With regard to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 I think we can leave them over until the next stage, because we had to-day a discussion which was really relevant to this matter, and when we have gone through the Committee Stage and have seen what type of regulation it is proposed to make, we will be in a better position to discuss this amendment, if it is put down.
Harbours Bill, 1945—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "appointed" in line 9, page 11, to insert the words "by the National Executive of the Irish Live-Stock Trade"; and in that paragraph to delete sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), lines 10 to 18 inclusive.
The Minister stated that the reason he had for not mentioning the National Executive of the Live-stock Trade in the Bill, as a nominating body, was that at one time the National Executive of the Live-stock Trade broke down, and that as this Bill was to be a permanent one, he could not take the risk of such a thing happening at a future date, which would leave the live-stock trade without a representative on the harbour boards. I now want to state very definitely that there is not the smallest particle of truth in that fairy tale. The national executive was formed about 18 or 20 years ago and since-that time it has carried on without a break. It has functioned every time; it has functioned continuously since, and, furthermore, none of the six organisations of the live-stock trade which was in existence then broke down. Each of these six organisations which was affiliated with the national executive functioned during that time and are still functioning. As a matter of fact, the national executive cannot be allowed to fail. The work it is doing is of such national importance that if it broke down the Government or the Minister for Agriculture would have to appoint a manager or a commissioner to carry on the work which, they are doing. The national executive through its boards is functioning and administering two Acts of Parliament which are vested in them by the Oireachtas. The Minister stated also that the Minister for Agriculture does not consider it desirable to give statutory powers to one cattle trade organisation. The Minister for Agriculture and his predecessor have given statutory powers already under two Acts of Parliament to the National Executive of the Live-stock Trade. The National Executive is responsible for the safe transport and the protection from slaughter by foot-and-mouth or hold-ups through foot-and-mouth. They are responsible for every beast purchased in the Twenty-Six Counties and exported through any port in the Thirty-Two Counties.
We are responsible for every exporter who purchases his cattle in the Twenty-Six Counties no matter what his nationality is. Every exporter has to pay his levy and he is fully protected during the whole time the cattle are in transit and for some time afterwards until they are sold. Last year the board functioning under one of those Acts— the Livestock Exporters' Insurance Act —collected in levies, £59,477 and they paid out in compensation for injured cattle £133,819. I see Senator Baxter saying how could they pay——
I did not say anything of the kind.
Well, you are thinking of it. I shall tell the House.
Tell the House where you got it.
Every class of damage occurring either in transit or while waiting in the market or due to any hold-up from foot-and-mouth disease is paid for. The agents appointed by the national executive take over every beast that is injured in transit. They have these cattle slaughtered and pay the full amount to the owner or exporter of the cattle. The salvage account last year amounted to £81,059 and that left a credit balance of £6,770 to pay expenses and build up a fund.
I want to ask the Minister is there any other voluntary organisation in the State that is doing such useful work for its members. I do not think the Minister can say there is. Our principal reason for trying to get the National Executive named as the body to nominate representatives to the harbour board is that we are very anxious to improve transit facilities at the port and also to improve marketing facilities. That is our sole and only reason. We are not out for the honour and glory of having power to nominate representatives to the harbour board. We are out to protect our own interests and to do work which the Minister should appreciate. On that point, when our representative gave evidence before the Vocational Commission, we were very highly complimented and held up as an example to other organisations, who were told that they should follow on the same lines. In spite of that the Minister cannot see anything in the live-stock trade.
I tell the Minister that to become a successful cattleman, one requires to have more brains, intelligence and foresight than——
Than the Minister.
——to be a successful manufacturer under the protection which the Minister has given them, to become a prominent member of a chamber of commerce or even to become a Minister in a Fianna Fáil Government.
I knew that was coming.
In 1938 our total exports were about £24,000,000. Of that amount £20,000,000 represented live stock and live-stock products; the other £4,000,000 was made up of beer, biscuits and a few other things. The cattle portion was the main item in our returns for exports. The Minister when he goes out to public functions, public luncheons and public dinners is always stressing the fact that it is up to every section of the country to increase production and export more but he is not paying very much attention to the live-stock trade which is doing all the exporting. He has told the people that unless we export we cannot import. The Minister told us on Second Reading that we should be satisfied when he put us on the same level as the representatives of the dock labourers. I do not want to say anything disparaging about dock labourers but I say we are better entitled to be on the first list than the manufacturers or Chamber of Commerce. He seems to think that we should be quite satisfied that we, the cattle punchers, are put on the same standard as the dock labourers' representatives. The Minister, I suppose, is going to hold to his point and say that it is still good enough for us but I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision and to put us on the level to which we are entitled and which we got from two previous Ministers of two previous Governments. We were nominated in two Bills as the people responsible for collecting an enormous sum—though I will not say it is an enormous sum from the point of view of the cattle trade. They made no exception in these nominations. We are responsible for the trade. I say the present generation in the live-stock trade have helped to build up the greatest trade in live stock of any country in the world and I think the Minister or any other member of the House should appreciate that.
I do not think I have ever been so seriously misquoted in my life. May I remind Senator Counihan that I have no objection to the cattle trade and certainly no objection to the national executive of the Irish live-stock trade. So far as I am concerned, I am sure every member of the trade possesses all the qualities that are required to make a good cattle trader but that is not the point. Senator Counihan's remarks were largely irrelevant to the point raised in his amendment. The question raised in his amendment is whether we should provide that the nomination of members of harbour boards should be done by the national executive of the live-stock trade or by an organisation nominated by the Minister for Agriculture to exercise that function. I have no doubt whatever that the national executive of the cattle trade will be able to persuade the Minister for Agriculture that they are in fact the most representative organisation, certainly so far as Dublin is concerned, and that he should exercise the power given to him under the sub-section, to ensure for them the right of direct nomination to the Dublin Harbour Board. The question that arises is whether we should give that right automatically to that organisation in respect to the four main harbours of the country, and rule out for all time the possibility of giving direct representation on these boards to other organisations of live-stock traders.
There is no other organisation.
All that I know is that the Cork Harbour Commissioners, for example, propose, in relation to this Bill, that the membership of the Cork Harbour Commissioners should include two members nominated by the Cork Cattle Trade Association.
There are representatives of the Cork Cattle Trade Association on the national executive.
