This is a Bill to make better provision for the management, control, operation and development of harbours. I feel sure it is not necessary to stress the need for ensuring that the management and control of our harbours is as efficient as it can be made. Ports and harbours are an integral factor in the transport economy of the country. They provide the links between land and sea routes for external trade and, to a smaller degree in this country, for internal coastwise communication. The development of industry and commerce may influence the character of the facilities required at particular harbours, or may alter the relative importance of harbours, but it does not lessen the importance of harbour facilities to the State as a whole. As good transport services are vital to the expansion of industry and commerce, the proper management and development of our harbours is essential, particularly in an island country such as this.
Senators will have noticed that this Bill, which deals with a special type of transport facilities, is unlike other Bills dealing with transport matters that we have had under discussion from time to time in so far as it does not propose any concentration of those facilities in large units. It has come to be accepted in this country and elsewhere that undue competition in transport is not in the ultimate public interest and that the transport needs of the country can be served more efficiently and progressively by concentrating transport facilities in large units. Other Bills which we have had before the Oireachtas from time to time dealing with transport matters provided for such concentration but a different principle is being applied in respect of this legislation. There is, I think, a substantial difference between transport services and harbour facilities. Harbour facilities are more akin to roads than to commercial transport businesses and it is not considered that centralisation is an effective means of securing greater efficiency or better service. This Bill does not, therefore, propose to achieve any concentration of harbour facilities.
The need for a reorganisation of harbour authorities and for a complete revision and codification of the law relating to harbours has, I think, been recognised for a long time.
The knowledge of the state of confusion and mismanagement which existed in many harbour authorities led to the establishment in 1926, by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas of a Harbours Tribunal. That tribunal was set up following on the adoption of these resolutions by the Dáil and Seanad, and carried out a very full investigation into the state of the law relating to harbours and the practice of harbour authorities. It visited all the principal harbours of the country and heard the evidence of commercial interests and of witnesses from various organisations concerned with the efficiency of the harbour facilities.
The report of the tribunal was published in 1930 and during the course of the years between 1930 and 1940, it was examined in detail and decisions taken to prepare proposals for legislation to give effect to its recommendations. There was a very large number of old Acts which had to be considered, and a great deal of detailed matter to be taken into account. The Bill now before the Seanad was, in fact, ready for introduction in 1940, but having regard to conditions then existing, and the general desire in these conditions to avoid unnecessary legislation, and having regard also to the difficulties that would have been experienced in putting the Bill into operation in those conditions, it was not introduced until after the war had ended.
The Ports and Harbours Tribunal to which I have referred found that the administrative control of the harbours of the country was regulated by a very large and unco-ordinated volume of legislation, both general Acts and local Acts, and that wide diversity existed as between one body and another in the character and extent of their powers and functions as well as in their constitution and make-up.
The tribunal drew attention to the fact that no attempt had been made at any time to co-ordinate the activities of the various Acts, to assist or supervise their operation and development, or for the protection of the interests of the users of the ports and harbours. In their report they made two main recommendations. The first was that the provisions of the various general Acts relating to harbours should be replaced by a general consolidating Act embodying in modern form such of the existing statutory provisions as experience had shown to be valuable and desirable.
The second main recommendation was that the Department of Industry and Commerce should be given the general oversight of harbour administration and be placed, as regards harbours, in much the same position as that occupied by the Department of Local Government in relation to local authorities. The tribunal further proposed the adoption of a fresh policy based upon its suggestions and recommendations to the end that the various harbour undertakings might, under the general guidance of the Department of Industry and Commerce, be brought to the highest level of efficiency in the interest of the trade and commerce of the State.
The Bill, as drafted, gave precise effect to all the main recommendations of the tribunal. Any departure there was from the recommendations of the tribunal was on matters of minor detail only. The procedure adopted was to base the Bill on the tribunal's recommendations and to bring it to the Dáil in that form. It received a Second Reading in the Dáil and was then circulated to all harbour bodies in the country and other bodies interested in harbour facilities which were asked to submit any observations they had, and to make suggestions on the provisions of the Bill for such changes and additions as they considered necessary.
