister should reconsider the matter.
It is quite true that the efficiency of our transport service affects every commercial interest in the country. But it affects other classes as well, and the producers of live stock and other agricultural produce for export are in no different position in that regard from any person engaged in a commercial occupation here. What Deputy Corry and Deputy Broderick suggested is that, because of the interest of producers in the efficiency of this particular transport service, they should be given special representation upon the directing board. I am sure they will admit that the interest of producers is at least one stage removed from the management of these boards and that in between the management of the boards and the producers there are the commercial interests concerned with the shipment, either outward or inward, of goods. It is these commercial interests that are primarily concerned with the adequacy of the harbour facilities and the efficiency of the harbour management, and there is obviously no conflict between their interests as commercial agents and the interests of the producers, as described by Deputy Broderick. I think it is a complete fallacy to argue that, because there may be a trade in seed potatoes through the port of Cork, the only persons who should have any say in the management of the Cork Harbour Board are the growers of potatoes. That is Deputy Corry's argument and it is Deputy Broderick's argument applied to live stock.
That they should get representation, not that they should be the dominant feature.
I say that representation should go to the persons concerned in the shipment of the potatoes and the live stock. That is what the Bill is designed to do—to give representation to those commercial and shipping interests and to give them the responsibility of managing this business concern, the harbour board. The Deputies may have confused the harbour board with a local authority. This is a business organisation to be managed on commercial principles, to show a profit, and to accumulate funds for the further development of the facilities available.
At whose expense is there to be an accumulation of funds?
Through efficient management.
Who will provide the funds to make the accumulation? That is why we want representation—to deprive them of the power of charging us too much for the transport of goods, either in or out.
The harbour board must manage the business so as to enable them to have the resources to maintain the harbour, to develop the har bour, and to provide new facilities when required. They can do that only through the business of selling facilities of one kind or another in the area of the harbour. They are regulated in that regard at the present time by the provisions of various Acts. They will be controlled in future by the power of the Minister, who is now, for the first time, coming in in a supervisory capacity over the administration of the harbour authority and, consequently, they have not an unlimited power in charging for services. Certainly the rates will be so fixed as to enable them to conduct the harbour efficiently and to accumulate whatever financial resources are necessary to provide for its future development.
Of course, one harbour is in competition with another. Cork Harbour Board cannot, any more than the Dublin Harbour Board, charge whatever it likes. There are other means of shipping goods in and out of the country and, if the services are not adequate or the charges are too high, the shippers of goods will use these other facilities and not Cork Harbour or Dublin Harbour. That is why the harbour authority must be concerned to ensure that it so conducts its affairs as to encourage the use of its harbour and certainly not to divert trade elsewhere. Again, I submit that this is a business matter and the principle has been adopted of giving the responsibility for appointing those who are to run that business concern to those local interests that are most obviously and directly concerned with its success. In any event, that has been the principle followed heretofore and it is the principle recommended by the tribunal, and I would be very slow indeed to depart from the general idea of main taining a uniform constitution for these harbour authorities. I may say that in the case of the other major harbours there has been no claim for giving representation to county council interests. It is only in the case of Cork that that claim has been advanced, and I cannot see the slightest justification for it.
I have not put forward any demand here that we should be the only authority. I have looked for two representatives out of 21. The Minister has given representation to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, whose total interests when bulked together would not amount to one-tenth of the agricultural interests so far as that county is concerned. In addition to that, they have another road in through the chamber of commerce. I am sure the Minister will admit that no port could be termed a first-class port unless it had a dockyard where ships, if anything happens to them, at least can get temporary repairs done. Some years ago, when Rushbrooke and Haulbowline dockyards clashed, the Rushbrooke dockyard was put up to be sold for scrap.
Is not the Deputy repeating what he said a few moments ago?
I want to know what steps will be taken——
I want to know if the Deputy is not repeating what he said a few moments ago.
I am not. The Minister put up an argument in regard to certain interests and I am endeavouring to prove that there are other interests outside of the tuppence-ha'penny interests that he has mentioned. The Minister had that dockyard dismantled and the machinery removed out of it. Our contention that the dockyard was necessary was proved afterwards, by the Minister himself coming down and taking it over. A gap that could have been filled by £10,000 in 1933, when it was proposed to take it over and when the machinery was sold for scrap, cost the Minister at least 20 times that sum in 1941. You had the spectacle, in a first-class port, of an old ship being held up for a week, while they were filling in the gaps outside with cement, to enable her to travel to Britain to be repaired.
Those are the things which have made me say that the representation of the harbour board, as contained in this Bill, is wrong and will militate against the future turning of the port of Cork into a first-class port or anything like it. If it is just to give representation to eight members of the chambers of commerce, surely it is also just to seek at least two representatives of the consumers and producers in Cork County on that board? I can see no justification for the Minister's attitude. The claims of the county council were freely acknowledged by the constituting authorities up to the present and the county council had always two representatives on the harbour board. I am not concerned with what happened in other harbours or other authorities. There is a very definite idea creeping about in this country at present that the whole of the management of the country is to be taken over by trading bodies or something of that description and that the producers, the wealth in this country, are to be left standing behind the scenes and to have no voice. That is what is happening in regard to this Bill and that is the attitude which has been adopted with regard to it throughout. I do not wish to hold up the time of the House, but in a matter like this, which is vital to the interests of the people in Cork County, the Minister should give way and give us the two representatives we are seeking.
