On Section 49, I should like to know from the Minister whether cold stores are included. If not, I should like to see a provision regarding them inserted.
Harbours Bill, 1945—Committee (Resumed).
I assume that the provision would cover cold stores. Normally, of course, cold stores are provided by commercial companies.
Mr. O'Donovan
I am thinking of the possible export of a product like liquid milk from the Port of Dublin. It might be necessary to have cold storage in that case.
I think it would be covered by the provision but I shall examine the point.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
Question proposed: "That Section 50 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. O'Donovan
It strikes me that this section is scarcely necessary as it stands. It states that "a harbour authority may provide fire-fighting equipment".
It gives the harbour authority power to provide fire-fighting equipment. They would not have that power if the section were not there.
Mr. O'Donovan
It is essential that they should have fire-fighting equipment, but the section says that they "may" provide it.
The Senator wants "shall" instead of "may".
Mr. O'Donovan
In a case where fire-fighting equipment is not immediately available, the word "may" makes the matter indefinite.
I thought that the Seanad would have supported me in the attitude I am taking of empowering harbour authorities to do their duties properly. The Seanad evidently want me to reverse that policy, to take dictatorial powers and order harbour authorities to do or not to do certain things. I think that that is a bad system.
Section agreed to.
Sections 51 and 52 agreed to.
SECTION 53.
Question proposed: "That Section 53 stand part of the Bill."
It is contemplated under this section that the harbour authority may lease warehouses belonging to it. I refer to the matter so that it may be looked into. My complaint is that the harbour authority of Dublin has rented warehouses to shipping companies and that these shipping companies are endeavouring to impose charges on traders which, in my opinion, are utterly illegal. What they propose to do is to charge a trader a daily rental in respect of warehouses in which his goods are stored while waiting to be cleared by the customs authorities.
I think that would arise on Section 57, which provides for leasing of harbour lands and premises.
Section agreed to.
Sections 54 and 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (3), page 31, to delete all words after the word "thereof", in line 27, to the end of subparagraph (a).
This amendment has to do with the provision for the sale of obstructions.
I might say that this section was inserted at the request of the Revenue Commissioners who pointed out that if there is a prohibition on such goods, the obstruction cannot be sold for home use. If a duty is leviable, the price at which the goods can be sold for home use must not be less than the amount of duty payable.
If there is something which is an obstruction, the harbour authority may take possession, offer it for sale for home use, with the permission of the revenue authorities, at an auction, and the best bid does not cover the charges for customs duties, then it appears that what is contemplated is that you destroy the goods.
No. They are sent abroad. It is sale for home use that is involved in cases where there is prohibition or restriction on importation or where the price which would be obtained is less than the amount of duty which would be payable to the Revenue Commissioners.
You cannot sell them for home use then.
The purpose of the section is to ensure that if the goods are liable to duty by law, the duty can be paid. It is provided that the goods may be destroyed or sold abroad if the amount of duty payable cannot be realised.
If you look at the list of items, you will see that goods on a wreck, or a derelict vessel, or floating timber may be covered by the Act. It seems to me that even if these goods cannot be sold, some use can be made of them rather than to destroy them.
The Bill seeks to cover goods which are subject to duty on importation. It is concerned only with goods subject to import duty. If there is a prohibition, these goods will not be imported at all, but if there is a duty, the amount of it must be realised. Otherwise, the Revenue Commissioners cannot collect the duty.
Let us assume one case, a consignment of rubber boots in transit. The consignment becomes an obstruction. I do not know whether rubber boots are liable to an ad valorem duty or not, but let us assume it is 5/- a pair. The consignment is lost or damaged to such an extent that the Revenue Commissioners could not collect 5/- per pair. It seems to me that it would be waste to have that consignment destroyed.
If there is destruction in any case we must take it that nobody is prepared to buy the goods.
The case we are considering is one in which the full amount of the duty may not be realised.
I would say that in 99 cases out of 100 no difficulties like those envisaged by the Senator would arise.
It is a question whether the Revenue Commissioners should not have discretion.
The Revenue Commissioners have their own duty to carry out and their own problems to solve. Their object must be to get the duty. If they cannot get it, then the consignment must be destroyed or sold abroad, and if the consignment is not worth the duty, well, then, it cannot be of very much value.
We know the Revenue Commissioners will take the best they can get—they always do that.
The proposals in the Bill are what the Revenue Commissioners wanted.
And they are getting them. What the Revenue Commissioners want they usually get.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 56 to 60, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 61.
Amendment No. 33 is not being moved.
Sections 61 to 67 put and agreed to.
SECTION 68.