A very large number of suggested amendments was received from these harbour authorities and other bodies, and they were very closely examined, and such of them as appeared to involve an improvement of the Bill without departure from the main principles laid down by the Ports and Harbours Tribunal were adopted and embodied in the Bill by amendments moved on the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil.
The Bill, as it comes to the Seanad. embodies, therefore, not merely the recommendations of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal but also the modification of these recommendations which the harbour authorities themselves proposed and which were adopted by the Government and by the Dáil after the Bill had been first circulated. The Bill applies to the four principal harbours, Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford and to 21 other specified harbours. All the harbours governed by the Bill are those mentioned in the terms of reference of the tribunal, except the harbour at Buncrana which developed into an important port subsequent to the establishment of the tribunal, and consequential on the expenditure of a large sum of money on the development of that harbour.
The Bill does not apply to the State harbours administered by the Office of Public Works or to harbours under the management and care of county councils or railway companies.
The harbours are grouped into two classes—the four main harbours, and the 21 secondary harbours. There is, however, provision in the Bill by which a harbour may be moved from one class to another by Ministerial Order, or a new harbour included in either class, if the development of its trade and the expansion of the facilities provided there, justify such inclusion.
It will be understood that in the course of time, some harbours will gain in importance, others will lose in importance, and there is power to change the status of a harbour following such changes under the Bill as drafted. The provisions of the Bill apply equally to all the specified harbours, with the exception, that the harbour authorities for the four principal harbours are comprised of a larger and more diversified membership, and each of them is required to have a general manager, and to promote a superannuation scheme for the benefit of officers and established staff. The provisions of the Bill which relate to the reconstitution of the harbour authorities, and the provisions which relate to the general procedure of harbour authorities and the removal from office of members of harbour authorities for stated reasons, will come into operation on a day in an appointed year. The Bill provides that it need not be the same day for each authority. All the other provisions of the Bill will take effect as from the date upon which the measure is enacted.
I assume it is not necessary to elaborate the case for the reconstitution of harbour authorities. As Senators will be aware, many of the existing harbour authorities are constituted in a manner which is not only obsolete and inconsistent with democratic principles but one which does not make for efficient management. There is at present, as I have mentioned, considerable diversity, and each harbour board is constituted on a basis peculiar to itself. At Cork, the harbour commissioners are largely composed of members appointed by the Cork Corporation.
At Foynes the harbour commissioners co-opt their successors and at certain harbours, provisions for the appointment of commissioners have become obsolete and vacancies exist which cannot be filled until the existing legislation is amended. The number of the members of harbour authorities varies from as few as seven in some cases, to as many as 37 in another. The system of election of harbour boards has, in practice, been largely one of co-option and nomination of representatives of those firms and shipping companies which were actively interested as users of the harbour. In many cases the harbour authorities have come to be regarded as closed corporations.
The principle of election is not followed generally. There were in fact no contested elections at Dublin or at Sligo for many years before the emergency. At Dundalk, a contested election is exceptional, and in the case of that harbour, at an election held in 1944 only eight persons voted out of an electorate of 500. There has been, it must be confessed, a regrettable lack of public interest in matters affecting harbour authorities on the part of the community. The fact that the public are not directly rated or taxed for the upkeep of harbours may account, to some extent, for the lack of interest. The fact that the public do not pay directly through rates and taxes for harbour maintenance is not, however, a measure of their interest in the efficiency with which harbours are conducted, and the adequacy of the facilities provided, because as producers and consumers, they are very much affected by the cost of moving goods through these harbours and ports. They may not pay directly through rates and taxes, but they certainly do pay indirectly, in the price of commodities, for the upkeep of the harbours, although it is not apparent that they realise the full extent to which they contribute to them.