We had better be clear about this. The Minister could not comprehend the idea that the potato producer, once he sold his commodity, had no further interest.
I did not say he had no further interest. I said the assumption that he was the only person with any interest was wrong.
In the last analysis, he is the man affected. The other man simply deducts the transport charges and his profit; so, no matter what the market conditions, it is the producer who pays all the time. I merely rise to say that the Minister should be elear on that and that I am in sympathy with the representations which have been made here to ensure that the people who have a vital interest in the particular commodities being handled should have some voice in fixing the charges.
On that basis, the potato producers should run all our railway transport and shipping, as well as the harbour boards.
They are not asking for 100 per cent. representation.
I do not agree with the Minister's leaving the agricultural industry without representation and I will go to the extent of challenging a division on Section 7.
What is involved here is not the representation of the producers on the harbour board, but the representation of the Cork County Council on the harbour board; and these are two members of the Cork County Council who are pressing it.
On more than one occasion I said I was not concerned as to whether the representation was given to the county council or not, so long as the agricultural community, the producers, were represented. I have been for 20 years on the county council and never sought representation on the harbour board.
As a member of the Dáil, the Deputy is ex officio a member of the Cork Harbour Board.
I was not aware of that. It is information I have heard for the first time.
Question put: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán
- Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Pattison, James P.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Bennett, George C.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Broderick, William J.
- Coburn, James.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Larkin, James (Junior).
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Ó Briain; Níl: Deputies Bennett and McMenamin.
Question declared carried.
Section 7, as amended, reported and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 8, Section 2 (1), line 18, to insert before the definition of "local authority" the following definitions:—
"the expression ‘labour member' has the meaning assigned to it by Section 7 of this Act;".
the expression ‘livestock member' has the meaning assigned to it by Section 7 of this Act;".
This amendment is consequential upon the amendment to Section 7, which has been carried.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 8, Section 2 (1), line 22, to insert before the definition of "master" the following definition:—"the expression ‘manufacturer member' has the meaning assigned to it by Section 7 of this Act;".
This also is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 9, Section 5, to insert in line 36 before the word "enactment" the words "section of this Act or in any other" and to add at the end of the section the following paragraph:—
(c) if any provisions contained in Sections 37 to 52 and Section 55 of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, applied in relation to the harbour authority immediately before the passing of this Act, those provisions, subject to any variations which may have been made in them by the enactment by virtue of which they so applied, shall continue to apply in relation to the harbour authority.
The effect of this amendment is to preserve the operation of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, in respect of certain harbour authorities which derive powers under it, during the interim period between the enactment of this measure, which repeals the Act, and the establishment of the new harbour authority.
With the coming into operation of this measure, no vestige of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, will survive in respect of harbour authorities?
This Bill will repeal that Act, but there will be a lapse of time before there are new harbour authorities established. In the interim period we will preserve the Act, in so far as it is necessary to preserve the powers of these harbour authorities. When all the new harbour authorities are established, the Act will cease to operate.
The Minister already has referred to the powers which he proposes to leave in the hands of county councils, on the ground that their revenues would not sustain any harbour authority. Will the county councils derive any powers under the 1847 Act for the management of these small harbours, or will they have powers, derived from this statute, to control the small harbours?
The county councils will manage these without any separate harbour authority.
And, therefore, do not come within the provisions of the Commissioners Clauses Act?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 10, Section 6 (2), to delete lines 18 to 27 and substitute as follows:—
, in addition to those contained in the Order, also have effect:—
(a) the first appointment, election and nomination of the members of the new authority shall be carried out pursuant and subject to this Part of this Act as if the reference in the first column of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act to the local authority were a reference to the new authority,
(b) tonnage rates paid to the local authority during the year next preceding the year appointed by the Order shall, in relation to such first election, be regarded as tonnage rates paid to the new authority during such preceding year,
(c) if the Minister appoints first members of the new authority under paragraph (b) of Section 11 of this Act, he shall so appoint two persons who in his opinion are representative of the persons who have paid tonnage rates to the local authority.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that, in the case of certain harbour authorities which are local authorities at the present time, tonnage rate paid to these local authorities will count as tonnage rate paid to harbour authorities for the purpose of determining the qualifications of electors at the first election to these harbour authorities.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 13, Section 10 (1), to delete in line 62 the words "of cattle" and substitute the words "or organisations of livestock" and to delete in line 63 the words "cattle trader" and substitute the word "live-stock".