I move amendment No. 34:
In sub-section (1), page 36, before the word "delay" to insert the word "unusual".
This section confers power on the harbour master to take certain action if there is delay in unloading or discharging a ship. My submission is that the section is drawn rather loosely. It gives power to the harbour master to take certain action if he considers that delay is unreasonable. I hold there should be some method of defining what is reasonable delay. We all know that delays are bound to occur when there are licences, entry permits, and other formalities including duties and tariffs to be complied with before the cargo is discharged. Delays which occur to-day would not be regarded as normal delays 25 or 30 years ago. We know that there is bound to be delay and nobody can foretell the extent of it. At the same time I agree that the harbour master must have authority to ensure that there is no unusual delay.
No unreasonable delay.
My amendment proposes "unusual delay".
Unusual delay which the harbour master considers unreasonable?
Later on we may come to that, but I think that we should make sure there are proper safeguards.
Unreasonable delay which the harbour master considers unusual. I think it means the same thing.
Oh, no.
I think that is not so. We ought not to proceed in that free and easy fashion. After all what we are concerned with is the trade of the port.
And I think that nobody will be more concerned about that than the harbour master. He will be the person most concerned to secure that the trade of the port is maintained. If we are going to have a master of the harbour, which I take it is the meaning of the words harbour master, he is not going to tolerate any obstacles to the trade of the port which he can avoid. It will be his aim to get this or that cargo moved as quickly as possible from that pier or quay. But, in fact, the phrasing of this section is taken from existing Acts and the powers proposed are possessed by harbour masters at the moment.
I hope that it is the Minister's intention that the harbour authorities under this Bill will be administered differently in the future from what they were in the past. I want to draw attention to the fact that harbour masters could act in connivance with other interests against those firms or persons he did not like. In this City of Dublin an unusual ship from a foreign country may be told that there is no berth at which it can discharge because existing shipping companies have their goods strewn over the public property without any right whatever but with the connivance of the harbour authorities. My proposal is that we should take reasonable precautions in the Bill to indicate to harbour masters that they cannot do as they wish at their own sweet will. I want an indication in the Bill that what we have in mind is not merely delay but unusual delay. I think if the Minister desires to protect the users of the port he would see that these provisions are inserted.
I am not very interested in one aspect of this situation, but whatever the Minister is doing in the section will he agree not to insert different words in different places? If the word is to be "unreasonable" in line 48 then let us say in the beginning of the section "if any unreasonable delay occurs" because otherwise you will have utter chaos in deciding between the meaning of different words.
I am making it clear that unless there is delay which the harbour master thinks is unreasonable he cannot take the action indicated.
I am rather concerned at the state of affairs which Senator Duffy indicates as existing now. If such a state of affairs can exist, has the owner of the vessel no appeal? I take it he has an appeal to the harbour authority.
Under this Bill he can now go to the Minister and the Minister can cause an inquiry to be held. It is only a matter of drafting it.
I agree, but I want to take precautions. I am quite willing to accept any solution the Minister offers so long as it is made clear to the harbour master that he must use this power with due regard to his responsibilities.
It must be assumed that the harbour authority will see to that.
I can only speak of the experiences I have had and the Minister knows that I have had a fair amount of experience as a member of the advisory committee connected with the Ports and Harbours Tribunal. I visited a number of ports and I met a number of people. That is the reason I regard this matter so seriously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 68 agreed to.
SECTION 69.
I move amendment No. 35:—
In page 37, Section 69, sub-section (3), line 16, to delete the words "harbour master" and substitute the words "harbour authority of the harbour".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 69, as amended, and Sections 70 to 75, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 76.
Question proposed: "That Section 76 stand part of the Bill."
I move to delete the section. In order to save myself a good deal of trouble in the preparation of an alternative section, I propose to delete the section as it stands. I do that primarily so that the Minister might be aware as soon as possible that objection would be taken to this section. I recognise that the harbour authority ought to have some power in regard to the examination of cargo goods entering the harbour but what is proposed here is that
"goods which are landed within the limits of the harbour may be surveyed and examined by a person appointed in that behalf by the harbour authority and such person may do all things necessary or incidental to the carrying out of such examination and survey".
These words "examination and survey", I take it, are used in their technical sense. I take it also that the words are used in the customs sense, that things necessary or incidental to the carrying out of such examination and survey will involve the breaking of cases and the opening of goods belonging to importers who may know nothing whatever about what is being done to their property. If the Minister were to say that what he has in mind is that the harbour authority shall have power to make an external examination of the goods, say for the purpose of counting the cases or packages, I would not raise any objection. I should be very glad if the Minister would qualify the section so as to ensure that there would be no survey or examination in the sense in which that term is used in the customs and excise.