That is all right then. I am quite certain that if that is so the Minister for Agriculture will exercise this right in respect of the Cork Harbour Board in favour of the national executive representatives of the Irish live-stock trade, but circumstances may arise at Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Waterford where some other organisation, representing some other branch of the live-stock trade, such as pig exporters or sheep exporters, may be entitled to representation because of the importance of the trade they are doing through one of these ports. I do not want to rule out the possibility, however, of such an organisation being given representation if that circumstance should arise. Senator Counihan tells me now that he is entitled to speak with authority, and that this organisation, on whose behalf he is making his representations, will be accepted by all traders in live stock as the most representative on all of these ports. If that is so, they will get the representation. Having regard to the fact, however, that this is a Bill which we hope will remain unchanged for a long number of years, I think it is wiser to make provision for the representation of live-stock interests on these harbour boards in the manner proposed in the Bill: that is that the Minister for Agriculture can say which organisation or organisations is or are the most representative, and can give to these representative organisations the power of direct nomination. As Senator Counihan has very little difficulty in assuming that the Minister for Agriculture will nominate those selected by the executive of the live-stock trade, he has no particular worry on the subject: and it seems to me that that organisation will get the representation. I want to make it clear, however, that that only relates to the power of direct representation, and that in so far as cattle traders can get nomination through other bodies, and through that nomination membership of harbour boards, there is nothing to prevent them doing so.
Does the Minister think that circumstances are likely to arise in our time which would make the cattle trade anything but the most important of all our exports?
That is not the point at all. Cattle may represent a most important part of our exports, but we are not dealing at the moment with the importance of our exports. We are dealing with the trade through a number of ports in this country through which no cattle are exported.
Mr. Patrick O'Reilly
Suppose you had the position in which co-operative societies acted as direct exporters of the cattle produced by their members, how would these societies stand in the matter of representation? I think Senator Baxter was right when he said that he did not regard the group that Senator Counihan was speaking for as directly representing in any way the producers. After all, these cattle traders are just business men. They buy cattle and they export them. That is how they make their living, in the same way that a shopkeeper makes his living by carrying on a trade with his farmer—customers. I do not think that these arrangements for representation should be so watertight as to make it impossible for other groups of farmers to get representation on these harbour boards.
As regards the constitution of the harbour authorities in the four major ports, it will hardly be denied that Dublin is the only one through which a very big proportion of our total number of cattle are exported. Therefore, the importance of giving adequate representation to the principal organisation representing the cattle trade arises, especially in connection with that port. The Minister, no doubt, realises the central importance of cattle in our whole economy. He is probably quite well aware of the relation between the healthy condition of the cattle trade and of our agricultural exports generally and the possibility of industrial development in which he is primarily interested. I wonder whether he realises adequately how very important the cattle trade is, and what a big proportion of our total export trade is represented by cattle? Cattle may be said to be the one agricultural product that we have of which normally about 80 per cent. are exported. Therefore, the cattle trade interest is more concerned with cheap transport and with the efficiency of harbour facilities than any other single aspect of our agricultural production. If we look back over our history we find that there was always the tendency to export a surplus of our cattle. Without going back too far, Senators will remember that we had a rather rough time during the economic war. Even during those times, the Irish farmer got from the sale of his cattle —most of them were sold in the export market—far more money than he got from any other single one of his total economic activities. Something between one-third and one-half of the total receipts of Irish farmers came direct——
Will the Senator give us the figures for each year during the economic war?
We do not want to go over that again.
That is not the question before the House. The amendment deals simply with the nomination of live-stock members by a particular body.
I am trying to emphasise the vitality of the cattle trade and its importance in our total economy. I want to remind the House that, in the recent war as well as in every other war, every one of our agricultural exports disappeared except the export of cattle and eggs. Consequently, the cattle trade is more vitally interested in the matter of the efficiency of our harbour facilities than any other of our agricultural activities. Some Senator said that the cattle trader is a middle man, and that anything he gets does not necessarily go back to the pocket of the producer. I would remind the House that there is competition between cattle dealers to get cattle and that the final price that the producer, big or small, gets for his cattle is affected directly or indirectly by the cost of the transport of those cattle from Ireland to Britain. Therefore, every economy that can be made in the cost of that transport is going to mean a bigger price for the farmer, whether he is a large farmer selling finished cattle, or a small farmer engaged in producing stores.
There is no necessity for the Senator to elaborate that point to such an extent. He is now very wide of the immediate question before the House.
Surely it is relevant to emphasise the importance of the cattle industry.
Is not the Senator elaborating the point unduly?
If it is thought that I am pushing an open door, then I shall be only too happy to sit down.
I would remind the Senator that during the economic war, and during the world war in which the vitality of the cattle trade was so evident to him, the cattle traders had no representation whatever on the Dublin Port and Docks Board.
I would ask the Minister to consider sympathetically the representations that have been made to him on behalf of the Cattle Traders' Association. I have been associated with farmers' organisations during the many years that I have been in public life. The exporters of cattle are a very intelligent body of men, just as are manufacturers and the owners of factories on whom the Minister looks so sympathetically. The producers of cattle and the exporters of cattle have survived all the onslaughts made on them during all the wars. I suppose that if we try to look into a future world we may feel convinced that we will have more wars. I think that the members of the cattle trade should be encouraged at all times. Listening to speeches made from time to time, one would almost think that the cattle trade was an immoral trade—that it was something wrong to produce cattle. I hope that the Minister will give the cattle traders the representation that they are entitled to on these harbour authorities. It is a natural force in Ireland, and I do think that if any individual organisation, associated with any trade or occupation in Ireland, is to be given representation in this matter, then the cattle traders should be given first consideration. In my own district we have two ports. I do not know how long one of them will survive. Through the generosity of the Minister and his assistants, when we came to him in the warm days of the summer, I think we were given a grant which enabled us to carry on, but I do not think that what Senator Counihan proposes will stop this thing, so far as we are concerned. At any rate, I have no very great hope that it will be stopped, but I think the Minister should give special consideration to the cattle traders.
I do not want to intervene at the moment, but it is quite obvious that Senator McGee does not understand the question at all. The only question here is, not that of giving representation to the live-stock trade, but of how to give the Cattle Traders' Association direct representation. Senator Counihan says that we should name directly in the Bill the National Executive of the Live-stock Trade. The Bill says that representation should be given to exporters and importers.
The live-stock traders are responsible also for the administration of two other Acts.
Under the Bill, the interests of these people will be safeguarded.
With all respect to the Minister, I do not think they will. The Minister, I gather, takes the view that under sub-section (3) the Minister for Agriculture will nominate the national executive of the live-stock trade.
He told them that he will.
