An understanding was arrived at on the last occasion that this Bill was to be recommitted in respect of amendments tabled.
Harbours Bill, 1945—Recommittal.
With all the sections that had not been reached on the last occasion?
Yes, from Section 80 to 190, if questions arise on those sections.
Bill recommitted accordingly. (In Committee.)
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 11, Section 7, sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "appointed" in line 9, to insert the words "by the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade", and in that paragraph to delete sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), lines 10 to 18 inclusive.
This is the same amendment as that which I withdrew on Committee Stage. I withdrew it to give the Minister an opportunity of discussing the statement I made with the Minister for Agriculture and to have it verified. When our deputation interviewed the Minister for Agriculture, he agreed that the national executive was the only body which should be nominated to represent this interest and that he would recommend that the national executive be named in the Bill as a nominating authority for harbour boards. Before I proceed to discuss the matter, I should be glad if the Minister would tell the House whether he interviewed the Minister for Agriculture and, if so, what was his reply?
I think the Senator had better make the case for his amendment.
May I take it that we are going to deal with all the amendments, even prior to Section 80, now in Committee also?
Yes.
I agree with the Minister's statement that there has been a lot of misinformed discussion on this Bill, but I also want to say that the Minister himself has been very much misinformed with regard to the position of the national executive. If he had been properly instructed, I am certain that he would make no objection to naming the National Executive of the Irish Cattle Trade as a nominating body for the harbour boards. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the national executive is not a separate organisation and I think there is something in the observation which Senator Sweetman made on the last day that it is questionable whether the Minister could name us in the Bill if we are not a separate organisation. We are an organisation of organisations; if you like to term it that way, we are the U.N.O. of the cattle trade. We represent not only the Twenty-Six Counties but the Thirty-Two Counties.
Senator McCabe said on the last occasion that we are not a national organisation. I am sure he based that opinion on the fact that we do not recognise the Border. There is no Border in the cattle trade and we have two organisations from the Six Counties members of the national executive. If that is the reason Senator McCabe would not recognise us as a national organisation, it looks rather funny. The position is that if we do not get this right it is questionable whether the national executive would take the responsibility of nominating anybody. We represent the whole organised trade of the Thirty-Two Counties—cattle, sheep, pigs, horses and greyhounds. We have members from the whole Thirty-Two Counties in the national executive and all these associations are affiliated with the national executive. The Minister's contention on the last occasion was that if some other organisation did spring up, he would have to introduce another Bill.
The same remarks would apply to the manufacturers, or even to the chamber of commerce. There are two chambers of commerce in Cork, and there is no reason why there would not be two chambers of commerce in Dublin. If that happens the Minister would have to change the Bill to give representation to the different chambers of commerce. That cannot, however, occur in the case of the national executive. As I pointed out on a previous occasion the national executive cannot be allowed to fail. We are already a statutory body carrying out two Acts of Parliament passed by the Oireachtas—the Export Insurance Act and the Slaughter of Animals Act. These are very important Acts. For the protection of live-stock traders and even for the protection of farmers themselves, the insurance companies must function and if the national executive broke down as I stated previously, the Minister for Agriculture would have to appoint either a commissioner or a manager to administer these Acts.
I suggest that there is nothing in the Minister's statement with regard to the Waterford chamber making representation for the Cork cattle trade. I think it is more to the credit of the Cork Cattle Traders' Association that they have two members on it for a number of years, and they would be very slow to lose them. The Cork Cattle Trade Association is affiliated with the national executive. From that point of view whatever two representatives would be recommended from Cork to be representatives of that association, would be from the national executive.
With regard to the other point about some other association springing up, there are only three other associations of an organised character. There is the Dublin Cattle Salesmasters' Association, which certainly does not export anything and could not in any circumstances be recognised other than as agents for the farmers. Then there is the Dublin Independent Cattle Salesmasters' Association of which I am a member and which does not sell any cattle for commission. It merely sells our own cattle in the cattle market. The only other association that could be connected with the cattle trade is the Kerry Cattle Dealers' Association. The point is that if by any chance you name the Cattle Salesmasters' Association, you will have one organisation going to the harbour board from the Dublin Cattle Salesmasters' Association and you would have another from the national executive. The national executive would be advocating better facilities, more lairage accommodation and a change in the Dublin cattle market. On the opposite side, you would have from the members of the Dublin Cattle Market Association, who have vested interests in and around Prussia Street, the point of view that there should be no change in the market. They would argue that everything in the garden was lovely, and say that a lot of extra expense would be involved if the market was changed from its present site. What would be the use of having two people representing a particular interest when you would have diametrically opposite interests at stake?