I think I can say that there would be no survey or examination which will involve damage to the goods. If any damage did occur the owner would have a right of redress. The intention is to carry out a survey and examination of the goods to ensure that no damage has been caused to the goods by improper handling in transit. I may say that the legislation is similar to previous legislation which authorised the harbour authority to carry out such a survey.
Will the Minister have regard to what I have said in the matter? I do not want to obstruct the passage of the Bill and I have no intention of doing anything that would weaken the original purpose of the Bill but I am concerned with the fact that there are three organisations concerned with the handling of goods coming into this country. There is the shipping company which has certain powers under the Merchant Shipping Act, there are the revenue authorities and there is the harbour authority. The people who by tradition are entitled to examine and survey goods are the customs authorities but frankly what I fear is that this provision is put in here so that our harbour authorities may be required by the customs authority to do something he will not do himself.
Oh, no. It is merely intended to have an examination of the goods so that a report can be obtained on the condition of the goods in case there is a claim on the grounds that the goods were damaged in transit. The harbour authority will know then whether the goods were landed safely or landed damaged.
Perhaps the Minister will examine the matter.
It may not be possible to get a limiting phrase into the section.
The use of the words "external examination" would satisfy me.
That might not be adequate.
Senator Duffy mentioned three authorities on the Second Reading. I mentioned another —a public health authority. Since then I notice that the Dublin Port and Docks Board object to a statement of mine made in this House that facilities are not provided. Facilities are provided as far as the port and docks board themselves are concerned, but facilities are not provided by the shipper. It was the case of the shipper that I raised. A public health official was told that instructions from the shipper were that no official should be allowed to examine the goods. I think that is a public health matter that might be considered by the new harbour authority. It is of vital importance that food intended for human consumption should be subject to examination at the port. Facilities for that purpose were not available on a recent date. I fancy that this section would, in some way, provide for such an examination so that information could be obtained. The results of the examination as to the condition of food intended for human consumption could be reported to the local authorities.
Sections 76, 77 and 78 agreed to.
SECTION 79.
Question proposed: "That Section 79 stand part of the Bill."
I am opposing Section 79. This section seems to me to be introduced into the Bill without any justification whatever. It has nothing whatever to do with a harbour authority. The section provides that:—
"It shall not be lawful for the master of a vessel which is within the limits of a harbour to break bulk or allow bulk to be broken or land or allow to be landed, otherwise than into a transit shed approved in that behalf by the Revenue Commissioners, any cargo in respect of which report and entry are required under the Customs Acts unless such requirement has been duly carried out."
Again, we are dealing with purely customs language. "Report and entry" are phrases that are used in the Customs Acts. They relate entirely to customs. I would draw the attention of the House to Section 50 of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876. Section 1 imposes upon the master of every ship the duty of making a report "within 24 hours after arrival from parts beyond the seas" to the collector or other proper person. Section 51 provides that if he fails to comply with the provisions in Section 50 he will forfeit £100. Now, why is it necessary in this Harbours Bill to make the captain again liable to a fine of £10, having regard to the fact that under the Customs Consolidation Act he is liable to a fine of £100 if he fails to make a report in a specified time? It is also provided that if the captain permits anybody to break bulk within the limits of the harbour, or within four leagues of the harbour, he is to be liable to a fine of £100 under the Customs Act, and under this Bill to another fine of £10.
The question of making entry is, of course, somewhat different. It has got nothing whatever to do with the captain except in one set of circumstances. The entry is a customs document, private to the importer and to the customs officials. Not even a harbour authority is entitled to see a customs entry. As a matter of fact, a customs officer will not expose a customs entry to anybody, because it tells you the private business of an importer, where he is bringing his goods from, and the price he is paying for them. If it were not for the fact that I do not want to hold up the House, I could produce a customs entry form to show what is required in relation to entry. I suggest that a harbour master knows nothing whatever of what is being done in this regard, and yet in this Harbours Bill we find Section 79 imported from nowhere proposing to impose penalties upon the master of a ship in relation to transactions which are covered completely by the Customs Acts. I think the Minister is wrong in permitting the introduction of a provision of this kind in the Bill. I can see that it is a revenue provision, put in for some purpose not clear to me, especially in view of the fact that everything dealt with in the section is covered by the Customs Consolidation Act. If the master of a vessel permits anybody to remove goods from the vessel without entry being made for them he is liable under Section 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, so that every conceivable incident in relation to what is aimed at in the section is covered by the customs laws. I would ask the Minister seriously to think whether he is permitting the revenue people, for some obscure reason, to put this section into the Bill, a section which seems to be entirely unnecessary.