Well, yes, under sub-section (3). Now, the national executive of the live-stock trade is not an organisation. It is an amalgamation of, I think, six or seven organisations, and if the Minister will look at the top of page 12 he will see that the Minister for Agriculture may, in respect of the first column of Part I of the First Schedule of this Act, declare that a specified organisation, or two specified organisations, of live-stock traders shall be appointed. Now, the national executive of the live-stock trade is not a specified organisation, nor could it be declared to be two specified organisations—I do not think it could be described as a national organisation. The national executive of the live-stock traders, as I understand it, is the chairman and vice-chairman of six or seven organisations, and, therefore, under that sub-section, the Minister, I think, would not have the power to do what he apparently wants to do and what the Minister for Industry and Commerce apparently wants him to do. Accordingly, I would say that, regardless of whether we deal with the particular wording of Senator Counihan's amendment or not, the phraseology of sub-section (3) does require amendment because, as the Bill stands at present, the national executive of the live-stock traders could not be appointed.
I shall agree with Senator Counihan that the national executive of the live-stock traders is a national organisation. Senator Counihan and I will not fall out on that.
According to Senator Counihan's remarks, one would imagine that the cattle trade is the only branch of agriculture in this country. Now, if they were to get special representation on the harbour authority it would mean that other branches, and the most important branches, of agriculture would get no representation. Senator Counihan says that the national executive of live-stock traders is a national organisation. They are not. They are people who merely buy cattle and sell them again for profit.
To my mind, the real agriculturists and the real producers in this country are the people who produce, not alone cattle, but butter, eggs, poultry, bacon, beet and other products of the land, and I think that these are the people who should get first preference in this matter. They are the real producers in this country, and I think that the Minister, if he has the power, should give preferential treatment to such people and allow them to have a nominee on that board.
Senator McCabe says that producers, such as beet growers, are quite as important, from the point of view of representation on this board, as those engaged in the live-stock trade. If the Senator had been listening to the Minister's opening statement, he would have noticed that the Minister said that the only people he would allow on the board were people who were interested in the import or export of commodities; so that wipes out Senator McCabe's statement. Now, the live-stock trade in this country, and particularly the cattle trade, is the only large exporting body in the whole of the country. Last year, our exports amounted to about £14,000,000 worth. If you take into consideration what the export of Guinness's, Jameson's and Jacob's would amount to, you have practically the total exports of the country, and, outside of these few industries, the live-stock trade takes up practically the whole amount of our exports.
What about greyhounds?
Greyhounds are live stock.
Senator Counihan knows all the answers.
But the greyhounds represent something less than £700,000 of the exports of live stock, and that is a very small proportion of the £14,000,000 of live stock exported, which would mostly consist of cattle. Recently, we have not been exporting any sheep or pigs, so it is only cattle, horses and greyhounds that make up our live-stock exports, and cattle would form the biggest proportion of these exports. Now, as I have said, we are responsible for the administration of two Acts already: the Slaughter of Animals Act and the Live-Stock Insurance (Exporters) Act, and I pointed out the amount that we get there. The Minister for Agriculture has already named the National Executive of Live-Stock Traders as the people who should be chiefly responsible for administering those Acts, but the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, whatever knife he has in the cattle trade, will not have them on the board or give them proper facilities for export.
On the contrary, I said that we will have them there.
Well, then, why not have us named in the Bill, the same as the Minister has named his pets, the industrialists, and the chambers of commerce? I hold that agriculture is more important than the industrialists and the chambers of commerce, so far as this country is concerned, and yet, according to the Minister, the industrialists and the chambers of commerce are the only people who will be named in the Bill, and the only people who will not be named in the Bill are the representatives of the cattle trade or the representatives of the dockers. I said some time ago that the Minister, on the Second Reading, seemed to be out to discredit the live-stock trade when he did not put them on the same footing as the others. I have no objection to the inclusion of dockers' representatives, but they do not contribute anything.
They are very useful people.
They are out to fight their own corner, and good luck to them. They fight it well, and create an occasional strike, but there is no other body of manufacturers or exporters with such good rights as the live-stock trade, and with such a claim to meeting the requirements of the Bill. When we interviewed the Minister for Agriculture he gave us authority for saying that he was in favour of giving us direct representation and having us named in the Bill. The Minister for Industry and Commerce may have some animosity against the live-stock trade. Why he should have, we do not know. If this animosity is personally against me, I will suggest that I will personally withdraw from the chairmanship and I will guarantee him that I will not become a member of any of the boards. That ought to satisfy him.
May I say that I would like to assure the Senator that I have no animosity whatever against him, and I think he would be a worthy representative of the trade to have on any board?
That is a compliment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
What about putting Senator Counihan's name in the Bill?
If the Minister will undertake to consider my point, I will withdraw it. If he wants to interview members of the trade to verify the point of view I have expressed here, it would be a very natural thing. I think my proposition is a reasonable one, but I am prepared to withdraw it, as I have said.
I think the Senator need not have the least apprehension that certain organisations could be designated as possessing the sole right of nomination, but I think, from the point of view of permanent legislation I would prefer to keep the Bill in its present form to agreeing to adopt the Senator's amendment.
I will withdraw the amendment if the Minister will agree to consult the Minister for Agriculture.
Yes, I can undertake to do that.
Under the Bill, as it is, you have no choice.
None.
That is in the Bill.
Could the Minister explain one point? It is about the representation of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. Why, if the system adopted in paragraph (c) is the better system, is it not adopted in paragraph (d)?
Because there are more branches than one of the live-stock industry. We are giving representation to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers because they can speak for the manufacturing industry generally. There are rather special branches of the live-stock trade. Take the case of Waterford. There, you may have an export trade in pigs and sheep and no cattle. You may well have complaints that the cattle exporters are offered facilities without sufficient regard being paid to the interests of the exporters of the pigs and sheep. The Bill provides that if the Minister for Agriculture considers that these interests should get special representation he can give them. I gather that the Minister for Agriculture does not consider that any future organisation should have the sole right of nomination. I am providing against the contingency when, for instance, trade in sheep and pigs may be revived in ports now dealing exclusively in cattle.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is amendment No. 3 being withdrawn?
On the Minister promising to consider it I am agreeable to withdrawing it.
I will consider it with the Minister for Agriculture.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), page 11, to delete lines 23, 24 and 25 and substitute instead the following words:—
"appointed—
(i) in case one organisation is specified in the order for the time being in force under sub-section (4) 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 (4) 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."
This amendment presents little difficulty, because the Minister has made an excellent case for leaving himself free to consider the circumstances at the different ports when it comes to the appointment of people representing particular interests. In the Bill, as it stands, he has taken power to select in respect of four harbours, two persons who are representative of labour interests for the harbour authority. As the Bill stands, he will himself nominate a particular organisation to make the nominations in respect of labour interests.
