Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Nov 1947

Vol. 108 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Harbours Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Keyes

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before Section 4 to insert the following new section:—

Section 19 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution therein of the following sub-section for sub-section (2) there of:—

(2) A member of a harbour authority who is absent for more than six consecutive months from the meetings of such harbour authority shall vacate his office unless the harbour authority decides that there is good reason for such absence.

I put down this amendment as the operation of the Principal Act has brought about an anomalous position. Under the provisions of that Act, a member of a harbour board becomes automatically disqualified if he is absent from 50 per cent. of the meetings in any consecutive period of six months. The men who sit on these boards are mainly drawn from business interests and it is difficult for them to keep an account of their attendances. The manager, however, has to keep a constant check on their attendances. I think there should be some stated period provided for so as to enable members to keep in touch with the matter. There is no notice given to members of the fact that they are liable to be disqualified. They are automatically disqualified under the terms of the Act.

Then, again, there is no credit given to them for attendance at committee meetings. Some of the most important functions of these boards are delegated to committees from time to time. But under the existing provisions attendance at a committee meeting does not count. A member becomes disqualified from membership if he misses 50 per cent. of the meetings in any consecutive period of six months, although the holiday period may intervene or other things of that kind. I suggest to the Minister that that position ought to be remedied. It may not appear to be a very major matter, but I think it is a matter of importance. As I say, the members get no notice of the matter, even if they are absent on holidays or anything else; their disqualification is automatic. I think there ought to be some period set down. I am not inclined to press strongly for a period of six months as set out in the amendment. In fact, there is a slight error there, as six consecutive meetings was my intention. I think a period of three months would meet the matter. The present position, however, needs to be altered.

I do not know of any institution or board having a similar procedure. As I said, a member may have attended several committee meetings but there is no credit given for these attendances. If a member is absent from 50 per cent. of the actual board meetings, he is disqualified. If the Minister thinks the period six months mentioned in the amendment is too long, I think a period of three months ought to be provided for.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

There is a good deal to be said for the broad general view expressed by Deputy Keyes, but I am afraid the amendment in its present form would be highly undesirable in this respect: under the terms of the amendment a member who merely attended three meetings in the year which would be within the section would be deemed to be a good and proper member of a harbour authority. I am sure Deputy Keyes would admit that a member who attended only three times in the year is not worthy of being a member.

It appears to me, however, that the percentage stated in the Act itself is too high. As anybody who has experience of harbour boards will understand, there is a series of committee meetings at which perhaps the business of the board is really done. Take the case of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. It is at its finance meeting, which precedes the meeting of the board, that the business is really done. The board may meet on the Thursday and that meeting may be regarded as a confirmation of the preceding day's work. Very often the members of the board who are interested in the work will attend the finance meeting on Wednesday. They may not be able to attend the board meeting on Thursday, but they get no credit for their attendance on Wednesday. That is the point to which Deputy Keyes is referring.

It is difficult to say what would be the correct approach to it. It may, however, interest Deputy Keyes to know that the Dublin Port and Docks Board have adopted another method which I shall mention so that the Minister may be aware of it. If a member who is unable to attend a stated meeting of the full board sends an advice to that effect, that advice is placed before the board and, if there is good reason for his absence, the board accepts his explanation and in fact credits him with attendance at that particular meeting. Of course, the reason given must be a good one. The board, for instance, will not accept a telephone message to say that he is detained somewhere. He will have to give a good and sound reason for his absence.

With Deputy Keyes, I would impress on the Minister that the percentage of attendances required at stated meetings of the board, which, as I say, are merely confirmatory meetings, is too high. The danger is, however, that if you give credit for attendance at committee meetings you will have members merely attending at the committee meetings and the stated meeting may fall through. In that way the business would be reduced to a state of chaos because, if there is not a quorum present for the stated meeting of the board, the meeting will fall through.

There are two lines upon which you might proceed: (1) to lower the 50 per cent. provided for in the Act for the actual meetings of the board; and (2) something like the method adopted by the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which at the moment is giving satisfaction. I might say that that system has only been in operation for a couple of weeks. We had encountered somewhat the same difficulties as are being encountered in Limerick, as members were continually having to explain their absence and were about to be disqualified.

Mr. Lemass

I have one difficulty in arguing against the amendment and that is the fact that the Act as introduced last year contained a provision on the lines which Deputy Keyes now suggests, and I was persuaded by the Dáil to adopt the alternative provision which is now in the Act. The Deputy, however, is under one misapprehension. He states that a member who fails to attend half the meetings of a harbour authority during six consecutive months is automatically disqualified. The section provides that he shall vacate office unless the harbour authority decides that there is good reason for such absence, so that it is clear that disqualification is not automatic. It is in the power of the harbour authority to decide on the merits of the case that he should not be disqualified from continuing membership. It seems to me that there is not much difference between Deputy Keyes' proposal and what is in the Bill. In the last resort, it is the harbour authority itself which has the final decision as to the continuing qualification of any member. I would therefore suggest, merely from the point of view of leaving things as they are, if there is not good reason to change them, that the Deputy might withdraw the amendment having regard to the fact that the final decision under the section of the Principal Act rests with the harbour authority.