The general scheme now proposed recognises that the management of ports and harbours is largely a matter for local bodies. I do not mean local government bodies. I mean bodies constituted on a local basis. It is intended that the new harbour authorities should be representative of the classes of persons and the interests which are directly concerned in the use of the undertaking.
It is desirable that each authority should comprise a reasonably compact membership to facilitate the expeditious discharge of business, and, at the same time, be not too unwieldy. It is proposed, therefore, in the Bill, that the harbour authorities, when reconstituted, will have as membership: in the case of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford a total of 23, divided as to five to be appointed by the corporation (in the case of Cork, one of those to be appointed as a local representative will be so appointed by the Cobh Urban District Council); four of the 23 members will be appointed by the chambers of commerce, two each will be appointed by the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, organisations of live-stock traders, and an organisation representative of labour interests. Four members are to be elected by persons who pay tonnage rates of £20 or more, and four are to be nominated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The tribunal recommended that, in addition to securing representation on harbour boards for various local interests, the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have the power to make direct nominations. The reason why that power was given to the Minister was to ensure that any local interest that should be represented on a harbour authority and did not secure that representation through any of the other nominating bodies, could nevertheless be appointed thereon by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
In the case of Galway Harbour, and some other smaller harbours, where the Minister has that power of nomination now, the importance of it has become self-evident. In some cases, the persons most concerned with the trade of the harbour and the use of the harbour do not secure representation on the harbour board through the local body or other nominating authority, and obtain it only by Ministerial nomination. It is, I think, a desirable procedure. Certainly, my experience in the exercise of the power which I now have in relation to some harbour authorities, would appear to suggest that the power of direct Ministerial nomination is highly desirable. In the case of the smaller harbours it is proposed that the total membership of the harbour authorities should be substantially smaller, consisting of nine or 11 members; 11 members where a chamber of commerce exists, and nine, where there is no chamber of commerce.
In the case of these harbours, it is proposed that four of the members will be appointed by the local authorities (there may be two local authorities concerned); two by the members of the chamber of commerce where such exists, two to be elected by persons paying tonnage rates, and three to be nominated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Bill provides in respect of these smaller harbours that the Minister in exercising his power of nomination must include, among the three persons placed on the harbour authority by him, one at least who will be representative of Labour interests. One or two additional local authority members may also be appointed in certain circumstances when a local authority renders financial assistance to a harbour authority, and that local authority is not already an appointing body. The continuity of an existing harbour authority is not affected by the change of membership, nor is the position regarding property, liabilities, mortgages, stock, contracts or agreements altered. The general aim is to constitute harbour authorities in such a way that there will be a balanced representation of the various interests concerned in the development and management of each port.
I have mentioned that the tribunal proposed that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be given a general oversight of harbour administration. One recommendation was that the officers of the Department should have the right of attendance at harbour meetings, but on consideration I decided that it was neither necessary nor desirable that that course should be followed, and consequently the Bill does not provide for such powers. The Bill provides that the Minister can remove from office members of a harbour authority on stated grounds: if they refuse or neglect to comply with statutory requirements or are found, after the holding of an inquiry, to have failed in the discharge of their statutory duties. Provision is made in the Bill for the holding of a local inquiry into the performance by harbour authorities of their powers, functions and duties and into a variety of matters such as harbour finance, borrowing, the conditions of the harbour, the rates charged and the accommodation and facilities provided. It will be understood that the power given for the holding of a local inquiry is an important one for commercial interests. It is frequently alleged that the management of a harbour is operated to give an advantage to some commercial interest to the detriment of others. Many provisions in the Bill are framed in order to ensure that such special advantage cannot be improperly granted, that everybody shall have the same rights to use the harbour facilities, and that in every respect the administration of the harbours cannot be subordinated to private commercial interests.