The representatives of our association would have to go on the board pledged to support majority rule. They would have to carry out the majority decision of the national executive. Their instructions would be to do that, no matter how they might feel privately. They would have to carry out that decision according to the declarations they made when they became members of the national executive. When they attended the board they would have to carry out the instructions given by the national executive. From that point of view, I think it would be a farce to put anybody on these harbour boards except those who had been nominated by the national executive. I think I have said sufficient to convince anybody that my argument in support of this amendment is correct. I hope the Minister will look into it.
So far as the Minister for Agriculture is concerned, I want to make it clear that the sub-section, as it stands, was inserted in the Bill on his suggestion. I also want to make it clear that the Minister for Agriculture is not pressing for its amendment. We discussed this matter last week on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I have considered the points that were raised during the week that has intervened. The more I consider them the more doubtful I am as to the wisdom of providing representation for the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade and the more that Senator Counihan says about it the stronger are my doubts. I am particularly perturbed by the statement which he has just made, that the persons nominated by this organisation on the harbour boards will act, not as members of a harbour board anxious to promote the interests of the harbour of which they are in charge but to carry out the majority instructions of the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade. I want to make it quite clear that I would regard that as a most undesirable practice. I think that those who become members of a harbour board as such owe their first allegiance to the board itself, and should be concerned only to arrive at decisions which will be most likely to foster the development of the harbour, following on discussion of the merits of propositions before the board.
Even to change the Dublin market.
We are not discussing that. I am also supported in my attitude concerning this organisation by an advertisement they published recently concerning Córas Iompair Éireann. If we are going to get anywhere in this country as regards the development of our harbours or any other facilities we must put them in charge of people who will bring to our problems a co-operative and constructive attitude. The mentality of the National Executive of the Irish Live-stock Trade as revealed in that advertisement was neither co-operative nor constructive and I sincerely hope that the members they will appoint to harbour boards when they have that right will be more useful in finding solutions for the real problems that a harbour board has to face than the national executive intends to be in relation to our internal transport problems.
Who started the advertisements about Córas Iompair Éireann?
I am not talking about who started the advertisements nor do I mind if the national executive chooses to spend its money on advertisements of any kind. What I am referring to is the mentality revealed in that advertisement. It was completely unco-operative and non-constructive. If that organisation wants to be given responsibility for the improvement of transport facilities and particularly our port facilities I hope that it will nominate people who will be more useful to this country than those who are responsible for the framing of that advertisement. So far as I am concerned this section in the Bill is in my opinion in a suitable form and I propose to leave it there. No doubt if the national executive is able to convince the Minister for Agriculture that they are representative of live-stock trading interests they will be given the right to nominate members on the boards of the major harbours. I do not think it is desirable to change the Bill in the manner suggested by the Senator. I think it is much more desirable to leave the section as it stands and allow the Minister for Agriculture after an examination of the position to nominate the organisations that are most representative of the trade.
I listened to Senator Counihan with a good deal of sympathy. I do not sympathise with the point he made about the members of the live-stock trade—that if they were on the boards they would be there merely as the mouthpieces of a majority decision. In that respect, I must say that I share the views of the Minister. I think it was unfortunate that Senator Counihan made that point. It weakened what I regard as an extremely strong case. The Minister in his remarks seemed to display rather a prejudice against the National Executive of the Livestock Trade on the ground that their mentality, as evidenced by one or two instances, was not of a kind that we should admire or encourage. I do not hold any brief to defend the character of those citizens, but I do think that they represent a very important national economic interest, and that if any body has the right to be represented by name on the governing body of these harbours, then the National Executive of the Irish Live-stock Trade is that body.