What I am doing here—although I am afraid it may not be welcome at this stage to Senator Counihan—is to copy precisely the proposal of the Minister in regard to the live-stock interests, and to incorporate them in the Bill in relation to labour interests. In other words, the Minister should leave himself open to nominate one, or more than one, organisation if it is necessary to do so. I take it that what is sought is the appointment to a harbour authority of persons who are competent to assist in the administration of the authority in the national interest who are at the same time representative of different groups of the community associated with the use of the harbour.
It seems to me, therefore, that it may occur—and frankly it can occur now—that you will find in particular instances, two organisations claiming to represent labour interests and as the Bill stands, the Minister has to come down on one side or the other and to say which organisation shall be the body to appoint the persons to a harbour authority who will represent labour interests.
I am merely asking that he will leave himself free to select one of two organisations if the circumstances arise when it appears to him to be necessary to do that, as in the case of the live-stock trade, which has been dealt with. The position is at his discretion in the case of the live-stock interests and that discretion is exercised in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture. In this case it is proposed that the discretion shall lie with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and that he shall designate one, or more than one, organisation, as the case may be, for the purpose of securing the representation of Labour interests.
Everybody knows what the difficulty is in this regard. I have considered this matter very carefully. At present, the trade union movement is split, and there is in Dublin and, probably, also in Cork—I am not sure about the harbours—a situation in which two organisations will claim, with some show of evidence, to be most representative of the workers in those cities. I hope that that situation will end. If it should end, I think that Senator Duffy would be the first to agree that it would be undesirable that the Bill should be framed in the manner which he now suggests.
No.
I think it would, because it could be urged, in circumstances in which only one council in Dublin and one in Cork could claim to be representative of labour interests in those cities, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have power to appoint some other Labour organisations to exercise the same right of nomination as that council would have. In a situation in which we have two such councils, and assuming that that situation continues, is it desirable we should proceed on the basis of giving one representative to each? I am not sure that it is.
It may be that the two representatives nominated by the two organisations would act in harmony and speak with the same voice in matters in which labour might have a particular viewpoint in harbour administration, but, speaking generally, I think it would be more desirable, and better in the interests of labour, that they should be nominees of the same organisation, acting in harmony, one supporting the other in the carrying out of any policy which they considered best for labour interests or for the interests of the harbour. Outside Dublin, there might not be much difficulty in determining the one organisation in those harbour towns most representative of the type of labour employed around the harbours. In Dublin at present, the situation may be more obscure but, in so far as the preservation of this section as originally framed would tend to put pressure upon those concerned to remedy the situation, I should prefer to leave it as it is. This is a matter in which I hesitate to take the step which has been suggested. I fear that that step might be taken as an indication of some desire on my part to perpetuate the situation in which there are two labour organisations. I felt that it was safer for me to proceed on this basis and make it clear that I wished to have only one organisation which would be representative. If there were but one organisation, I should not, in those circumstances, have power to give a nomination to anybody else.
I can see a set of circumstances, in which had there been no differences, it might be desirable for the Minister to consider whether he should not have a right to select two bodies to make nominations. The situation which has been described does not exist in Limerick. Let us assume that the Minister desires to get an organisation in Limerick which will make nominations to the port authority. There is one obvious organisation in Limerick to which he would have recourse, but that organisation might, for certain reasons, appoint two persons who, in the Minister's judgment, were not the right types of person to appoint to the harbour authority. He might consider that, at the next election, a second body should be given the right to make nomination. That has nothing to do with rivalry or disputes of any kind. I had experience of this years ago when there was no such rivalry. I remember an occasion on which the late Tomás MacCurtain, then Lord Mayor of Cork, made representations to me personally in regard to the appointment of persons on a certain committee.
He told me that one of the difficulties he had was that, if he approached a certain body, he knew in advance whom they would appoint and he expressed the view that he did not just want the persons concerned to be appointed. He discussed with me the manner in which he could get a different type of representative. I suggest this to the Minister in the belief that, if this provision is inserted in the Bill, the Minister will not do anything which will perpetuate rivalry or disunity but, having this power, will be free to say: "I will nominate one body and give that body the right to appoint two persons", or, if that body is not acting with a due sense of responsibility, he can say: "I will consider whether it is not better I should have two bodies to make those nominations." I say that without any reference to the present position in Dublin because what happens in Dublin happens nowhere else. The situation will not arise from that angle in the other ports concerned but another situation may arise. Four ports are concerned and it may be necessary for the Minister to have freedom to select more than one organisation for this purpose.
I do hope that the Minister is not going to be influenced by the case made by the last Senator. He is on the wrong side entirely. He proposes to take away rights from the representative body of labour not only in Dublin but in the four principal ports and to leave it to the discretion of the Minister to get the type of representative he requires—not the type that labour people require. I want to tell the Minister and the last Senator that they need have no fear whatever that the right type of representative will not be selected in Limerick. The Senator was unfortunate in his choice. The right type of labour representative will be selected there. The Minister or some members of the Government may not like the selection but the Limerick workers will choose the most suitable people to represent them. I, certainly, believe that the Bill as it stands is very much better than it would be if the amendment proposed by the last Senator were inserted in it. I think that it would ruin the whole scheme. The future life of the Minister would be a very worried one. People would be going around the country abusing him for making this and that choice if the choice were reserved to him. I myself should be the first to complain because I think that the people who represent organised labour are the people who should make the choice and send their recommendation to the Minister. I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
I was going to say that Senator Duffy's amendment was attributable to the present situation in the trade union movement. If it is not, there is no case whatever for it. I should, certainly, not contemplate the Minister having the obligation of taking cognisance of the type of person nominated. I am quite sure that a number of persons will be nominated by the chambers of commerce and the local councils of whom the Minister would not approve, either, but I do not propose to do anything about that. We are designating certain nominating bodies and we are assuming that, in the exercise of their responsibility, they will put on those boards persons who will be concerned with their proper administration. If they do not, that will be their lookout and there will be no obligation on the Minister to rectify it, save in the very exceptional circumstance where he might have to exercise his power temporarily to replace the board by a commissioner. If Senator Duffy's amendment is not intended to deal with the circumstances—temporary circumstances, I hope—now existing in the trade union movement, then there is no case for it whatsoever. I should be opposed to the amendment on the ground on which the Senator put it forward—that, apart altogether from that temporary situation, the Minister should have power to nominate two organisations.