This amendment is consequential upon the change that has been made.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 14, Section 10 (1), to delete the word "and" in line 5 and to insert before paragraph (e), line 6, the following new paragraph:—
(c) the appointment, if the harbour authority is mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, by the appropriate organisation representative of labour interests of the labour members of the harbour authority and
This is also consequential on the change made in Section 7.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
22. In page 14, Section 10 (5), to delete in line 32 the word "cattle" and substitute the word "livestock" and to delete in line 33 the words "cattle trader" and substitute the word "livestock".—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
23. In page 14, Section 10, before sub-section (6), line 39, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) Where, during the period beginning on the 7th day of July and ending on the 31st day of August in an election year, an organisation of live-stock traders required under this Act to appoint one person only to be a livestock member of a harbour authority fail to comply with such requirement, the Minister may, as soon as conveniently may be, appoint a person to be a member of the harbour authority to remedy such failure.—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
24. In page 14, Section 10, before sub-section (7), line 49, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) Where, during the period beginning on the 7th day of July and ending on the 31st day of August in an election year, an organisation representative of labour interests required under this Act to appoint persons to be labour members of a harbour authority fail to comply with such requirement either by not appointing any such persons or by appointing less than the number of such persons which they are so required to appoint the Minister may, as soon as conveniently may be, appoint so many persons to be members of the harbour authority as will remedy the failure.—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
25. In page 14, Section 10 (8), to delete in line 59 the word and figure "or (7)" and substitute the word and figures ", (7), (8) or (9)", to delete in line 62 the words "cattle trader" and substitute the word "livestock" and to insert in line 63 before the word "or" the words ", a labour member".—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
The following amendments were also agreed to:—
27. In page 15, Section 11, line 11, to delete the words "two persons" and substitute the words "four persons or two persons (as may be appropriate)". —Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
28. In page 15, Section 15 (1), to delete the words "cattle trader" in line 52, the word "cattle" in line 53 and the words "cattle trader" in line 56 and substitute in each case the word "livestock".—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
The following amendments were also agreed to:—
30. In page 16, Section 15 (1), to insert before paragraph (e), line 1, the following new paragraph:
(e) if the member was a labour member, the organisation representative of labour interests by whom he was appointed shall, within two months after notice of the vacancy has been given to them under this section, appoint a person to be a labour member to fill the vacancy, —Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
31. In page 16, Section 15 (5), to delete the words "cattle trader" in line 25 and the word "cattle" in line 26 and substitute in each case the word "livestock". —Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
The following amendments were also agreed to:—
33. In page 16, Section 15, before sub-section (7), line 33, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) Where a vacancy occurs in the membership of a harbour authority by reason of the death, resignation, or disqualification of a labour member, the harbour authority shall forthwith give notice by post of the vacancy to the organisation representative of labour interests by whom the member was appointed.—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
34. In page 16, Section 15 (8), to delete in line 40 the word and letter "or (d)" and substitute the word and letters ", (d) or (e)" and to delete in lines 52 and 53 the words "cattle trader member or a manufacturer member" and substitute the words "livestock member, a manufacturer member or a labour member". —Aire Tonnscail agus Tráchtála.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In page 17, Section 19 (1), line 27, to delete the word "twenty" and substitute the word "thirty".
It was suggested during the discussion on Committee Stage that the area in which a member of a harbour board would be required to reside should be increased. I propose to increase it from 20 to 30 miles.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:—
In page 22, Section 28, line 7, to insert before the word "acting" the words "mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act".
This amendment makes the provisions of Section 28 apply only to the smaller harbours. So far as the main harbour, therefore, is concerned, where there is a requirement that there should be four shipping members on a pilotage committee, as there now will be, there is no necessity for the special provision here.
So that Section 28 will not now apply to the larger harbours?
It will not.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In page 23, Section 30, to add at the end of the section the following new sub-section:—
(4) Every Order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made, and, if a resolution annulling such Order is passed by either such House within the next twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such Order is laid before it, such Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
We had some discussion on the Committee Stage on the sections in respect of which it might be made an obligation on the Minister to lay Orders before the Oireachtas, the Houses of the Oireachtas having power to annul. I have gone through the Bill and find that there are a couple of sections in respect of which it is desirable that power of annulment should be retained by the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is one of the sections, and it is I think the obvious section in respect of which the power should be exercised if it is to be exercised at all. Deputy M. O'Sullivan has a similar amendment to a later section, but this is the really operative section, because it is the Orders under this section which displace a harbour authority and substitute commissioners. If the Dáil wants to check the Minister and prevent the exercise of that power, it is when he makes an Order under this section that it should assert itself.
My amendment is in relation to Part III as a whole, in relation to the question of the removal of members. I am satisfied that it is met by this amendment.
Can the Minister say in respect of what other sections he is meeting the situation by an amendment of this kind?
Section 144.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 25, Section 38 (1), line 5, to delete the word "authority", and substitute the words "authority by such authority,".
The purpose of the amendment is to give specific power to a harbour authority to appoint and employ officers and servants. As the Bill stood, it was left to be inferred that a harbour authority had that power and I think it is desirable to have a specific provision in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:—
In page 25, Section 39, lines 54 to 58, to delete sub-section (5) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(5) Any engagement or discharge of an employee (other than an officer) of a harbour authority mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, being an employee to whose appointment the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Acts, 1926 and 1940, as applied by this Act, do not apply, shall be carried out as follows, and not otherwise, that is to say, by the general manager or an officer of the harbour authority authorised in that behalf by the general manager.