I think there is a good deal to be said for the contention put forward by Senator Duffy, not only in respect of this section but perhaps to a number of other sections. I cannot see where this section is covered by the Title of the Bill. The Bill is entitled
"An Act to make further and better provision in relation to the membership of certain harbour authorities and to the management, control, operation and development of their harbours, to provide for the charging of rates by such harbour authorities, to make certain provisions in relation to pilotage authorities and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid."
The question is whether that section is connected with the "control, operation and development of... harbours". It may be remotely connected with their operation. I think that a number of sections have been introduced which, as Senator Duffy has said, are already in the Customs Acts. I think myself that the Minister has given in too much to the revenue authorities, and, therefore, I think this question should be considered in relation to this Bill.
I do not think that the revenue authorities are concerned very much as to whether it remains in or is deleted. They are adequately covered by their own Acts. Senator Duffy's objection to it would appear to be that it is an innovation. It is not.
I suggest that it is of foreign growth.
It could be so described in so far as the section, as it stands, is taken very largely from the Port of London Act which contains a similar provision, in fact even a wider provision than that which is inserted here. Section 20 of the Dublin Port and Docks Act contains a similar provision. It seems to me, therefore, that it can hardly be argued that this is an innovation, or that it is unnecessary. Before the introduction of the Bill, we circulated this section to the various harbour authorities, and although some of them suggested the desirability of widening the terms of it here and there, in a minor degree, it was not suggested by any of them that the section should be deleted from the Bill.
There are many Port and Docks Acts. Which Act is referred to here?
The Dublin Port and Docks Act of 1902.
It appears to me that the Minister's reply in regard to this matter is not very satisfactory. He speaks of the London port and docks legislation, and he also referred to some other Acts, but what we want to know is the reason for this.
The reason for it is this: the section provides that
"it shall not be lawful for the master of a vessel which is within the limits of a harbour to break bulk or allow bulk to be broken or land or allow to be landed, otherwise than into a transit shed approved in that behalf by the Revenue Commissioners, any cargo in respect of which report and entry are required under the Customs Acts unless such requirement has been duly carried out".
In fact, the Revenue Commissioners have informed me that they do not require that, in connection with the landing of goods, the goods would have to be put in a transit shed in all cases, particularly if the goods are bulky or of low quality, or duty free, but the purpose of the section is to ensure that goods will be landed in a transit shed, so that the Revenue Commissioners will be able to discharge their duties.
The Minister, a few moments ago, refused to accept an amendment dealing with the matter of the provision of transit sheds.
I should like to point out that under sub-section (2) of this section it is made an offence for the master of a vessel to contravene this section, and says that he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £10. Now, Section 107 (2) provides that a harbour authority who contravene sub-section (1) of that section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a conviction not exceeding £50. So, here we have the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the harbour authority prosecuting a person for a breach of the Customs Acts.
Why should he be prosecuted under the Customs Acts also?
A person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence.
I have mentioned the Customs Consolidation Act and other Acts, under which the master of a vessel who contravenes these regulations may be prosecuted.
All that this section requires is that the goods must be in a transit shed.
Where do these transit sheds have to be provided? Is it not the fact that customs officers may be entitled to dispense with them?
That is so, and the only reason is that there is no specific reference to the harbour authorities at all, but I think that the harbour authorities should have the power to make such a provision.
But the harbour authority does not come in here at all.
Yes, but I think that they should come in.
Yes, if the harbour authorities were to do that, but this is simply something that is added to the Customs Consolidation Act.
Well, it certainly does not add anything to the takings of the Revenue Commissioners.
It means that a man could be fined £10, in addition to Revenue charges.
I do not think so.
Yes. The Minister says that that could happen in one case. I am not, of course, suggesting that the Minister is a liar when he says that a man cannot be prosecuted twice for the one offence, but it is a fact that a man can be prosecuted for the one offence under two different Acts.
I do not think so, but in view of the arguments that have been put forward I shall look into the matter.
In view of the arrangement that was made, to adjourn at 6.45 p.m., I think we should adjourn now.
I understood that the proposal was that such amendments or sections as had not been reached by this time would be recommitted, and then could be dealt with on the Report Stage.
In so far as these amendments are concerned, there will be a recommittal, and then there will be the Report Stage immediately afterwards.
That means that all the other sections are now deemed to have been passed, I presume.
Section 79 put and agreed to.
Sections 80 to 190 agreed to.
First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules, and Title of the Bill agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Is it proposed, Sir, to take the next stage next week?
Yes, Senator, on Wednesday next.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.50 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th March.