The amendment clearly arose out of the situation in Dublin. I am not suggesting that if this amendment is retained in the Bill the Minister is going to go out and select two organisations where there should be only one. The amendment does not impose that obligation upon him. It gives him freedom. That situation will confront him in Dublin, assuming the election to the new harbour authority in Dublin is to take place next October. The Minister must commence, very shortly after this Bill becomes law, to prepare the ground, to get the nominating bodies, to get the register of voters in other industries and so on. He is faced there with the position that there are two organisations in the City of Dublin both of whom will claim to represent dock workers, although of course there is no reference whatever to dock workers in the Bill. I take it labour interests are not necessarily dockers' interests; that they are labour, in the broad sense, as an element in the community. He is confronted, therefore, with the problem of selecting one organisation and he has to make a choice whether he likes it or not, as the Bill stands, as to the organisation he is going to select. I want him to avoid that. It is probably not the best plan, but it will at least absolve the Minister from having to make a choice where he probably does not wish to make a choice.
The alternative means inevitably one from each; that the Minister must choose one from each.
That would be the alternative. The amendment does not impose the obligation of selecting two. It leaves him free still to select one or two.
I feel like sticking to the Bill and I say one reason for doing so is that this particular amendment was accepted in the Dáil without query from any of the labour interests represented there On that ground it seems all right and I am sticking to it.
May I explain that, because it is unfortunate if the Minister is under a misapprehension. The Minister will recall that in the Dáil in the first instance there were amendments put forward to place the responsibility for making these selections on trades councils. It was to extend to the smaller harbours, as well as the larger harbours. The Minister said at that time that he was prepared to consider an alternative proposal, and on the Report Stage he brought in a proposal to cover the larger harbours, omitting the smaller harbours, because he is taking power to ensure that one of his nominees on the smaller harbours will be representative of labour interests. Deputy Martin O'Sullivan was handling these amendments, and he misunderstood, until he saw the print of the Bill, what the position was. He understood that the same thing was being done in relation to the labour interests as to the cattle traders, and, actually, it is at Deputy O'Sullivan's request that this amendment is submitted on the Committee Stage to the Seanad.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I will ask the Minister to consider the matter afresh before the Report Stage. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
I am anxious in this matter merely to ensure that we will get proper representation for labour interests without any friction and I hope—it may be wishful thinking—that this problem will not arise. But if it should arise, that there is cause even in these circumstances for deciding which of the existing organisations could be fairly described as most representative of the type of labour it was intended to give representation to here—only both—because it would, I think, not make for the proper working of the harbour authorities and the proper representation of labour interests that there should be two individual representatives who would regard themselves as representing an antagonistic point of view.
That argument has not been used in relation to the cattle traders.
That is a false analogy. The circumstances in which two cattle traders' organisations might be nominated would not be similar to that existing in the Labour movement. It would be where there was a special type of trade development—not disagreement with the other types of trade—but of having a special interest through its own representative.
I will withdraw the amendment but I would like the Minister to reflect on this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1), page 11, to delete paragraph (g), lines 28-29.
Amendments Nos. 5, 8, and 11 may clearly be taken together because they are put down in order to call attention to a practice, which seems to me, from the point of view of political theory, to be indefensible and which has had somewhat unfortunate results in practice. The Minister might very reasonably complain that a broad matter, such as this, was more suitable for discussion on the Second Reading than on the Committee Stage. I have, however, a genuine excuse on that, which I think the Minister will probably accept. I had intended so to do, I was ready so to do, but I heard the Minister was anxious to get away early in order to meet a deputation. Therefore, I postponed raising the matter on the Second Reading. Accordingly, I raise it now. This proposed practice of allowing the Minister, in addition to the very wide powers which he has in other portions of the Bill, to which I shall advert in a minute, to appoint a quarter of the harbour authorities as his nominees is no doubt one of the practices of local government which have been taken over in the recommendation to the commission. Indeed the commission did make a special recommendation in respect of the appointment of Ministerial nominees.
While it is a chief recommendation that it has been a practice followed by Local Government I, for one, could have thought of stronger recommendations. No doubt, to some members of the House, there could not be a worse recommendation, because, although I do not anticipate that the Minister would operate these provisions in the same manner in which they have been operated in Local Government, yet there would always be a suspicion of the possibility of such operation. Earlier, to-day, the Minister said that what he was anxious about was not so much abuses, but the possibility of abuses, and the state of uneasiness which would be produced by the existence of such fear. Now, what is the position? The Minister in regard to the harbour board is in a position "only this side of God." If anybody is entrusted with making an appointment and fails to do so, the Minister can supply that deficiency. He can direct what is to be the procedure of the harbour authorities. He can and, no doubt, will demand to see the minutes of the harbour authorities. He can issue general orders and directions, and if the harbour authority should prove to be recalcitrant, he can dismiss that harbour authority and put a commissioner in its place.
If those enormous powers of control and interference are given to the Minister, it is most important that he should be put in a position of complete impartiality. It is important that he should hear what is going on at the harbour board only officially through the minutes and that he should speak to the harbour board only officially through his directions. But if he is allowed to nominate a quarter of that harbour board, he has an unofficial mouth, unofficial eyes and ears on the board. What his unofficial mouth says, his official mouth may deny. What his official ear hears, his unofficial ear may be deaf to. That is a condition of affairs which is not likely to promote harmony amongst the members of the board even if, as I will assume to be the case, the Minister appoints his nominees with care and a grave sense of the duty that is imposed on him. There will always be a feeling of suspicion—the phrase occurs to me—"There will be doubt, hesitation, and twilight, never glad confident morning again."
Assuming the most perfect operation of this power, you have still cast into the harbour board a possible apple of discord. Although I am willing to make every assumption in favour of the Minister and his appointees I have to point out that, in the hands of another person, his power might be abused and the Minister's nominees might occupy the position of agents provocateurs, of spies and talebearers. We have had the example of a board having to pass a resolution against the nominees of a Minister going hot foot from the board to tell to the Department the private communications which had taken place —an accusation which was not denied by these nominees. We had a case in which very grave suspicions have been aroused that nominees were urged to act as agents provocateurs. I have heard it alleged as late as yesterday that because a Minister's nominee refused to obey the exact dictates of the Minister, because it was against his conscience, he found himself removed by sealed order.
I do not care whether these things are true or not. They are said and, if they are said, it shows the state of suspicion and uneasiness that exists when the person who is supposed to be absolutely impartial in control and to hold the strings evenly, has nominees of his own on the board, especially if, as has so often been the case in the past, these nominees are not marked out by any breadth of vision, special knowledge or business acumen but are remarkable only for aggressiveness and narrowness of party political opinion. I have not got this charge to make against the Minister. The Minister has these powers in a lesser degree already and I have no reason to suppose that the Minister has ever abused them but that is not the question. Are you going to put in a Bill and insist on stereotyping for the future a provision which is almost impossible to justify in theory? It may lead to the most serious abuse. It always creates a position of potential friction, a suspicion that is always lurking in the background, and a kind of fog over the common trust that should exist between the members of the board.