I think there is no argument in favour of putting on the governing body of the harbours by name representatives of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers which does not apply with three-fold force in favour of the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade. No doubt the Federation of Irish Manufacturers are a very worthy body, but they have no interest whatever in the export trade, or practically none, because all their doings are related to the home market. Their only possible interest in the harbours would be in connection with the import of raw materials for the goods they manufacture. Even in that case, we will not be able to continue importing indefinitely unless the cattle industry is in a flourishing condition. The export of cattle is our premier export activity. It is of first class importance to those engaged in that industry that transport should be as cheap as possible so far as it applies to our harbours. For these and other reasons, the Minister ought to consider the desirability of naming the Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade as having the right to be represented on at least three harbours. It may be that very few cattle are exported from one of the four major harbours. Dublin, however, is an important outlet for Irish cattle, and the same applies to Cork and Waterford. Limerick may not be so important. The point has to be borne in mind that Córas Iompair Eireann has a vested interest in seeing that cattle are taken the longest possible journey by train from the Midlands and the West. It has to be considered whether the activities of Córas Iompair Eireann and of the live-stock trade are not both tarred with the same brush.
I do not like to intervene in this discussion because I have no experience of the cattle trade, but I have some experience of the Acts passed by the Oireachtas. As far as I can see from the Bill, the Minister for Agriculture has, in effect, the nomination of the body to represent the live-stock trade in his own hands. Section 7 (1) (c) of the Bill says:—
"Two members (in this Act referred to as live-stock members) appointed—
(i) in case one organisation is specified in the Order for the time being in force under sub-section (3) 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 (3) 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."
Now, sub-section (3) of this section provides as follows:—
"The Minister for Agriculture may from time to time by Order (which he may at any time by Order revoke or amend) made in respect of a harbour authority mentioned in the first column of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act declare that a specified organisation or two specified organisations of live-stock traders shall appoint the live-stock members of such harbour authority."
Therefore, it appears to me that if the Minister for Agriculture should nominate the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade, by his Order, then the two members to be appointed to the harbour board must be appointed by the National Executive of the Live-stock Trade. In the same way, if the Minister for Agriculture should specify two organisations, then each organisation shall be entitled to appoint a member, and, accordingly, as far as I can see, Senator Counihan can get all he requires from the Minister for Agriculture by asking him to make an Order specifying the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade as the only people to appoint members of the harbour board. In my opinion, therefore, if the Minister is sympathetic to the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade, there is no reason why he should not appoint them, and I think that the Minister for Agriculture is in a better position, so to speak, to nominate members of the live-stock organisation on the harbour board than the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or even the Oireachtas itself. So that I myself think that Senator Counihan can get all he requires from the Minister for Agriculture without having the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade specially mentioned in the Bill. If the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade are to be specially mentioned in this Bill as nominating people, then sub-section (3) of this section would be worthless and unnecessary. For that reason, I suggest that Senator Counihan should withdraw his amendment.
Why are the Federation of Irish Manufacturers specially nominated to appoint members?
I am not in control of the Bill. I am only making the suggestion for the purpose of clearing the air.
On that particular matter, I might point out that the section, as it stands, ensures the safeguarding of live-stock interests, whether the body for whom Senator Counihan speaks ceases to exist or not, and that does not apply in the case of Irish manufacturers. That is by way of reply to what Senator Johnston suggested. If the particular body of manufacturers concerned should cease to exist, then this provision should cease to apply, and there would be no other body to take its place. It is for that reason that representation is being given to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, because if the circumstances should change and the Federation of Irish Manufacturers should cease to exist, then the situation would also change. If the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade should change, or if they should split into two separate organisations, there is still the possibility of having live-stock interests represented.
Yes, but that is different from the case of the chambers of commerce or the federation. Their case cannot be expressed.
That is not the case, as the Senator knows quite well. The Senator's point of view can be expressed through the chambers of commerce, but the Federation of Irish Manufacturers will have a different viewpoint.
If the cattle trade were in the same position as the Federation of Irish Manufacturers or the chambers of commerce, I would not have so much complaint, but my case is that the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, or the chambers of commerce, could go out of existence, and it would mean very little, so far as the general trading interests of this country are concerned, but if the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade went out of existence, it would be a serious loss to this country, and I cannot see why the Minister for Agriculture should nominate any two organisations, such as the Federation of Irish Manufacturers or the chambers of commerce, and leave out the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade. If only one were named, I would not mind so much. The Dublin Cattle Traders' Association is in a different position from that of the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade. These people have vested interests in the neighbourhood of Prussia Street, and they do not want any change made there. They do not want the market changed, for instance, to the North Wall.