Mr. Keyes

I am not pressing the amendment because it is somewhat in error as drafted. My intention was to provide that only a member who was absent for more than six consecutive meetings should be disqualified but the word "months" has crept in. If it were six consecutive meetings, that would cover a period of only three months.

Mr. Lemass

The provision in the Principal Act is that if a member is absent from half of the meetings during any period of six consecutive months, he shall vacate his office unless the harbour authority decides that there was good reason for his absence.

Mr. Keyes

I am talking about six consecutive meetings. I am afraid that the provision has been misinterpreted. My understanding of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Principal Act was that if a member were absent for any period of six months he was liable to be disqualified. The Minister is quite sure that it is a period of six consecutive months that is mentioned?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, six consecutive months.

Mr. Keyes

I was hoping that we might get committee meetings admitted to recognition because, as Deputy O'Sullivan will admit, a good deal of the work of a board is done at committee meetings. There would not be any fear of the board collapsing if it were set out that a man would not be disqualified unless he did not attend six consecutive meetings.

Mr. Lemass

If he attends half of the meetings in any period of six consecutive months, he will not be disqualified, and even if he is liable to disqualification for non-attendance during such a period, he will not be disqualified if the board thinks that there was good reason for his absence.

Mr. Keyes

The disqualification takes place first and then the board considers whether it is reasonable.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that is altogether a bad system. The Deputy will remember that the method of electing members has been greatly altered. Many members are nominated members representing organised bodies or particular interests. If they fail to attend meetings of the board in any reasonable number within a period, a positive act of the board to excuse them for that absence may be desirable so that the organisation that nominated them, can if they wish, choose other representatives.

Mr. Keyes

Should the member not have some notification or warning that he is about to be disqualified? Under the existing section you disqualify him straight off. When he is knocked out by the count you want his seconds to sponge him and restore him to the ring again.

Mr. Lemass

I think the board can direct its secretary to give him that notice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before Section 5 to insert the following section:—

5.—(1) Where by-laws made by a. harbour authority specify the time during which goods may remain upon any quays or other places within the harbour of that harbour authority, the following provisions shall apply in relation to any goods (other than goods forfeitable under the Customs Acts) remaining upon such quays or other places after the expiration of the time so specified—

(a) the harbour authority may, with the consent of the collector or other proper officer of customs and excise in the case of goods which have not been entered and cleared by the customs, at any time after such expiration remove the goods to another place or store, subject in case the owner of the goods is known to the harbour authority, to their giving to such owner seven days previous notice of their intention to so remove the goods, and the cost of removal and subsequent storage shall be recoverable by the harbour authority from the owner of the goods,

(b) the harbour authority may hold the goods until all rates, rents and other charges due in respect of the goods and the cost of removal and storage (if any) are paid to the harbour authority,

(c) the harbour authority may sell the goods, subject, in case the owner of the goods is known to the harbour authority, to their giving to such owner fourteen days previous notice of their intention to sell the goods.

(2) A harbour authority shall not, under sub-section (1) of this section, sell for home use any article if any prohibition or restriction on importation applies in respect thereof or if the price which would be obtained is less than the amount of any duties of customs or excise payable in respect thereof.

(3) The following provisions shall apply in relation to goods sold by a harbour authority under sub-section (1) of this section—

(a) the proceeds of such sale shall be applied in paying the following charges in the following order:—

(i) any customs or excise duties due in respect of the goods,

(ii) all rates, rents and other charges due on the goods to the harbour authority,

(iii) the cost of removal and storage (if any) of the goods and the expense of and incidental to the sale,

(b) where the proceeds of any such sale have been so applied—

(i) if any surplus remains, it shall be paid on demand to the persons appearing to the harbour authority to have been the owner of the goods before such sale,

(ii) if the rates, rents and other charges due on the goods, the cost of removal and storage of the goods and the expenses of and incidental to the sale remain unpaid in part, the balance thereof may be recovered by the harbour authority from the person who was the owner of the goods before such sale as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(4) Nothing contained in the foregoing sub-sections of this section shall affect the powers of the Revenue Commissioners under Section 73 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876.