It will be remembered that Deputy M. O'Sullivan raised in Committee the desirability of giving the general manager authority to delegate his power to engage and discharge employees. I have accepted his suggestion, and this amendment provides for it.
I am glad the Minister has accepted my suggestion, because it means a continuation of existing policy, so far as the Dublin Port Board is concerned, where power was actually delegated to the heads of several departments. With regard to this amendment, may I say that I expressed some misgivings on Second Reading and Committee Stage regarding what I considered to be the arbitrary powers vested in the general manager, but I am satisfied, on re-reading sub-section (4)—I hope at least that I am right—that in so far as the powers of the general manager are concerned, he is, in the last analysis, subject, even in the matter of staff, to the overriding authority of the board, and am prepared to salve my conscience in the matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:—
In page 26, before Section 40, line 17, to insert a new section as follows:—
40.—(1) Where the general manager of a harbour is on vacation or is through illness, absence from the areas in which the harbour is situated, or suspension, temporarily incapable of executing the functions of his office, the harbour authority of the harbour may appoint a deputy general manager for the duration of the vacation or incapacity.
(2) The power to appoint a deputy general manager conferred by sub-section (1) of this section may also be exercised before and in contemplation of any vacation of the general manager of a harbour or of any temporary incapacity on his part to execute the functions of his office through absence from the area in which the harbour is situated.
(3) A deputy general manager appointed under this section shall, during the continuance of the vacation or incapacity on account of which he is appointed or until he is sooner removed or dies or resigns, have all the powers and shall execute and perform all the functions and duties of the general manager for which he is deputising and for that purpose the references in sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 39 and Sections 170, 171 and 172 of this Act to the general manager of a harbour shall include a reference to such deputy general manager.
This new section provides for the appointment of a deputy general manager by a harbour authority to act when the general manager is absent through illness, or while on vacation, or for any other reason.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:—
In page 27, Section 42 (1), line 32, to delete the word "may,", and substitute the words "may suspend or,".
This gives a harbour authority power to suspend officers.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In page 28, Section 44 (2), line 15, to insert before the word "continue" the words ", subject to the provisions of this Act,".
This is a drafting amendment. It is desirable that no ambiguity should be caused by the wording of the section which might be interpreted as giving a secretary the right to claim that his services are continued indefinitely or supersede the power of a harbour authority to remove or suspend him.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:—
In page 28, Section 44 (2), before paragraph (b) to insert the following new paragraph:—
(b) where, in the case of Dublin Harbour, sub-section (1) of this section does not apply, the following provisions shall have effect until an appointment is made to the office of general manager under this Act of Dublin Harbour:—
(i) the said office shall be deemed not to be created save for the purposes of making such appointment and for the purposes of sub-section (3) of this section,
(ii) the references in sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 39 and Sections 170, 171 and 172 of this Act to the general manager of a harbour shall include a reference to such person.
I mentioned during the Committee discussion that the process of appointing a general manager for the Port of Dublin, which is now proceeding through the Local Appointments Commission, might not be completed by the time this Bill becomes law. I think it is now clear that it will not be completed, and it is consequently necessary to provide for that situation. This is one of the amendments designed to make an interim arrangement until the general manager is appointed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:—
In page 28, Section 44 (2), line 20, to insert before the words "of Limerick" the words "under this Act".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:—
In page 28, Section 44, before sub-section (3), line 26, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(3) Where immediately before the passing of this Act the Local Appointments Commissioners were engaged in the selection of a person or persons to be recommended for appointment to be general manager of a harbour, such selection shall be completed and shall have effect as if it were made on a request, made by the harbour authority on the passing of this Act under Section 6 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926), as applied by this Act, in relation to the office of general manager created by this Act.
This is a further amendment to meet the point which I mentioned on a previous amendment — the possibility that the Local Appointments Commissioners will not have completed their work in connection with the appointment of a general manager in Dublin before the Bill is enacted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:—
In page 29, before Section 48, to insert the following section:—
A harbour authority may provide for or in connection with their harbour such sheds, transit sheds, transhipment sheds, silos, stores and other structures as they think proper.
This amendment and amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are all designed to effect a drafting change in this section, or, at any rate, to make it clear that the power of a harbour authority to provide buildings is not limited merely to the type of buildings enumerated in the section.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendments were also agreed to:—
49. In page 29, before Section 48, to insert the following section:—
A harbour authority may provide fire-fighting equipment for or in connection with their harbour. —Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
50. In page 29, to delete lines 17 to 22 (Section 48).—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
I move amendment No. 51:—
In page 30, before Section 54, line 17, to insert the following new section:—
54.—(1) A harbour authority may remove any obstruction which is within the limits of their harbour.
(2) The expenses incurred by a harbour authority in connection with the removal under this section of an obstruction shall, so far as not recovered under sub-section (3) of this section, be paid to the harbour authority by the owner of the obstruction or, at the option of the harbour authority, by any former owner thereof.