That is the principal reason why I say the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade should be given representation on these harbour boards, so that they could protect the interests of the cattle trade generally, and if we get better lairage and other facilities at the North Wall, these facilities will not be used for the benefit of any particular individual or group of individuals, but for the benefit of all those engaged in the live-stock trade, and everybody who goes there will receive the same benefit as anybody else. If, on the otherhand, the chambers of commerce or the Federation of Irish Manufacturers are provided with facilities, such as stores or sheds there, they will only use them for their own particular interests, whereas in our case such facilities would be used for the benefit of the farmers as a whole.
I cannot understand the animosity that there appears to be here against giving representation to the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade. I do not know who is advising the Minister. I know that he himself is willing enough to do all he can to help the trade, but I hold that it is a serious thing that the cattle trade should be placed in an inferior position, and I can assure the Minister that they will resent it. There is no good, I am afraid, in my pressing this, because it appears to me that the Minister has made up his mind not to recognise the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade, and accordingly I shall have to wait and see how the vote will go.
As a member of the National Executive of the Irish Live-stock Trade, and one who is very much interested in the live-stock trade as a whole, I would advise Senator Counihan not to press this amendment. He suggests that an attempt has been made to discredit the live-stock trade. Well, I would suggest that if anything has been done in that direction, it has been done by Senator Counihan himself, so far as some of the remarks he made are concerned.
Not members of the National Executive of the Livestock Trade.
No, but of the Cattle Traders' Association; and why they did not come to the help of Senator Counihan to save him from himself, I do not know. However, possibly, there are wheels within wheels. The point, however, is that Senator Counihan has got promises from two Ministers; how he did that, I do not know, but to my mind, by the attitude he is taking now, he is casting a doubt on his own organisation. Either he believes that his organisation will contine to exist or it will not, and it seems to me, from his attitude, that the whole thing is on an insecure basis. Now, I do not believe that it is, and I would appeal to the Senator not to make any more speeches in support of this amendment, as I think it would be in the best interests of the trade if he did not do so. I appeal to Senator Counihan not to press his amendment and, in the interests of the trade, not to make any more speeches.
As Senator Duffy is not in the Chamber and may not be moving his amendment, I should like to deal with the statements made with regard to manufacturers——
I am moving the amendment on behalf of Senator Duffy.
On a point of order, I suggest that the two amendments must, to some extent, hang together. Though I should prefer that neither organisation was named, I think that, if one is named, there is a justifiable view that both should be named. Therefore, I suggest that the two amendments be discussed together.
It was because of that view that I was refraining from taking part in the discussion. It seems to me that, in the admirable speech which the Minister has made pulverising the argument of Senator Counihan, he has made the case for Senator Duffy's amendment. I was not going to move the amendment until this matter would have been disposed of, because the principle of Senator Counihan's amendment is one which I am opposing on behalf of Senator Duffy in amendment No. 2. I do not know whether we are to have a rambling discussion on a few amendments at the same time.
Separate questions are raised by the amendments in question, and I think that it would be preferable to deal only with Senator Counihan's amendment now.
If mention of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers were omitted and if the phrasing were the same as in the case of the live-stock trade, I should have no objection.
I was waiting to see what was going to happen and whether the preference which has been given for 10 or 15 years to those who are not engaged in land work was to be continued. If it is to be pursued and if the live-stock trade is not to be regarded with the same favour as the federated manufacturers, I should like to see unity on this side of the House. That cannot be attained if Senator Counihan's amendment is not adopted. We claim that we are the real exporters and that we are entitled to a preference if any body is entitled to it. That is the view of the organisation of which I am a member and for which Senator Counihan speaks. As to my own intervention, I come from the northern end of the country and am a member of many boards and a governing representative of two or three or as many harbours as the "wee county" can endure. I rather think that the idea of nominating any individual has something childish about it. What we are being nominated for is to maintain a good harbour and to see that all possible exports and imports are brought there. I do not remember the time when we had too much to export or to import, or when the interests of the manufacturers, represented by Senator Summerfield, clashed with the interests we represent. The fact is that we are always short of employment for ships. We never have enough to export and we seldom have enough to import. I do not see how any manufacturer will tend, by his activities on the board, to prohibit the export of live stock and I do not see how the presence of any live-stock exporter will tend to prohibit any manufacturer from using the harbour for his requirements. I look on the matter with an open mind. I do not believe that Senator Counihan and his organisation will prevent anybody else from exporting and I do not believe that Senator Summerfield and those for whom he speaks will prevent us from exporting our live stock. But if preference is to be given, I do not see why the Government should not extend a sympathetic outlook to those whose roots are so deep in the soil and whose well-being has such a transcendent interest for rural Ireland.