Provision is made for the continuity in office of existing officers and servants. As certain positions fall vacant they will be filled through the Local Appointments Commission. I have mentioned that the four principal harbours will each be required to have a general manager. There are, as some Senators know, already general managers at Cork and Waterford. The Dublin Port and Docks Board has decided to appoint a general manager. The position has been advertised, and is at present being filled through the machinery of the Local Appointments Commission. The four principal harbours will be required to submit a superannuation scheme for their officers and established staff within two years of the date of the enactment of this measure. In the case of the smaller harbours it is not considered practicable to impose upon them the obligation to have superannuation schemes, because the institution of a superannuation scheme assumes continuity of revenue which may not be in fact realised in the case of some of those smaller harbours. What the Bill proposes, in relation to the smaller harbours, is that they may establish superannuation schemes for their staff with the consent of the Minister, where the Minister is satisfied that the prospects of the future harbour revenues are such as would justify such a course.
Under the existing system of legislation a special Act or provisional Order under the General Pier and Harbour Acts is necessary to create a new harbour authority to revise the constitution of existing harbour authorities, to authorise the construction of new works, or to provide additional borrowing powers. The number of Acts has multiplied and the statutory provision has grown more complex. I am sure that many Senators will remember a number of these Acts coming along from time to time confirming provisional Orders made under the General Pier and Harbour Acts. A number of them dealt with quite unimportant matters. At present a number of harbours have exhausted their borrowing powers and require extensions to enable them to proceed with urgent works of reconstruction. Without statutory sanction, they are unable to borrow or to proceed with the new works. Cork is an example of that position. If separate enactments had to be obtained by each of the harbours requiring special powers within the next few years there would be a multitude of private Bills, and a quite considerable expenditure for the individual harbour authorities concerned. This Bill obviates a great deal of that unnecessary legislation. It provides that the Minister for Industry and Commerce may authorise a harbour authority to construct works or acquire land compulsorily. He may fix or vary the limits of a harbour, transfer a harbour to a local authority, or transfer to the management of a harbour authority any specified port or pier. If compulsory acquisition of land arises on a large scale, and in the case of the transfer of a harbour to a local authority, or the transfer of a port or pier to a harbour authority, or an alteration in the harbour limits, the matter must be brought specifically before the Oireachtas, and provision is made to that effect in the Bill. A survey may be made of the intended site of any works which a harbour authority proposes to construct. Completed works and works in course of construction may also be included within the provision designed to ensure that proposed works of an extensive nature are sound from an engineering point of view.
Hitherto, when moneys were required for capital works they have usually been borrowed on mortgage on the security of the harbour revenues. When the borrowing did not exceed £100,000 and was for the purpose of financing new works, sanction could be obtained by means of a provisional Order. The maximum limit was set in the relevant section of the special Act or provisional Order, and in many cases the borrowings were earmarked for specific purposes. The Bill provides a general power to borrow with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The consent of the Minister for Finance is also required where the borrowings are large, that is to say over £200,000 in the case of Dublin, and over £50,000 in the case of other harbours.
The tribunal made certain recommendations in regard to the method of granting financial assistance to harbour authorities. They recommended that State assistance should be made available for schemes which the harbours were unable to finance out of their own resources, and that when such approved schemes are not of national importance that the State contribution should be conditional on a contribution from the local authority. They considered that when State aid was given it should be by way of loan or by guaranteeing loans raised by the harbour authorities concerned. In the past local authorities have only been empowered to assist harbour undertakings when a loan from the Local Loans Fund was concerned. The assistance given by local authorities for essential harbour maintenance during the past few years was authorised only by an Emergency Powers Order made under the Emergency Powers Acts. This Bill proposes that a local authority, with the consent of the Minister for Local Government, may assist a harbour undertaking by a contribution or guarantee, or may themselves raise a loan where the harbour authority is unable to do so. The supervisory power given to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is considered desirable for the purpose of ensuring that local authorities will not unduly burden themselves with heavy financial commitments.