(3) An article which is either an obstruction removed under this section by a harbour authority or a part of such obstruction may be sold by the harbour authority subject to the following provisions:—
(a) the article shall not be sold for home use where any prohibition or restriction on importation applies in respect thereof or where the price which would be obtained is less than the amount of any duties of customs or excise payable in respect of the article;
(b) where the article is sold for home use, the harbour authority shall apply the proceeds of the sale—
(i) firstly, in payment of any such duties as aforesaid, and
(ii) secondly, in payment of the expenses incurred in connection with—
(I) the sale,
(II) the removal of the obstruction, and
(III) if the article is part of an obstruction, any sale or destruction of any other part of the obstruction,
and shall pay the balance (if any) on demand to the owner of the obstruction;
(c) where the article is sold otherwise than for home use, the harbour authority shall apply the proceeds of sale in payment of any such rates and expenses as aforesaid, and shall pay the balance (if any) on demand to the owner of the obstruction;
(d) the expenses incurred by the harbour authority in connection with the sale shall, so far as not recovered under this sub-section, be paid to the harbour authority by the owner of the obstruction or, at the option of the harbour authority, by any former owner thereof.
(4) Where, in the opinion of the harbour authority, it is inadvisable to offer an article for sale under sub-section (3) of this section or where the article cannot, having regard to paragraph (a) of that sub-section, be sold, the harbour authority may destroy the article, subject, where any duties of customs or excise are payable in respect thereof or any prohibition or restriction on importation applies in respect thereof, to the consent of the Revenue Commissioners and to compliance with any conditions which they may impose.
(5) Where an article is destroyed under sub-section (4) of this section, the expenses incurred in connection with the destruction thereof, so far as not recovered under sub-section (3) of this section, shall be paid to the harbour authority by the owner of the obstruction or, at the option of the harbour authority, by any former owner thereof.
(6) A sum payable to a harbour authority under this section shall, in default of payment, be recoverable as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(7) In this section—
the word obstruction means any obstruction being—
(a) a vessel laid up as unfit for sea service,
(b) a wrecked or derelict vessel,
(c) a float of timber,
(d) any other article except an aircraft,
the expression "former owner" means, in relation to an obstruction, a former owner of the obstruction as respects whom it can be shown that he relinquished or transferred his interest therein after, in the case of a vessel, the vessel was laid up or became wrecked or derelict or, in the case of any other obstruction, it was found to be within the limits of the relevant harbour.
This is a redraft of Section 55 which relates to the removal of wrecks laid up and other obstructions in a harbour. The changes which are being made by this amendment are, (1), the power to remove an obstruction is being taken from the harbour master and given to the harbour authority, and (2), power is being given to the harbour authority to claim the expenses incurred in connection with the removal of wreck from a former owner who is defined as the person who relinquished his interest in the vessel after it was wrecked, or after it was laid up, or who relinquished his interest in any other obstruction that the harbour authority found within the limits of the harbour. It also gives the harbour authority power to sell a part, as well as the whole, of the wreck or other obstruction.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:—
In page 32, Section 56, line 26, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(13) Nothing in this section shall affect the obligation of a harbour authority to make by-laws under the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1881, or apply in relation to any by-laws made under those Acts.
The amendment of the section merely continues the obligation to make by-laws in respect of petroleum under the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1881.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:—
In page 34, before Section 65 to insert the following new section:—
(1) Whenever any delay occurs in loading or discharging a cargo of a vessel within the limits of a harbour and the harbour master of the harbour considers the delay unreasonable, the harbour master may require the master of the vessel to load or discharge the cargo within a specified period.
(2) If the master of a vessel refuses or fails to comply with a requirement made on him by the harbour master of a harbour and authorised by this section or if the harbour master of a harbour cannot find the master of a vessel in relation to which the harbour master wishes to make a requirement authorised by this section—
(a) the harbour master may carry out the requirement and do all things necessary for or incidental to that purpose,
(b) the expenses incurred in so carrying out the requirement shall be paid by the master of the vessel to the harbour authority for the harbour and, in default of payment, may be recovered as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
This is a redrafting of Section 81 which I am proposing, subsequently, should be deleted. The amendment is designed to give power to a harbour master to undertake the loading or discharge of a vessel where he considers there is an unreasonable delay. It was the Wexford County Council which pointed out that the giving of that power to the harbour authority might involve delay as the exercise of the power would necessitate a meeting of the harbour authority, and that it was more appropriate that the power should be possessed by the harbour master which is the present position in Dublin. The amended section also provides that the harbour master must first require the master of the vessel, or the owner of the goods, to discharge the cargo within a specified time before he undertakes the work himself.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:—
In page 34, to delete lines 41 to 58 and in page 35, lines 1 to 49 (Section 65).
A revised section is being substituted. The amendment is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:—
In page 38, to delete lines 50 to 56 (Section 81).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:—
In page 41, Section 93, line 23, to add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The following provisions shall apply in respect of charges (other than rates) which immediately before the passing of this Act were legally chargeable by a harbour authority, not being charges for the continuation of the charging of which specific provision is made by this Act—
(a) such charges shall, unless and until otherwise provided by a harbour rates order, continue to be chargeable by the harbour authority,
(b) such charges shall, for the purposes of Chapter II of this Part of this Act, be deemed to be rates,
(c) all powers in relation to such charges which, immediately before the passing of this Act, were exercisable by the harbour authority shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, continue after the passing of this Act to be so exercisable.
