I move that the Bill do now pass. I merely want to mention that I gave notice during the discussion on the Committee Stage of my intention to submit an amendment which would have the effect of relieving a local authority, which had guaranteed or granted assistance to a harbour authority, of an excessive liability on the rates in certain circumstances. That amendment was not ready by the time the Bill was being considered on Report and I propose to endeavour to have it inserted in the Bill in the Seanad.
Harbours Bill, 1945—Final Stage.
I wonder would the Minister like to take advantage of this occasion to give some information to the House of the rather extraordinary position which seems to have arisen in the Limerick Harbour Board arising out of a letter addressed to that body by the Minister. That seems to be something completely new and extraordinary, and perhaps the Minister would take advantage of this occasion to explain the position.
In the main, I think the Bill has been welcomed by the House. In some instances, however, I do not think it has gone far enough. The consolidation of the earlier Acts, which was strongly stressed in the report of the tribunal, and which, quite apart from any recommendations of the tribunal, is so necessary, has in part been carried out, but by no means completely. The legal aspect of the Acts governing the harbours of this country, if anything, will be more difficult to understand, and therefore more likely to lead to anomalies and litigation as a result of this Bill. Considering the number of years which have elapsed since the tribunal made its report, it is a matter for regret that this consolidation was not carried out completely. I know it is a very big task, and that we have just passed through a time of emergency. But, notwithstanding that, I think it is a pity that the purely legal aspect of the consolidation of the Acts relating to harbours was not completely cleared up.
There is another matter in connection with the Bill to which I referred on the Committee Stage, and, possibly, also on the Report Stage. That is the question of the loss of ex-officio membership of the board on the part of the Lord Mayor of Dublin. It is very difficult to say just what use the Lord Mayor of Dublin would be on such a board, and the exact circumstances in which the weight and authority of the Lord Mayor would be peculiarly necessary on the board. But I think it is a pity that an Irish Government, in an Act, should take away one of the ancient rights of the City of Dublin. I do not think that these rights, which were conferred on the City of Dublin through its Lord Mayor, were put in for nothing.
First of all, they help to keep up, in a small way, the dignity of the office of Lord Mayor. He is the first citizen of the capital city, he is the chief magistrate and also bears that rather peculiar title, admiral of the port. I think there are one or two other strange titles he bears. It is a pity that that very high office should have been, even unintentionally, degraded. There is a certain amount of degradation in an Irish Government taking away from the Lord Mayor of its capital city one of the ancient privileges conferred on that city—as I look on it as being conferred on the city and not primarily on the man who may happen to hold the office. I regret that the Minister did not yield to the representations of various Deputies and continue the ex officio membership of the Lord Mayor.
Somebody said earlier in the debate that, if the corporation felt strongly on the matter, they could elect the Lord Mayor to sit on the board. Of course they could, but that is quite another matter from this ex officio membership. The Lord Mayor had, in connection with the port board, the function—I am not sure whether it was in one of the earlier Acts, but I suppose it was—of taking the chair in the interim period when one chairman went out and the other came in. I am sorry that that link with the city has been removed now.
Deputy Morrissey raised a question concerning a letter which I caused to be sent to the Limerick Harbour Board and asked for an explanation. When the Bill was being framed, I understood that the secretary of the Limerick Harbour Board was about to retire on grounds of age and that his retirement would take place shortly after the enactment of the Bill. I understood also that the Limerick Harbour Commissioners desired that the creation of a new post of general manager or of general manager and secretary should not take place until the present secretary had retired, which was to be in the near future. The Bill, therefore, provides, as a special provision for the Limerick Harbour Board, that the office of general manager there will be deemed not to be created until the present secretary ceases to hold office.
The Limerick Harbour Board has, however, decided to turn that section to account. Whatever the motive is, the position has arisen now that the secretary has retired before the Bill becomes law and a new secretary has been appointed by the Harbour Commissioners and not through the Local Appointments Commission. If that section remains as it is in relation to the new appointment, a general manager for the Port of Limerick cannot be appointed so long as the secretary appointed this week—who, I understand, is a young man—holds the office. It is quite obvious that this section was put in the Bill because of the special circumstances which existed when the Bill was being framed. The existing secretary was on the point of retirement on grounds of age and there was a desire on the part of the commissioners that the position as such should not be disturbed until the date of his retirement. It certainly was not the intention that that should apply in the case of a new appointment made by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners and, since they have made this appointment, I have decided to endeavour to get that section changed in the Seanad, so that the Limerick Harbour Board will be in precisely the same position as any other harbour board.
The matters raised by Deputy Dockrell were discussed on the passage of the Bill through the Dáil and I have nothing to add to what I said about them then. In framing this Bill, we based it on the recommendations of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal and we have departed from those recommendations only where there were good grounds for doing so. The Bill as introduced was based entirely on the recommendations of the tribunal, and the only departures from those recommendations were those adopted because of discussions here. I do not think there was a convincing reason advanced to alter the Bill for the purpose of getting away from the recommendations of the tribunal on the matters referred to by the Deputy.
Before the motion is put——
The Minister has concluded, but the Deputy may ask a question.
It is merely a commentary on the Bill. May I say it is a highly complex measure, and is calculated to have very far-reaching results in harbour administration. The fact that it has had a comparatively smooth run through the House is in a very large measure due to the commonsense and foresight of the Minister, in taking steps at a very early stage to ascertain the requirements of the affected bodies. I would say that that policy has paid in dividends so far as this particular measure is concerned. There has been a clear and frank discussion on it, and I think the Bill has benefited accordingly. The example which the Minister has set in regard to this piece of legislation is one which might very well be followed by other Ministers in regard to other measures.
What a hope you have.
Question put and agreed to.