This amendment is being introduced at the request of the Cork Harbour Commissioners. The commissioners in their representations to me referred to the present tendency on the part of importers, and particularly on the part of importing agents, to use the quays and the transit sheds at the ports as storehouses. The section provides that if goods are left on quays or other places within the harbour limits, in excess of the period allowed under the harbour by-laws, the harbour authority may have them either removed and stored at the expense of the owner after giving seven days' notice or hold the goods until he pays the cost of removal or storage as well as other rates and charges or they may sell the goods after giving the owner 14 days' notice and recover from the proceeds of the sale, the costs incurred by the harbour authority as well as rates and other charges. Under Section 85 of last year's Act, there was power to charge rent in respect of goods left on the quays or at any place within the limits of the harbour for a period in excess of that laid down by the by-laws. It has however been found that the charge provided for under the by-laws for that purpose, has been ineffective in securing the desired result. That is possibly due to the abnormal circumstances now prevailing but, in any event, it is obviously undesirable that importers and importing agents should use the quays and transit sheds of a harbour authority as storehouses. Additional power is given to harbour authorities under this section which is regarded as being necessary to prevent abuse.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

So far as Dublin is concerned, the port authority already has the power conferred under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this amendment and I was rather surprised to find that other harbours did not possess similar powers. Paragraph (c) introduces something new but in so far as we are dealing with an abnormal situation, there is no reason why we should not support the amendment as it stands.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 3, in the name of Deputy Coburn, is out of order, as it would impose a charge on the Exchequer.

Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Coburn

On the section, I just want to say that I drew the Minister's attention to the position of the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners. The Minister is well aware that owing to circumstances over which neither the harbour commissioners nor himself have control, the harbour commissioners find themselves in a very bad position at the moment, so bad that they find it almost impossible to carry on. It was with a view to enabling the harbour commissioners to raise a loan to pay off existing loans that I wished to have the amendment, which had just been ruled out of order, inserted in the Bill. I need not worry the Minister with the whole history of the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners because he is well aware of it. Suffice it to say that the aggregate of the interest charges on the capital sums which they borrowed some years ago in order to buy out private interests and the various little sidings at the harbour, including a special of £9,000 which they got some time ago, is more than the income derived by the harbour commissioners during the last few years.

As the Minister is aware, imports had practically ceased up to the past six months. I may say that the position is looking somewhat better. We all hope that in the near future there will be a resumption of what was the chief source of income for Dundalk and other harbours, namely, imports of coal. I think we may look forward to an increase in so far as imports of coal are concerned. If that happy position comes about, the harbour authorities will be able to continue, but at the moment they find it almost impossible to do so.

I was glad to see in yesterday's papers that the Minister had taken steps to remedy the position in relation to harbours, in so far as the making of river basins safe for shipping is concerned. That is welcome news for Dundalk, Drogheda and Sligo. If not on this stage, possibly on the Report Stage the Minister might consider putting in an amendment similar to the one I submitted which will empower harbour authorities, if they so desire, to raise a loan, which the Minister will guarantee, to enable them to pay off existing loans. I presume if they did raise a loan it would be at a lower rate of interest than they are paying at the moment and the savings would enable them to carry on in a better way than they have been carrying on during the past few years.

I am sure the Minister will keep this matter before him and that he will recognise the unfortunate position in which the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners find themselves at the moment. Perhaps he will do something to lessen the load of debt by way of annual charges which they have to meet and which, in view of the income now accruing to them, they are scarcely in a position to meet.

Mr. Lemass

An amendment is not necessary to enable the Minister to make a grant to the Dundalk harbour authority. Grants are being made to harbour authorities at present for doing essential maintenance work which may have fallen into arrears during the emergency or for the construction of improvement works, but only for these purposes. There are no grants available for paying off old debts. A harbour authority can get a loan out of the Local Loans Fund for harbour works. The Minister could guarantee a loan. He has guaranteed one for the Dundalk harbour authority, but only for the execution of specific works, not for paying off old debts.

There was a guaranteed loan of 35,000 in the case of Dundalk and I recently informed the harbour authorities there that I have no objection to their proposal that arrangements should be made to secure the consent of the trustees and the debenture holders to the transfer to the commissioners of the existing sinking fund in respect of the guaranteed loan so that it might be applied in cancellation of an equivalent amount of the debenture. That would have the effect of reducing by one-half the annual payments to the sinking fund. We have made some grants to the Dundalk harbour authority for essential maintenance work. I understand that there is a question of the Board of Works making an offer for the dredger there which is now out of commission and which will require a great deal of repairs before it can be put back into work.

I am very anxious that harbours such as Dundalk should be rapidly put into commission again and provided with all necessary facilities because the time is in sight now when the trade upon which those harbours depended in the past will be restored. There is an application from the Dundalk harbour authority for a grant for improvement works under consideration, but there is difficulty in having the surveys, which are necessary before such works can be approved, carried out. The difficulty arises out of the scarcity of skilled engineering staff. However, the application of the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners will be disposed of as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. Lemass

Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are merely drafting amendments and are consequential upon earlier changes.