This amendment is intended to ensure that any charges at present being made by a harbour authority, and in respect to which there is no specific provision in the Bill, will be continued until they are revised by a harbour rates order.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:—
In page 42, at the end of Section 98, line 25, to add the following sub-section:—
(5) A payment to a harbour authority in respect of compounded rates shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a payment to them of tonnage rates, goods rates or service rates (as may be appropriate).
Some doubt was expressed as to whether persons who pay compounded rates should be regarded as having paid tonnage rates or goods rates or service rates, and it is desirable that there should be no ambiguity as regards the qualifications of electors. It is being made clear in the amendment that compounded rates will be regarded for the purposes of the Act as tonnage rates.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:—
In page 51, Section 118 (5), line 19, to delete the word "direction" and substitute the word "directions".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:—
In page 53, Section 124 (1), line 56, to insert before the word "by" the words, "under this Act".
This amendment is designed to provide that any regulations made by the Minister under the Act in relation to mortgages will apply only to future mortgages.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:—
In page 54, Section 124, to delete sub-section (3), lines 6 to 10, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provisions contained in Sections 75 to 88 of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, applied immediately before the passing of this Act in relation to any mortgages then in force of a harbour authority, those provisions, subject to any variations which may have been made in them by the enactment by virtue of which they so applied, shall continue to apply after the passing of this Act in relation to those mortgages of that harbour authority.
As the Commissioners Clauses Act is being repealed, it is necessary to provide that the provisions governing mortgages already made by a harbour authority will continue to operate while these mortgages exist. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:—
In page 54, Section 125 (1), line 12, to insert before the word "by" the words, "under this Act".
This amendment is somewhat similar to the last one and is designed to provide that regulations which may be made by the Minister under the Act, in relation to stock issued by a harbour authority, will apply only to stock issued after the passing of the Act.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:—
In page 55, Section 129 (2), line 10, to delete the word "time" and substitute the word "date".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:—
In page 55, Section 130 (2), line 33, to delete the word "enactment" and substitute the words "enactment (including any enactment passed after the passing of this Act)".
When this Bill was being framed it was assumed that the Local Government Bill, which is now before the Dáil, would become law before it, but that is now by no means clear. One of the provisions of the Local Government Bill alters, or proposes to alter, the law relating to the conduct of audits. This amendment is intended to provide that the provisions of the Local Government Bill, when passed, will apply in respect to audits conducted under this section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:—
In page 63, Section 144, to add at the end of the sub-section the following new sub-section:—
(4) Every Order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made, and, if a resolution annulling such Order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which such House has sat after such Order is laid before it, such Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This is the amendment to which I referred earlier, that Orders made under this section must be laid before the Dáil, with the power to annul.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:—
In page 63, Section 149 (1), lines 21 and 22, to delete the words "establishing a superannuation fund for the benefit" and substitute the words "the payment of superannuation and other like allowances (including gratuities) to or in respect".
This is in the nature of a drafting amendment. It is designed to enable a pensions scheme to be prepared which will empower a harbour authority to pay superannuation and similar allowances, including gratuities, to the widows and families of the deceased officers and members of the established staff of a harbour authority.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 66:—
In page 64, Section 149 (8), line 11, to insert before the word "as" the words "(without prejudice to sub-section (9), where applicable, of this section)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 64, Section 149, to delete sub-section (9), line 14, and substitute the following sub-sections:—
(9) A superannuation scheme shall contain provisions under which any officer or member of the established staff of the harbour authority concerned to whom the scheme would, but for this sub-section apply and who was in the service of the harbour authority immediately before the coming into operation of the scheme, may accept within a specified period the provisions of the scheme and, unless and until he so accepts, the scheme shall not apply to him and he shall retain (whether on his own behalf or, where appropriate, both on his own behalf and on behalf of his widow (should he die), his children or other members of his family) the benefit of all such provisions relating to superannuation and other like allowances (including gratuities) as applied in relation to him immediately before the coming into operation of the scheme.
(10) Where a superannuation scheme is in force, the harbour authority concerned shall not grant a superannuation or other like allowance (including a gratuity) to or in respect of a person to whom the scheme applies except under the scheme.
This is a redrafting of the section. Sub-section (10) is designed to ensure that the provisions of existing enactments will cease to apply when a superannuation scheme comes into force, except in the case of those who opt out of the scheme.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68:—
In page 68, before Section 164, line 27, to insert the following new section:—
A harbour authority may provide transport free of charge for their officers and servants while such officers and servants are travelling to and from places where they are carrying out their duties.