In the past, the only methods open to harbour authorities to obtain financial help from the State were in the form of loans from the Local Loans Fund, administered by the Office of Public Works, which loans normally required a guarantee from the local authority; or by grants from the Special Employment Schemes Office, or from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote, the grant in such cases being conditional upon the prevailing unemployment conditions in the harbour area; or by occasional grants made on the recommendation of the Minister for Agriculture for the dredging of fishery harbours, or by loans for work of a capital nature guaranteed under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts or, during these last few years of the emergency, by grants administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce towards the cost of essential maintenance.
The position is that, heretofore, the State has not accepted the position of having any obligation to assist financially in harbour development. It has now been decided as a matter of policy, however, that State aid should be made available for the purpose of harbour development in cases where harbour revenues would be unable to support the necessary borrowing. It is intended, however, that the assistance will be given subject to the conditions recommended by the Ports and Harbours Tribunal. These conditions were, first, that in the case of harbours primarily of local interest, assistance should be forthcoming from local authorities in the areas concerned, and, secondly, that the expenditure would be likely to result in a perceptible reduction of freights and costs of handling goods or would be likely to confer other benefits on the community such as providing supplies at lower prices and enabling exports to be forwarded more cheaply and expeditiously. In all cases it is intended that the supervision of the engineering aspect of schemes for which State aid is provided will be entrusted to the Office of Public Works.
During the emergency, as Senators will know, a number of the smaller harbours have suffered considerable losses and have accumulated arrears of maintenance. It has been decided to make special provision in such cases during the next five or six years. The harbour authorities will, however, be expected to show that their incapacity to meet the situation which has arisen was not due to lack of economic management and that the expenditure would be likely to result in the revival of trade at the port and confer benefits on the community of the nature referred to in the tribunal's report. Assistance by local authorities will be required in all such cases. There are a large number of miscellaneous provisions in the Bill which it is hardly necessary to refer to at this stage. There are, however, a few which I think I should mention. The Bill unifies a lot of the existing mass of legislation in regard to management, control and operation of harbours, and that legislation is made of general application. A harbour authority may be required to submit proposals for the dredging of their harbour and may be required to have the dredging carried out in a specified manner. Harbour authorities are empowered to provide facilities for aircraft and to make charges for such facilities. With regard to charging powers, the existing maximum rates are preserved until varied by a harbour rates authority. Uniform powers are provided in relation to the charging of tonnage, goods and service rates. The Bill provides that rates are to be charged equally on all persons, and harbour facilities are to be available equally on payment of appropriate rates. The lists of rates must be open for inspection. These provisions are in the main a codification of existing legislation.
There is a provision in the Bill which is new in harbour legislation in this country, and which empowers a harbour authority to take steps to improve the conditions of casual employment of dock workers by introducing a system of registration of workers and by confining employment to registered workers. I had some doubts, and still have some doubts, about giving that power to harbour authorities, because I think that in so far as it is desirable to confine employment to registered workers, the obligation should rest more directly on the employers of dock labour and on the trade unions concerned, rather than on the harbour authorities, to take the necessary steps. In fact, I have caused an inquiry to be made into the general question of the de-casualisation of dock labour along the lines of what has been proposed in recent British legislation. I cannot say what that will result in, but at any rate I decided to leave this section in the Bill, even though a port authority might not take any action under it. I do not think the section will do any particular good so far as the larger harbours are concerned, but in the case of smaller harbours the harbour authority may be the only organisation in the position to take action.
Under the Bill nine general Harbour Acts will cease to apply to the specified harbour authorities, and over 100 private Acts and provisional Orders will cease to have effect in so far as they are inconsistent with the new legislation. The Bill is not one which lends itself easily to discussion of principles at this stage. The main discussion in the Dáil was on the Committee Stage and, in fact, it was necessary to have a recommittal on Report Stage. Many of the members of the Dáil were members of harbour authorities and, naturally, were very interested in the Bill. For that reason, I think that Senators also will find that discussion of this Bill will be more useful on the Committee Stage rather than on Second Reading.