I was called to order by Senator Counihan in his opening remarks. I feel that, if anybody should claim representation on these boards, it is the co-operative societies. The I.A.O.S. can produce figures to show that we have practically 2,000,000 shareholders in co-operative societies. For a number of years, the turnover has been very high. We claim—and rightly so—that we are the producers, because it is, after all, the small farmer down the country who produces the food for the calf which will afterwards become a cow or heifer or a stall-fed which the cattle traders will have the right to export. I did not want to hurt Senator Counihan's feelings on the last day and I am not prepared to do so this evening but I am fairly safe in saying that, while there are a number of respectable men in his organisation, there are a number who are not producers. They are there for the sole purpose of making a profit on the people who feed the stock and put it into their hands for export. As I was coming towards the fair of Virginia, in County Cavan, a number of people boarded the bus. I knew where they were going. I said to myself "There are at least 28 men going out there— farmers and farmers' sons—in order to get a cheap beast and ‘do' their fellow-farmer". I thought that, if we were in a position to have sales carried out on co-operative lines, we should avoid all that. Until such time as we take steps to do that, I do not see any hope for the cattle industry. I cannot sit here and listen to people saying that the cattle trader has the interest of the farmer at heart. The cattle traders have the interest of the farmer at heart to a certain extent but they have their own interests, too.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Am I entitled to speak again?
The Senator would be well advised not to.
I desire to say only a few words in reply to Senator McCabe. Senator McCabe said that the only people who should have representation on the harbour boards are the small farmers, the producers. I can tell Senator McCabe that the association to which I belong is responsible for possibly one-third of the total exports of our live stock. The small farmers do not produce cattle for export under present conditions. They produce them to sell them to the bigger farmers for the grazing lands of Leinster and only a very small percentage of those for whom Senator McCabe said he spoke, export cattle. I have no objection to representation for co-operative societies on these harbour boards.
It is a good thing we have got back to the harbour boards.
I am sure they would produce as good representatives as the chambers of commerce, who are getting four representatives. Senator McCabe, instead of trying to knock down people who are trying to do some good for the community he represents, would be doing a lot more useful work for the farmers and the co-operative society which he says he represents if he devoted his attention to the representation which the chambers of commerce are getting.
I would suggest to Senator Counihan that he should not press the amendment, that he should withdraw it and take it back to the cattle traders. The position is that the Minister for Agriculture, from what the Senator has told us, has discussed this matter with the cattle traders, and the Minister for Agriculture is the Minister who will nominate the organisation that is going to put these people on the harbour board. The Minister for Agriculture, whatever about the Minister for Industry and Commerce, appears to be very favourably disposed to Senator Counihan's organisation, and it seems to me that the Senator should hold him to the promise which he said he made.
He said he would nominate the national executive.
If the Minister for Agriculture makes such a recommendation to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Industry and Commerce must accept that.
It is not a question of recommending. It is a question of appointing.
I suggest that Senator Counihan should not press his amendment.
Even if I am alone, I am entitled to have it put to the House.
I suggest that Senator Counihan is actually in a stronger position by holding to the assurance which the Minister for Agriculture made to him and standing on it, rather than insisting on putting this amendment to the House, and getting a negative answer.
If I am wrong I shall not take any umbrage from being defeated.
It appears to me that the principle involved is the principle touched on by the Minister. He maintains that in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1), he is giving representation to an interest in a wider way than in paragraph (d) where he is only giving representation to a particular organisation. It appears to me quite clear that the proper thing to do is to give representation to an interest and that under no circumstances is it proper to give representation to an association, away and apart from the interests that that association might represent. It is because I feel it is an interest that should be represented rather than a particular association that happens to be for the time being the mouthpiece of the interest, that I would suggest to Senator Counihan, in spite of what he said about being alone, that he should withdraw this amendment, on the undertaking which I understand he has been able to get from the Minister for Agriculture, who is not the person who recommends but who is the person who actually makes the appointment under sub-section (3) of this section. If the Senator will consider the question more carefully, he will see that it is the Minister for Agriculture who makes the appointment without having to go to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who, the Senator is afraid, is inimical to his interests. When he appreciates that he is able to by-pass the Minister for Industry and Commerce by getting all he wants directly from the Minister for Agriculture I think he might withdraw the amendment.