Deputy Larkin raised in Committee the question of the provision of free transport by a harbour authority. I stated then that a harbour authority could provide that transport but I think there is some doubt about it and it is better to remove the doubt, which I propose to do by this section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:—
In page 68, before Section 164, line 27, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) A harbour authority may as part of their working and establishment expenses make reasonable payments for or in connection with—
(a) the reception of and extending of hospitality to members, directors or officers of other port or harbour authorities or of any public authority or body or any company having interests of a professional or business character similar to the interests of the harbour authority or with whom the harbour authority have or contemplate having professional or business relations, and
(b) visits by way of official courtesy by or on behalf of the harbour authority to any such authority, body or company as aforesaid,
including payments for travelling expenses and other expenses reasonably incurred by or on behalf of any member or officer of the harbour authority in connection with any of the matters aforesaid.
(2) The total amount which a harbour authority pay under this section in any period shall not exceed the amount sanctioned for the time being in respect of the harbour authority by the Minister for that period.
This new section would empower a harbour authority to spend sums within certain limits upon hospitality.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70:—
In page 73, Section 183 (2), line 24, to delete the word "enactment," and substitute the words "enactment (including any enactment passed after the passing of this Act)".
This amendment provides that future amendments of the Local Government Act relating to audits will apply to the audits of pilotage authorities.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 71:—
In page 74, Section 185, before sub-section (3), to insert the following new sub-section:—
(3) Every Order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling the Order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the Order is laid before it, the Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This is a repetition of the question that has been running through this whole Bill. In so far as Section 185, the Third Schedule, embraces a whole series of enactments which will cease to have effect after the commencement of the operation of this Act, I think it is desirable that in that particular case we should have the safeguard of the tabling of Orders here as we have under certain specific sections. In so far as this particular section is concerned, I would regard it as perhaps one of the most important where the provision should operate that we should have the Orders tabled.
I do not agree. I think it is one of the least important. The power given here is merely a power to adapt the enactments to ensure that the intentions of the Dáil are carried out. There is no power to alter the principle of the law at all. There is a similar section in the Local Government Act but that section gives the Minister for Local Government power to declare that certain provisions will no longer be enforced. I am not taking that power here. The sole power taken here is to make whatever adaptations of enactments as may be necessary to ensure that this Bill is carried into effect. I think, therefore, it is the type of thing that should be dealt with by Ministerial Order. It would not be practicable, I think, to make in the Bill all the provisions which would provide all the safeguards necessary and it is to provide against the possibility that some of the changes which should have been made in other enactments may have been overlooked that this power is given but, in so far as there is nothing which gives the Minister any power to change any matter of principle—it is merely a power of adaptation that is given—I do not think it is the type of case where the power of annulment should be asked for by the Dáil. I have inserted sections to give that power of annulment where questions of policy arise—where a harbour authority is removed and a commissioner appointed instead or where the powers or the area of administration of a harbour authority are altered. In that case there is clearly a question of policy and the Dáil may be concerned. But this is purely a matter of administration and I think it would be bad precedent to accept an amendment of this kind.
There is no suggestion of any variation in the adaptation?
No, certainly not, and the power which the Minister for Local Government has in a similar section of the Local Government Act is a wider power than this. He has power to make an alteration to make the power work. I have not even that power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 72:—
In page 78, Second Schedule, paragraph 37, to delete the words "or petroleum" in line 36 and in line 37.
That is a drafting change. In so far as the harbour authorities are required under the Petroleum Acts to make by-laws in respect of petroleum it is necessary to put the obligation upon them again here.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 73:—
In page 78, Second Schedule, before paragraph 38, line 39, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
38. For specifying conditions under which any mineral hydrocarbon light oils within the meaning of the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Act, 1931 (No. 43 of 1931), shall be brought, shipped, handled, deposited, kept or transported within the limits of the harbour.
This enables a harbour authority to make by-laws in respect of the byproducts of petroleum.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
May I ask the Minister a question? He will recall that in Committee he gave me an assurance that if he thought there was necessity for scheduling the basis of compensation for quay police he would do so. I pressed him at the time and I believe, very strongly, that there is a necessity for that for the reasons I gave on that particular occasion—one, that the men do not know whether they will be kept on or discontinued at any particular time, and two, that while they are uncertain regarding their employment they are in a state of anxiety regarding the method or basis of compensation. I would ask the Minister, if he can see his way, to indicate to the House what the schedule of compensation may be.
I do not think, having regard to the limited number of individuals concerned, it is necessary to embody in this Bill an elaborate schedule providing for the payment of compensation in all the varying circumstances that must be taken into account when legal measures are being prepared. What is in the Bill is a general power to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to prescribe by Order the basis on which compensation may be paid and that power will no doubt be exercised upon the basis of precedents established in other Acts. I think that is extremely likely. I could not say when the position of these harbour police may be affected. The Minister for Justice is here—he probably has not given the matter any thought—but this Bill gives him the power to decide if and when the functions of the harbour police will be transferred to the Gárda Síochána. I should imagine that no very serious consideration has yet been given to the stage at which that may be practicable and it is probable that it will be some time yet before the Gárda Síochána authorities are likely to be in a position to accept the additional duties that would devolve upon them if the harbour police should be abolished but it will be for the Minister for Justice to decide and when he decides there will be an Order made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce setting out the basis on which the harbour authority must compensate these harbour constables to whatever extent it is impossible for them to be in fact taken over by the Gárda Síochána for the purpose of that particular duty.
