Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1961

Vol. 192 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Pilotage (Amendment) Bill, 1961— Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Corish

I regret that I did not make this contribution on the Second Stage and I trust that what I say is appropriate to Section 2. I rise because I should like the Minister to give certain assurances and to clarify some things that may at present seem somewhat obscure.

There is a proposal here to reduce what has been regarded as the pilotage area in the Port of Dublin. I do not think anybody would take exception to that. At least, I have not heard any criticism against that proposal. There is also a proposal, and I think it is contained in this section, to raise the minimum limits on the tonnage of ships that must have pilots. Of course, there is a stipulation to the effect that a ship that does not have a pilot and that does not have to pay the full pilotage fees will now make a certain contribution towards the harbour authority but it will mean that there will be a certain number of ships entering and leaving the Port of Dublin that will not be required to have pilots. I should like to know from the Minister if he can give us an assurance that this proposal will not interfere with what has been up to this the good record of the Port of Dublin as an accident-free port.

I do not profess any great knowledge of the Port of Dublin, of ships, sailing or harbours. The Minister has an appreciation of the condition of the harbour around my home town. In any case, I know that pilots in Dublin and those associated with the Port of Dublin are very proud of that accident-free record and I wonder if as a result of the proposal not to insist on certain ships having pilots we will have a spate of accidents in the port such as we have not had up to this.

The majority of these ships, I am informed, will be foreign ships. The Minister and, I am sure, the Dublin Port and Docks Board, have proposed that certain of these ships should not have pilots but I think he should assure the House that this proposal does not mean any grave danger to the ships themselves or to other ships or to the Port of Dublin generally.

It does seem to me—I do not know whether the Minister referred to it or not—that this will necessarily mean a reduction in the number of pilots in the Port of Dublin. At present there are something like 19 and the proposal contained in Section 2 or some other section will mean that the number of pilots will be reduced from 19 to 12, which is cutting off an avenue of employment for many seafaring men who are well qualified to take up such posts and of whom there seems to be no scarcity at the present time nor does it seem that there will be in future.

In view of the number of pilots who will be discharged or laid off or whose vacancies will not be filled, there is a proposal for the substitution of what is described as a shore station system.

Mr. Dillon

Where is all this?

Mr. Corish

You will not see it in the Bill.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

It is not in the Bill. The Deputy is asking me to reply to questions in relation to bye-laws that have to be made and that may not be tabled in the House but I am quite willing to answer the Deputy.

Mr. Corish

The Bill proposes to give power to the Port of Dublin authority to make these bye-laws——

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Corish

——and I think these things I have mentioned are suggestions that have been made either by the Minister or to the Minister. I do not want to overstep the latitude which I think the Ceann Comhairle has given me but if the Minister could give some assurances on the matters I have mentioned I would be very well satisfied. Whether or not he is at liberty to talk about these now or not, I do not know.

Mr. Dillon

Unless I misunderstand the Bill, this is a Bill mainly designed to enable the appropriate authority to charge pilotage dues to a ship which has not got a pilot.

Mr. Childers

Yes; that is the object of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

The object of the Bill, as far as I can find out, is to be able to say to a master or a consignee of goods outward or consigner of goods inwards: "Even though you have not a pilot, you will pay as much as though you had."

Mr. Corish

But it also appears that ships of certain classes are not to have a pilot.

Mr. Dillon

If that is so, I could not find it in the Bill. I believe they can make all kinds of bye-laws under which the port authority will have power to charge pilotage dues, whatever they may be, but I found nothing in the Bill exempting a ship from carrying a pilot. They may have that power but I cannot find it.

Mr. Childers

There was power in the 1913 Act.

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Childers

This alters slightly the arrangements for them.

Mr. Dillon

But whatever obligations they may have had, they now are to get power to say: "Whether you have a pilot aboard or not, you will pay pilotage dues."

Mr. Childers

In reply to the Deputy, I have been reassured by the pilotage authorities, and our own first-class technical advisers in the Department, that everything will be done to maintain the splendid traditions at Dublin with regard to accidents, and any changes that take place in regard to exemption will be made with the utmost care. The pilots in general are satisfied with the provisions of the Bill. In so far as the opportunities for employment for seafaring men are concerned, Irish Shipping Limited is growing at such a rate that people who want to go to sea can get employment on Irish ships. In fact, there is full employment and it is extremely difficult to get certain classes of officers for Irish Shipping. The fact that some of the pilots will disappear in the process of wastage will not affect the opportunities afforded to Irishmen who want to go to sea.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister tell me whether I am right or wrong in believing that Section 2 does nothing except authorise the appropriate authority to levy pilotage dues.