I could not follow Senator Kingsmill Moore's argument at all. He suggests that because the Minister would have four representatives on the board he would be more likely to abolish that board. I think the contrary is the fact.
I never suggested that.
That is what I gathered. I imagine that the fact that the Minister appoints four representatives on the board would give the Minister every confidence in it. Senator Kingsmill Moore also suggests that because these members are nominated by the Minister for the time being, every other member of the harbour board would look upon them with such terrible suspicion that discord would be created amongst the members to an extent that it would interfere with the proper working of the board. For the life of me, I cannot see the force of that argument. I know that in our town of Galway, the Minister appointed some representatives under the Galway Harbour Act of 1935, and the exact opposite is the case. The very moment that a vacancy for the chairmanship of the board arose, owing to the death of the late lamented Mr. Corbett, the person appointed chairman of the board was one of the Minister's representatives.
Very politic.
I would say without disparaging any member of the board that the Minister, in appointing that man, appointed the one man in the town of Galway who had the greatest knowledge of harbour business, the greatest knowledge of the law dealing with harbours and who was the most efficient man who could be appointed to the board.
Equally politic on the part of the Minister.
He did not do it for politics. It was for practical reasons.
I did not say "politics". I said "politic".
Perfectly right. All the other members of the board appreciated the abilities of that member and showed their appreciation by electing him chairman. Before that they had elected him to the position of vice-chairman. As far as I can see, every member of the board nominated by the Minister has the confidence of the other members of the board. I would say that the vast majority of the other members are not at all in agreement with the Minister's politics, and yet they have appreciated the worth of these nominees, certainly the worth of one of them, because he was the very best man that could be appointed. Unfortunately that man has been left off when he should have been appointed by other bodies.
The advantage of this section is that it enables the Minister, who is responsible for the working of the harbours, to see that the very best men are selected to run them, and that, if a good man is left off the board he will get representation through nomination by the Minister. I do not think there is anything in the suggestion of Senator Kingsmill Moore that the other members will despise those members who are nominated by the Minister: that they will look upon them with suspicion, and imagine that they are going behind their backs and telling the Minister something that he ought not to be told. In the first place, I do not see what there could be to tell. A harbour board is a public authority. Its proceedings are open to the Press, so that, apart from what is written down in the minutes, the reporters are there to hear and report everything that is said. Any resolutions passed are passed in an open way, and there is no room for secrets. If there are secrets, or if something is done that does not come out in the light of day, well, that is not in the interests of the board. I do not know how many members of a board would lend themselves to a secret organisation of that nature—on behalf of some interest which must be against the interests of the board. A thing would not be kept secret if it were in the interests of the board.
I say, again, that I think Senator Kingsmill Moore's suspicions are entirely unfounded. The other members of the harbour board will not share in those suspicions. I think it is a very good thing that the Minister should have this power to nominate. I do not know if four are too many. The number does not matter very much. The line taken by Senator Kingsmill Moore was that if the Minister has this power to nominate it will cause discord on the board to such an extent that the business will not be properly carried on because of those suspicions. I think the provision is a good one, and will ensure that some members of a locality will be appointed to a particular harbour board.
Like Senator Kingsmill Moore, I have some misgivings on this question of nominated members. I am a victim of the new policy of requiring an assurance and guarantees from a nominated member. Senator Kingsmill Moore is, I am sure, suffering from the effects of that thing in connection with the Cork Street Hospital. I have no objection whatever—in fact I would support the idea—to the Minister making nominations, but what I strongly object to, and will go on objecting to is that, having made these nominations, the Minister should require an assurance from those nominated that they will be good little boys and only do as they are told. I think that, with the present Minister, that is not likely to happen, but I can see the danger of giving that power to any Minister. We see what is happening in other Departments and, consequently, we are suspicious. I see no way of getting over it.
I must say that, so far as the present Minister is concerned, I am very well satisfied that he will make the best possible selection, and will give to these boards, in accordance with the terms of this Bill, the utmost power and authority to transact their business in an independent way. I could hardly imagine the Minister for Industry and Commerce taking a person who had given nine years' faithful service, and at the end of the term asking him to give an assurance about his good conduct in the future. I say that that attitude causes grave suspicion. I sincerely hope that the independent minds and the independent actions of nominated members will be set at rest. I think credit is due to Senator Kingsmill Moore for calling attention to this matter, even though he has been personally hurt through it. I am taking advantage of it to exploit the injury which I suffered.
The fact remains that this power can be abused and is being abused in another Department of Government. I said before, and I repeat now, that I have no fears so far as the present Minister is concerned. He is too big a man and too able a man to shut out from public representation an independent and free-minded person. If this attitude that I speak of is persisted in in other Departments, then men and women with independent minds, free men and free women, will not give their services and their abilities to the administrative work attached to public boards in this country. Having said that, I want to add that I am not going to support Senator Kingsmill Moore's amendment. I think that the Senator has done a service in the Seanad by calling attention to this. I have no fear that the thing will be abused while the Minister for Industry and Commerce is there, and, consequently, I am not going to vote for the amendment.
Mr. Patrick O'Reilly
I agree to a great extent with what Senator O'Dea has said, because I could not understand how people appointed as members of a harbour board or on any local authority would ever mortgage their minds to any Minister. They would not be worthy of being appointed to any responsible position if they had so little respect for themselves as to mortgage their minds to a Minister or to a Department. The fact, however, that such a suggestion can be made shows that there is uneasiness in the public mind. If such a thing is happening, then some steps should be taken to prevent it. Speaking for myself, I really cannot believe that it is a fact, and for that reason I agree with Senator O'Dea that people appointed by the Minister to act as members of the Galway Harbour Board would conscientiously discharge their responsibilities by co-operating with the other members of the board.
What I feel bound to draw attention to is this: that I would like to know how Ministers make up their minds. Senators may laugh, but a thing that has often annoyed me is this—it does not concern the Minister for Industry and Commerce—how, for example, the Minister for Justice makes up his mind before he interns a person. Is his mind made up for him by a policeman down the country? Let us assume that the person interned has been living in Leitrim, or in Cavan, or in some other county. Since the Minister for Industry and Commerce has not the police to advise him in these matters, he must have some other way of making up his mind as to whether he shall appoint this or that person on a board. I am prepared to agree that the Minister, through the various channels at his disposal for getting information, would make all reasonable inquiries in his anxiety to get the best possible people appointed on these boards. Still, since there is some uneasiness on this matter, I think some attempt should be made to get around it in another way. I agree with Senator O'Dea that one could not believe that people appointed by the Minister to act on these boards would mortgage their minds to him.