The only objection I have to taking that course is that there is a principle at stake. We are put in an inferior position to the chambers of commerce and to the manufacturers and I strongly resent that on behalf of the cattle traders. I thought that the days when the cattle traders were in ill-favour with the Government had gone. I thought that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was now anxious to increase exports but I see that the old prejudice is still there, and I must therefore ask that the question be put to the House.
I think that the Senator should withdraw the amendment and concentrate on the next amendment which, if passed, will, I understand, put the Federation of Manufacturers exactly on the same basis as the live-stock trade.
I must ask to have the amendment put to the House.
Amendment put, and declared negatived.
I am satisfied now.
I regret that Senator Duffy has not found it possible to attend to-day. I have pleasure in moving amendment No. 2 standing in his name:—
2. In page 11, Section 7, sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (d) and in lieu thereof to insert the following paragraph:—
(d) two members (in this Act referred to as manufacturer members) appointed:—
(i) in case one organisation is specified in the Order for the time being in force under sub-section ( ) of this section, by the organisation so specified,
(ii) in case two organisations are specified under the Order for the time being in force under sub-section ( ) 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.
If Senators would be so kind as to read the second amendment and compare it with paragraph (c) of the Bill, they will see that it is exactly word for word what the Minister has been so logically defending for the past five or ten minutes. That is to say, that it is not necessary to specify the organisation in the Bill itself but to name the interest from which it would be at the discretion of the Minister to make the appointment to the harbour board. I think Senators will agree, quite apart from the admirable speech made by Senator Duffy on the Committee Stage on this particular point— I think Senator Kingsmill Moore also supported the same point of view— that it would improve the Bill by keeping the names of organisations out of it, and give the Minister the power that he has taken to himself, and as I say, so ably defended a moment or two ago in regard to the cattle trade. I think no argument that one could bring forward could improve on the terms of the amendment submitted by Senator Duffy in this connection. I do not know whether it would be necessary to go into the reasons why the Federation of Irish Manufacturers should not be put upon a special footing in the Bill. Personally, I think it is hardly necessary.
It is not necessary.
I notice that Senator Summerfield is anxious to get on his feet in order, I suppose, to dilate on this question. I think that it might be possible to convince the Senator that this organisation, the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, is not as representative as many would like to see it. I am inclined to agree that that particular interest should be represented on these boards, but I am not prepared to agree that it should be specially named in the Bill.
I think the Bill would be much improved by the deletion of the name, but that the Minister should be given power, if he thinks fit, to appoint representatives of that special interest. The fact that, in Waterford, 14 members of that organisation would have the privilege of appointing two, should, I think, have some weight with the Seanad. There is also the fact that in Dublin there are 400 odd members of the organisation who enjoy a dual membership with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce which, in its turn, will, I think, get four members on the harbour board. That, I think, is to be deplored. After all the men who arrange the work to be done and those who do the work, are the dockers and the ancillary workers. All they get is two representatives. In saying that, one has no intention of decrying any special interest. One does not say that it should not be represented. I think, however, that Labour interests might be more adequately represented. I think anybody who takes the trouble to read the amendment will agree that its insertion would improve the Bill.
Am I to understand that we can speak more than once on the Bill?
Yes, the Bill has been re-committed.
I find it rather difficult to know how to start in dealing with this amendment. First of all, I feel that the shades of poor Arthur Griffith must turn at the thought that, after 20 years of self-government an organisation which is as Irish and has its roots as deeply in the soil as any of the trades we have been told about in the debate, should have its position challenged in this House. The Federation of Irish Manufacturers is accused of many things. It is not so often given credit for the one thing that it can boast about and is proud of, and that is that it owes its allegiance only to the country in which it exists. The members of it control their own business within the State in which they exist. Their only loyalty, as an organised body, is to this State. It was said by the mover of the amendment that the Federation of Irish Manufacturers was not as representative as many would like it to be.