The following amendments were agreed to:—

4. In sub-section (1), page 6, line 11, to insert "(except in sub-sections (5) and (7))" after "references."

5. In sub-section (3), paragraph (a), page 6, line 26, to delete "and (5)" and substitute "(5) and (6)".

6. In sub-section (4), paragraph (d), page 7, line 4, to delete "sub-section (5)" and substitute "sub-sections (5) and (6)".

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 7:—

After sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-section:—

(5) Where—

(a) a person who is a member of a harbour authority is also a member of a committee appointed by that harbour authority, and

(b) such person attends on the same day meetings of both harbour authority and such committee, and

(c) such person is, in respect of his attendance at the said meeting of such harbour authority, entitled to a payment under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of this section,

then, unless such attendance involves an additional journey from and to his official residence, no payment, in respect of his attendance at the meeting of such committee shall be made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) (whichever is appropriate) of this section.

The purpose of this sub-section is to prevent the payment of travelling expenses twice to a person who attends a meeting of a harbour authority and a committee of the harbour authority on the same day, unless it is necessary for him to return home and come back again to the committee meeting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 8:—

In sub-section (5), page 7, line 18, to insert "unless such attendance involves an additional journey from and to his official residence," after "then".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 9:—

To delete sub-section (6) and substitute the following sub-section:—

() (a) Where—

(i) a person who is a member of a harbour authority attends a meeting of that harbour authority or (being a member of a committee appointed by that harbour authority) a meeting of that committee, and

(ii) the place at which such meeting is held is not less than three miles by any route from his official residence, and

(iii) such a person is, by reason of such attendance, obliged to absent himself from his official residence for a continuous period of not less than three hours,

then, subject to the provisions of this subsection, that harbour authority may (whether they are or are not required to make, under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of this section (as the case may be) a payment to such member in respect of his attendance at such meeting and if so required, then in addition to such payment) pay to such member an allowance in respect of such absence.

(b) Where—

(i) a person who is a member of a harbour authority is also a member of a committee of that harbour authority, and

(ii) such person attends on the same day meetings of both such harbour authority and such committee at a place not less than three miles by any route from his official residence, and

(iii) such member is, by reason of his attendance at such meetings, obliged to absent himself from his official residence for a continuous period of not less than three hours,

then, subject to the provisions of this sub-section, that harbour authority may (whether they are or are not required to make, under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of this section (as the case may be), a payment to a member in respect of his attendance at such meetings, and, if so required, then in addition to such payment) pay to such person an allowance in respect of such absence.

(c) An allowance under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this sub-section shall be calculated in accordance with rules which the Minister is hereby authorised to make.

(d) An allowance to a member of a harbour authority in respect of his absence from his official residence on a particular day shall not be made under both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of this sub-section.

(e) Where—

(i) a person who is a member of a harbour authority is also a a member of a local authority, and

(ii) such local authority are required by sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the Act of 1946, to pay to such person an allowance in respect of a particular period falling on a particular day, and

(iii) such harbour authority would, but for this paragraph, be authorised by paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this sub-section to pay to such person an allowance in respect of his absence from his official residence on that day,

then, no allowance shall be paid by such harbour authority under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this sub-section to such person in respect of his absence from his official residence on that day.

This is to achieve the same purpose if a member has to attend a meeting of the harbour authority and of the local authority on the same day.

Mr. Cosgrave

Who will decide that he goes home or not?

Mr. Lemass

I take it there will be regulations to govern these matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 10:—

Before sub-section (4), to insert the following sub-section:—

(4) In fixing the compensation payable under this section the arbitrator shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the circumstances in which the annual sum, in respect of the cesser of which the compensation is payable, became payable.

This amendment has been introduced on the representations of the Cork Harbour Board. Deputies will remember that the Act provided for the cancellation of the annual payment made by the Cork Harbour Board to the Cork Corporation arising out of an agreement made in 1820. The Act provided that compensation would be paid by the harbour authority to the corporation because of the disappearance of the annual payment, the amount of compensation to be determined, in default of agreement, by an arbitrator. The commissioners suggested that the arbitrator should have power to decide whether or not any payment should be made at all, as well as what amount should be paid. They felt that in the absence of any terms of reference the arbitrator might just work on a formula computing so many years' purchase and have no regard to the circumstances of the case.

Some Deputies will remember that a similar question arose in connection with the Transport Act when the payment of wayleaves by the Transport Company to the Dublin Corporation was terminated, and the provision inserted in this Bill is taken from the Transport Act. It provides similarly for the empowering of the arbitrator to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. Of course, the Cork Harbour Commissioners would rather there was no compensation at all, but we could not provide for the wiping out of the payment without compensation; it might have been held to be unconstitutional.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 10 and 11 and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question: "That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.