Mr. Childers

That is the main object of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

But Section 2 does not do anything but authorise the appropriate authorities to levy pilotage dues in cases in which it was claimed that under the 1913 Act they were exempt. Nobody quite knew whether they were exempt or not, but now it is proposed to make it abundantly clear that after 1st January, they will not be exempt.

Mr. Childers

There is one exception to that, where a bye-law appears to exempt a ship which was not made to pay pilotage dues under the 1913 Act. Formerly if such an exemption was given, in that case a bye-law had to be confirmed by the Oireachtas. In this case, we have the alternative form of Parliamentary control, which is dealt with later in the Bill, whereby the change in the arrangements is published and people can object. It comes before me for confirmation and is laid on the Table of the House. That is the one exception.

Mr. Mullen

Does the Minister believe that this is an opportune time to do this? Are we taking into consideration the fact that the business of the port is growing, and will most likely continue to grow, having regard to our entry into the Common Market and so on? Furthermore, does the Minister realise that whilst the pilots are satisfied in a general way with this idea, they are still anxiously looking for easement in connection with other matters?

Mr. Childers

I dare say the pilots will have something to say at a later stage. The Dublin Port and Docks Board intend to take full account of the increase that may take place. They have a pretty good record up to now; the same people are in charge and the same traditions will be observed and Deputies need not worry about the result of placing this enabling Bill on the Statute Book.

Mr. Corish

The Minister says an enabling Bill. Who makes the bye-laws—is it the Dublin Port and Docks Board?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Corish

And they will determine where this shore station will be, whether it will have 12 or 19 pilots and so on?

Mr. Childers

That is the case, and proposed changes have to be published and the pilots have the right to make observations when they are published. They then have to be agreed to and confirmed by the Minister for Transport and Power of the day. Then they are laid on the Table of the House for the usual number of days so that there are ample safeguards.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed : "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

I object to Section 4, or rather, I should say that I object to it until satisfactory explanations are afforded to me. There was an obligation heretofore on pilotage authorities to furnish to the Board of Trade —that would now be our Minister for Transport and Power—triennial accounts. This section proposes to abolish that obligation and substitutes an obligation to have these accounts furnished, whenever the Minister for Transport and Power requires. I do not mind whether they are triennial or quinquennial, but there should be a statutory obligation on the authority to lay accounts before the Minister at stated intervals, so that in the event of failing to do so, the matter would automatically come to the attention of the Minister and subsequently of this House, because there is an obligation on the Minister, when he receives the accounts, to lay them on the Table of the House. If they did not turn up, some diligent Deputy would raise the question with the Minister as to why they had not been rendered. Now the Minister can say they have not been rendered because he did not ask for them, if this Bill is passed in its present form. Under the law as it stands, every three years, the officials of the Minister's Department were in a position to say to the pilotage authority that the Minister must have these accounts——

Donnchadh Ó Briain

They can be furnished, if the Minister so directs.

Mr. Dillon

If he so directs. I do not care whether it is annually, triennially or quinquennially, provided they are under a statutory obligation to do it at a regular interval, whether or not they are required.

Mr. Childers

The pilotage authority has to make returns at regular intervals and this section is to end a rather elaborate and archaic provision whereby they furnished this information automatically. Nobody has ever taken any interest in the matter and it was thought sufficient that the Minister of the day should ask the pilotage authority to deliver to him, in a form he can describe and at intervals, the pilotage returns that have to be prepared each year. That would mean Deputies could ask a Parliamentary Question and have the returns for a particular year provided for them, if anybody chose to take any interest in them, but nobody has taken any interest in the pilotage returns for as long as anybody can remember. They continue to be made every year.

Mr. Dillon

No, triennially.

Mr. Childers

No, we are amending that.

Mr. Dillon

The present situation is every third year.

Mr. Childers

We are amending that so that it will read:

Every pilotage authority shall deliver to the Board, wherever, in the form and at the time required by the Board returns giving such particulars as the Board may prescribe with respect to pilotage in their district.

The paragraph repeals the arrangement made before that they would deliver them triennially or, if the Board of Trade so directed, at shorter intervals. We are leaving it now so that the Minister can prescribe when the returns can be made and in what form.