The tribunal recommended that the harbour boards should contain a number of members nominated by the Minister, and they set out very clearly the reasons why they made that recommendation. They said:—
"There are, we believe, in every area men of experience—public, professional, commercial—who would be ready at the request of the Government to place their services at the public disposal as members of bodies such as harbour authorities, but who will not allow their names to go forward at a contested election, or to be the subjects of canvass and criticism by corporations, chambers of commerce or similar bodies. The Minister's nominees might, we suggest, be chosen with great advantage from men of this type, and, in addition, from amongst selected representatives of any interest, commerce, labour, shipping, agriculture, or the like, which, in his opinion, should be, but was not already adequately represented on the board."
I am sure that most Senators will be able, each in his own district, to name people to whom that description would apply: people who would make worthy members of a business body or business board such as a harbour board must be, but who would not ordinarily be prepared to push themselves forward for that position and take the chance of defeat in an election or the chance of adverse criticism in debate which might arise when election to a chamber of commerce or similar body would be involved. Similarly, we must bear in mind the way in which the election would take place. It is proposed to give to various bodies the right of nomination, and I am sure that it is quite obvious that there is a risk in that case of a person not securing nomination at all, and the more obvious the nomination, the greater the risk. The harbour authority will say that such-and-such a person is obvious for nomination and they will leave it to the chamber of commerce to nominate him, and will say: "We will nominate another person," whereas the chamber of commerce might say that the other person was so obvious for nomination that they would leave it to the harbour authority to nominate him and nominate another candidate for themselves. In fact, that has happened, and it has been largely a question of putting the obvious person on the harbour authority. There have been cases where chambers of commerce did not put on a harbour board the only shipping company using that harbour. There have been cases where the only persons using the facilities of the harbour were not put on the board. It may be that these people said: "Well, if we do not do it, the Minister will have to do it," but in such cases the reasons for which the Minister put people on the board were always clearly indicated.
I want to make it clear that the nominees of the Minister will not be in any relation to the other people. If the Minister wants to have information from spies, informers, and so on, I am quite sure that he will not require to have his own nominees on such a body. I cannot see the circumstances arising in relation to these harbour authorities where that will be necessary, and I certainly do not propose to proceed in that way. It is necessary, in that regard, to keep in mind the fundamental difference between a harbour authority and any other local authority that may be discussed.
I mentioned that before. The board of governors of a hospital, or the members of any other type of body, local government or otherwise, must stay in business. If a local government body is extravagant, then, of course, the rates will rise and the ratepayers will have to pay for the increase, but that body cannot go out of business, and the ratepayers will have to suffer the effects of bad administration as well as of good administration. A harbour authority, however, can go out of business. It is engaged in intensive and highly skilled competition with other bodies, and if trade is bad in one place, these people will go to other ports on the coast. That has happened in the past. Harbours which formerly had no trade have been built up into harbours with a very good trade. These people know that they are a business concern and that if they can get trade into their harbour they must provide proper facilities and service, and it is always that mentality that they bring to bear on the problems that arise. Sometimes, however, a harbour authority gives up the ghost, because its trade is going down, business is going down, and then the members cease to attend. In such a case it is obviously the business of someone to make them do their duty and, in many cases, the only people to get the members of the harbour authorities to do their duty are those appointed by the Minister. In some cases they will have to give the authority of the harbour board over to the county council, or if it is merely a case of temporary maladministration of its affairs, they may put in an administrator to put things right; but in ordinary cases, where you have a harbour with a growing trade, there is not much difficulty in keeping the members of the harbour board attending to their duty, because most of them are representatives of commercial interests and are therefore vitally interested in the maintenance of the harbour and in the use of the facilities available to them.
I do not think, therefore, that there need be any apprehension of the powers of nomination given to the Minister here being abused. The power that is taken here is taken expressly in order to give representation to people who should be given representation on such bodies, as they have a particular interest in harbour boards, but who might not get it. In the case of some harbours, they may also need to give representation to districts adjacent to the harbour town, which might not get representation to districts adjacent to the harbour town, which might not get representation through the local nominating bodies. In the case of Dublin, for instance, there are districts in or near the city to which it might be advisable to give representation, and the same applies in the case of Cork, the harbour for which is Cobh. We have made provision for the case of Cobh, but there may be business interests which are geographically removed from Dublin or Cork and which are not likely to get representation on the harbour board from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce or other nominating body, and it is for that reason that the Minister is given this power of nomination. I think it would be a mistake not to give him that power. The proposal of the tribunal which we are adopting is that the Minister should wait until all the other bodies have completed their nominations, should note the composition of the board as emerging from these activities, and then complete it as a proper body and enable it to proceed with the proper administration of the harbour.
I have really been drawn into this by two remarks which have already been made. First of all, so far as Senator O'Dea and Senator O'Reilly are concerned, I really think that their outlook, as they expressed it, is a little naïve. Anyone who has read—I presume they have not read it —the full minute of the proceedings of the Cork Street Inquiry would know the reason why the amendment was put down. Senator Kingsmill Moore knows it, but I do not propose to go into that at once, beyond saying that that inquiry was dealing with an infectious and contagious hospital and I hope that the contagion of that disease does not spread itself over to the headquarters of the Department of Industry and Commerce.
I leave that, in passing, however. I am really drawn into the debate by the quotation which the Minister has taken from the report of the Harbours Tribunal that one of the aims of this power of nomination is to ensure that people will be put on a harbour authority who will not stand the test of election. I think it is one of the greatest mistakes that exists in our public life at the present time, that that type of attitude is pandered to and supported in any shape or form.
I think that public authorities, whether they are county councils, urban councils or town commissioners, or the Dáil or the Seanad, will only be thoroughly representative of Irish life when we get away from the idea that there is something disgraceful or reprehensible in standing for public election at any time. If we do not get down to bedrock and accept it that the man who stands his election and gets through is a much better man than the man who has not to stand for election, then we will make very little progress. We should have no room for the man who is afraid to fight.
When the Minister was reading out his picture of the immaculate recluse, too proud or too timid to stand for election, to face his fellow-men, a voice seemed to come down to me through the arches of the years:
"I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and seeks her adversary but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for not without dust and heat."
The men we want are the men who will openly state their opinions and who will openly put themselves before their fellow-men.