Which would be the sensible thing to do.
Would the making of the Order give the Dáil an opportunity of discussing the basis of compensation?
No, but I presume it would be discussed with the harbour authority which would, of course, be directly concerned. That is the body that would have to pay the compensation.
Would it not be the sensible thing to do to take the old boys over and put them in the Gárda?
There is no good in discussing that now. I do not know what difficulties may arise. I think I can promise the Deputy that the basis of compensation will be discussed with the harbour authorities which will be the bodies most directly concerned.
In the meantime it is a very difficult position for these men to find themselves in. They do not know whether they are going to be taken over or not or what will happen to them when they are taken over. Nobody knows. It is very unfair.
There are two things to be done in this Bill. One is to deprive harbour authorities which have never exercised that power of the power. Certain harbour authorities had this power to appoint harbour police. They did not use it and they cannot exercise that power in future. It is only in the case of Dublin that there is a problem of any dimensions so far as personnel is concerned. I assume Deputies will agree that for the one harbour constable in Westport we need not have an elaborate schedule to determine the basis of compensation. It is only in Dublin, and because of the particular nature of the problem in Dublin I think it is there it is least likely that any change in the situation will be made at an early date. A change in the situation at Westport may be made when the existing constable retires or perhaps earlier but that will not involve any very elaborate arrangements on the part of the Gárda Síochána authorities.
This question of compensation hanging over their heads makes it difficult for these men and is unfair to them, but it is also difficult for the port authority. If in the near future they find that a man has come to the retiring age—or several men— and in the ordinary way that may happen fairly often—what are the board going to do in connection with the recruitment of new personnel?
I suggest the Dublin Port and Docks Board should seek an early opportunity of discussion with the Minister for Justice for the purpose of ascertaining his intentions.
It is a dreadful position in which to leave the men and the board.
It is not really any different from what it was. The fact that this change can be made by Order of the Minister for Justice, supplemented by an Order of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is no different really in essence, having regard to the possibility that legislation of this kind has been in contemplation since the Ports and Harbours Tribunal reported and since it was known that the tribunal had recommended that this legislative change should be made.
It is one thing for the tribunal to report; it is another thing for it to be in the Bill. It receives a form of Ministerial sanction.
Many years ago, after the tribunal had reported, the Government announced its intention of giving effect to its recommendations, so that the situation must have been known at that stage.
It would not be the first time the Government changed its mind.
Would the basis of compensation lie with the Minister for Justice?
No, it is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who makes the Order which prescribes the basis of compensation and that will be a matter for discussion with the harbour authority.
Will that Order require to be confirmed by a resolution of this House?
No.
It will not come before this House at all. That is a new departure. We are to provide compensation without having a discussion about it.
The Bill provides that there must be compensation.
There is compensation and compensation, as the Minister will agree. How many harbours are maintained by the Government? There are only 30 men in question here, and it would not have broken any hearts to see that these men were compensated for their years of service under the existing system.
There is just the difficulty of working out what would be an elaborate schedule to deal with a very limited number of individuals. I do not think that is necessary. We must not deal with this Bill as if it was concerned with the Dublin Port and Docks only. There are certain other ports which exercise this right, but where the circumstances may be different. In fact, some of these men are not whole-time employees, so that you could not have a provision to cover Dublin to suit elsewhere. What is in the Bill is that there must be compensation by the harbour authorities, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce can make an Order which shall be binding on harbour authorities to pay compensation on the basis laid down by him. When the compensation is being paid by some other authority, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has no reason for not being generous.
I know very little about harbours but I know the position of the average man's domestic affairs. While provision for 30 harbour employees in Dublin, and a number of others throughout the country may seem trivial, to the ordinary harbour constable and his family it matters very much. I press upon Deputies to consider the matter very carefully before deciding to leave hanging in the air the personal rights and anxieties of the individuals concerned. I see the Minister's difficulty that the preparation of an elaborate schedule for separate cases seems very laborious, but surely between now and the time that the Bill goes to the Seanad, he could ascertain with certainty the number of harbour constables interested. I doubt if information as to their terms of appointment is not already in the Department. Could he not provide a schedule which would put everybody's mind at rest, one on general lines, inasmuch as it is unlikely that many men would be displaced at all? If there was a generous plan of compensation for those it was necessary to get rid of, it would relieve their minds and place no unbearable charge upon anybody.
It must not be assumed that harbour constables in Dublin are going to be abolished at all. All we are doing is giving power to end the situation at some stage.
I think the Minister is aware that the port authorities in Dublin do not want to dispense with the services of these men. I do not think the Minister for Justice is anxious to take them over.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the situation in Dublin will change for some time.
I read the report of the tribunal and, speaking from memory, I do not think the gentlemen who made the report gave any convincing argument for doing away with the harbour police force in Dublin. They recommended it.
I presume they considered their work when they recommended it.
That may be so but they did not develop that argument.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, 14th February.