Mr. Dillon

I think that is wrong. These are accounts. There are two things: there are returns and statements of account. We all know the pilotage authorities are obscure bodies. Ordinarily, the ordinary citizen does not interest himself in their activities. Yet they handle public money. You let one of those bodies roll along over a number of years and then you call it to account. You may discover that somebody has gone off with several hundred pounds. If there is a triennial obligation on a pilotage authority to furnish accounts, there will be some civil servant in Kildare Street whose job it will be to turn up the appropriate file and say: "Here is the account for that year." The knowledge that such an account has to be laid on the table of the Oireachtas, that such an account has to be furnished for each three year period, would prevent abuse arising, but if there is an unfortunate devil falling into defalcation——

Mr. Childers

The accounts are not covered in this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

It is there, in Section 4.

Mr. Childers

Oh, yes.

Mr. Dillon

I must protest. Ministers must not come into the House without reading their Bills. Here am I labouring away on behalf of a colleague of mine who is indisposed——

Mr. Childers

The Deputy should not speak too soon about it. I am trying to explain that we are not amending the section in the 1913 Act which deals with accounts.

Mr. Dillon

Look here. What does triennially mean? You are providing that in subsection (1) of Section 22 of the 1913 Act that the word triennial is struck out.

Mr. Childers

If the Deputy would listen for a minute I would explain all this. Subsection (2) of Section 22 of the 1913 Act says that every pilotage authority shall furnish to the Board of Trade, as the Board directs, a statement of their accounts, etcetera. We are not repealing that section. Those accounts will continue to be presented annually. There are also pilotage returns giving the history of the working of the pilotage system and the accounts in connection with the working of the pilotage system.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister certifies to me that though his statement on the activities of pilotage authorities is, in effect, mentioned in Section 4 of the Bill, the examination of the triennial returns does not apply to statements of account.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

There is a point here which I should have raised on the previous section. I understand that Section 4 exempts the Minister from the obligation of laying these pilotage returns before the Oireachtas. Why?

Mr. Childers

Because nobody has ever taken any interest in them; there was never any comment on them and because the returns could be furnished by way of answer to Parliamentary Question.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Minister will agree it is a thoroughly unsound principle to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas something which has been habitually within its jurisdiction. There are thousands of returns which are laid on the table of the House in which nobody appears to take any interest, but the obligation to place them in the Dáil Library has prevented the possibility of abuse arising and it is that very precautionary step that has prevented abuses. If you keep a policeman on the beat there will be no petty crime, and that is a good excuse for taking him off the beat. But if you do take him off the beat the footpads will get to work, petty crime will return and the poor old lady will be robbed and assaulted. I want to put it to the Minister that in principle it is unsound. If there has been a statutory obligation on a body of this kind to lay its reports on the table of the House, it is a much better thing to continue that principle because I feel it would operate to prevent abuse in the future. Abuse may creep in which might have been avoided by the simple deposit of that document on the table. We have civil servants, even Ministers, who are not immune from lack of interest. Homer sometimes nods. I wonder how many times has the Minister for Tranport and Power asked for the pilotage returns, or would he know if they exist?

Mr. Childers

There is quite enough to do in the Department besides reading every document.

Mr. Dillon

I quite agree, and therefore the Minister does not ever ask. There is a duty on somebody to requisition these returns and then that civil servant has the frustrating duty of going around the Department asking who wants to read them and of being told to go to hell. He has the consolation, however, that when he comes to the Librarian of Dáil Éireann, he is greeted with enthusiasm. There is one person who applauds his diligence, who acknowledges he has done his job, and that is the Librarian of the Oireachtas. Remove him, and that unfortunate civil servant becomes one of those frustrated persons about whom nobody on God's earth gives a damn.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is exaggerating a little. There are so many returns, and to remove some of the more archaic provisions in the Act whereby documents which are never read must be laid on the table, might mean that people would take more interest in those which it is important to read. It might make it easier if some of the mass of papers were not there. Secondly, the Minister for Transport and Power could not refuse to make available pilotage returns if there was any abuse. It is inconceivable that any Minister who was asked by way of private resolution or Parliamentary Question to make available pilotage returns because of some alleged abuse would refuse to do so. He would be in grave trouble, as the Deputy must admit.

Mr. Dillon

I do not press this matter unduly but I would point out that in the very next section the Minister requires that the bye-laws be laid on the Table of the House. I cannot imagine Deputies working themselves into a fever to go down and read the bye-laws.

Mr. Childers

If the Deputy feels keenly on this matter I could arrange to have an amendment in the Seanad to put back the returns on the Table of the House.

Mr. Dillon

I would prefer that, if the Minister could conveniently do it. Quite apart from anything else, it would be a vindication of a principle which will warn other astute operators.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take remaining stages today.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.