One of the suggestions which we heard made came from Senator Louis O'Dea. It was that one of the things almost completely forgotten was that the proceedings of harbour boards are quite frequently attended by the Press. In so far as harbour boards are concerned, I agree that that does take away a good deal of the force of the argument I have put forward, but it does not altogether take away the feeling which undoubtedly does exist of a slight suspicion. I am not going to labour that point. I am quite confident that the Minister is not going to abuse his powers under the Bill. I am impressed by the Minister's arguments in support of his suggestion that there may be one person or another who has been left out of a harbour board and who should be on it. I think the Minister has made a case for the appointment of one or two such people but we have had some experience in a recent inquiry.
What does that mean? Fever, again?
If you ask the Minister, the Minister will be able to explain.
There are a lot of instances I could quote, but I am not going to do it to-night. What I urge is that when the Minister nominates his representative, his representative should be permitted to exercise his judgment without any interference. I think that a case has been made out for a limited amount of nomination, provided there are safeguards. The Minister knows that there should be safeguards. My amendment is designed to secure that there will be safeguards, and perhaps the Minister will consider these provisions. As I have said, I do not anticipate any abuses but, having asked the Minister to consider my amendment, I propose with the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), after the word "members" in paragraph (g), line 28, page 11, to insert the words "one of whom shall be deemed to be representative of co-operative trading societies".
On the Second Reading I raised this question in relation to the power of the Minister to make nominations. Now that the House has agreed to leave him the power, I hope he will consent to use it in a particular way in relation to one of his nominees. My amendment seeks to insert that one of the Minister's nominees shall be deemed to be representative of co-operative or trading societies. The Minister has advanced one or two reasons why one such person should not be numbered among his nominees. He has indicated that the harbours commission has recommended that this power should be given because it was possible that certain interests might not be adequately represented on the board, and he went further to indicate that there might, in certain circumstances, be business interests geographically removed from the harbour, but possessing strong interests in the trade of the harbour, who should have representation.
That is exactly the situation anticipated in my amendment, the situation for which I am asking the Minister to make provision. The Minister in dealing with this matter said that he was concerned with getting people who were competent and efficient from the point of view of administration to help with the business of the harbour board. Naturally, I do not want to hinder him in that respect, but I hope that the Minister is not going to suggest that it is not possible to get people eminently efficient from co-operative trading interests. I am sure that his Department has had considerable experience of the capacity of these gentlemen and that he can be quite satisfied that he will find among them persons who are very efficient indeed.
In this country, the turnover of our co-operative societies is something in the region of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. I agree that a great deal of it is internal, but a considerable proportion is represented by export and import trade. Some years ago, the exports were considerably greater than they are to-day, but, very probably, when the emergency passes, we will see normal trading conditions restored and a number of co-operative organisations have built themselves up to conditions when, probably, their foreign trade and purchases will assume proportions which they did not reach in the past.
The Minister is well aware that certain trading interests in some of our cities and the co-operative efforts of our farmers are very divergent. We have definite evidence of antipathy on the part of some members of the trading community to the trading efforts of the co-operative societies. Let us suppose that a number of co-operative societies get together and determine to take in a couple of shiploads of artificial manures from the Continent, or agricultural machinery from Canada. If they banded themselves together to distribute those goods over the southern counties, I wonder what the attitude of some of the business interests on the Cork Harbour Board would be to a request for such facilities as might be required by those people for their legitimate trade. Suppose, on the other hand, they wanted accommodation on the quayside for goods to be shipped out of the country, goods which traders felt should pass through their hands, what would be the response? Senator Counihan has left. Suppose two or three big co-operative societies decided to open up a trade in the export of store cattle and got farmers to send on their store cattle to the creamery farm; suppose Mitchelstown or Dungarvan Co-operative Society, who are doing real business, made arrangements with the carrying companies to transport the cattle by special train or boat, I wonder what sort of facilities would be provided for them by trading interests on whose corns they were going to tread by entering a field which those traders regarded as legitimately their own. A series of considerations such as those must arise and, if our producer-trading organisations are to be shut out, as they are in the Bill as constructed, from all active participation in the business of a harbour board, then the Minister will handicap the efforts of producers in a way which is hardly fair. I think that I am entitled to ask the Minister to make that concession in the interests of producers. While I use the word "concession", I regard it as a right. The Minister has indicated that one of these nominees is to be a representative of labour. Already there are two representatives of labour. That is a very strange condition of things——
That is not in the Bill.
Did the Minister say that he was going to do it?
No.
I thought he said that.
Not in relation to the major ports.
I am sorry. It seems strange that, in a country so predominantly agricultural, we cannot say that there is a single representative on one of the harbour authorities who can really speak for the producers. That is not a situation which we can regard as satisfactory. It cannot be argued that they have not an interest. Neither can it be argued that nobody can be found amongst the co-operative trading societies suitable for selection. The Minister knows that there are efficient people connected with those societies. In the big cheese-making creameries and in the Waterford dead-meat undertaking there is ample material on which to draw. I urge the House to accept this amendment.
I have no objection whatever to having a representative of the co-operative interests on the board, but I advise the Minister, if he proposes to have representation of that interest, to arrange for certain safeguards. Senator Baxter reminded me of this matter when he spoke about live-stock exporters as a trading community. The live-stock exporters came into conflict with a foreign, cross-Channel carrying company and established an undertaking of their own. When that company offered them directorships and liberal compensation they accepted the offer and sold out. If the Minister had a representative of that trading community, he would be only adding another to the representation of cross-channel interests. If the Minister gives representation to co-operative enterprise, it will not be all plain sailing. He must have definite safeguards and it must not be a repetition of what happened in the case of the live-stock exporters.
I was not speaking of the cattle trade.
The Senator referred to the live-stock exporters, and I merely wanted to point out that the Minister will have a tough job if he provides representation for co-operative interests. He will require to have safeguards.
I agree entirely with the principle of Senator Baxter's amendment. As I said on an amendment by Senator Counihan on the same lines, the cattle traders' association are really traders and could not be regarded as representing producers. If any organisation represents the producer, it is the co-operative society. If that society is not representative of the producers, then the fault lies with the members. Senator Foran suggested that there was danger of co-operative societies selling out their interest in some way. He cited an example but I am not very clear as to the example he cited. If that did happen in one instance, it would be as easy for it to happen in any other organisation as in a co-operative society. I do not see why there should be a barrier to, or a check on, the representation of the producer by means of the co-operative society if there is no such check on any other organisation. Since the Minister for Agriculture will determine the issue so far as the live-stock traders are concerned and since Senator Counihan has withdrawn his amendment, I think that Senator Baxter should withdraw this amendment. However, I thoroughly agree with the principle of Senator Baxter's amendment.
I should like to go on record as supporting Senator Baxter's amendment, although no time is available to speak to it.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 14th March, 1946.