It is as representative as the conditions of its membership permit it to be: that is to say, that within the regulations laid down by the Control of Manufactures Act any bona fide manufacturer of goods in this country can be, and will be, admitted to membership of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. We have not admitted, and will not admit, those branch concerns, or foreign controlled octopus-businesses which have their temporary habitat here, concerns which, if there was any change in the political scene here and we no longer had a native Government, would soon show how shallow are their connections here. This attack on the Federation of Irish Manufacturers——
No one made any attack on the organisation.
The Senator attacked its position.
I did not attack its position. I said that the Bill would be improved by the deletion of the name and, instead, giving the Minister power, if he so desires it, to appoint representatives of the organisation.
The Senator did not show the same solicitude with regard to the chambers of commerce. Whatever else may be said of the latter bodies, it certainly cannot be claimed for them that they are as productive as the body for which I am now speaking.
Surely there is a difference between a chamber of commerce and a manufacturers' federation?
Senator Summerfield should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
I did not interrupt the Senator. The Federation of Irish Manufacturers is not disputing the position which is being given to any other body to get representation under this Bill. The Minister designed the Bill so that he might be able to set up representative harbour boards. I challenge anybody in this House or outside of it to say how any harbour board could be said to be representative if, in fact, the only organised body of Irish manufacturers that we have in the country did not specifically get representation on it. We did not dispute any of the arguments put forward by Senator Counihan in support of his case. It was said by Senator Johnston that the federation was not concerned with the export trade: that it was merely concerned with the home trade. God forbid that we should be accused of that. May I say that one little group of Irish manufacturers engaged in an export trade last year which represented £1,000,000 sterling?
The cattle export trade represents £14,000,000 sterling.
I said that was the export trade done by one little group of Irish manufacturers. The country and the people generally were very glad of the activities which the members of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers were able to carry on during the last six years. The Government envisages big developments in industrial activity. The Minister may speak on the expansion which is envisaged. As far as is humanly possible, we hope to assist in that development, and to see that Irish capital is employed. Surely, that presupposes a development in our export trade. There was so much pessimism expressed in the course of this debate that I was almost waiting for a dirge to be chanted. From what was said, one would imagine that the federation was a sort of transitory body, and that its demise might be expected at any time. May I tell those members that the federation is stronger now than at any time since it was established? Its council meetings are attended at all times by a liaison officer from the Department of Industry and Commerce, so that there is no move made by this much-criticised body that is not known through the private reports made by the liaison officer in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I think it is only right that I should say that. I could not allow an attack, no matter how oblique, to be made on the federation, and on the important position it occupies in our community, to go by default. This is the first day that I have been out for the past five weeks. I do want to refute the suggestions which have been made against the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, an important section of the community, the members of which employ 60,000 industrial workers and have a pay roll of between £8,000,000 and £10,000,000 a year. I ask Senators is that a negligible organisation that is not worthy of special representation? I am glad that the Minister, in his wisdom, saw fit to name the federation in the Bill, and for that reason I hope the amendment will be rejected.
I hope that, for the sake of consistency, the Minister will accept the amendment. Why should this federation be given a special privilege as against other organised producers? Senator McCabe voiced the interests of the co-operative movement. I would venture to say that they are far more representative of the fundamental manufacturer and wealth of the country than the Federation of Manufacturers, because I regard food production as manufacture in its highest sense. I cannot see how the Minister can, with consistency, deny direct representation either to the co-operative movement or the live-stock trade. I cannot see how he can do that without being utterly inconsistent and illogical and, I might say, almost carrying this matter to the extent of prejudice. Senator Summerfield referred to the close association between the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and the Minister's Department. Now, I do not think that that is altogether commendable, but perhaps it may explain a good deal of the reasons behind this section. I am in favour of bringing all classes or sections of productive activity into the closest association and co-operation with the Department, but I understood from Senator Summerfield's remarks that the extent of co-operation between the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and the Department of Industry and Commerce was much closer than the co-operation of other interests with that Department. I do not think that that is desirable, because it seems to me that the Federation of Irish Manufacturers is not framed in such a way as to entitle them to that preference. Accordingly, I do not regard that as a very good argument. I think that the overwhelming argument rests on this: nobody denies that the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade is fully representative of live-stock interests in this country, whereas, as I am sure Senator Summerfield himself would not contend for a moment, the Federation of Irish Manufacturers is not representative of all the industries in this country. I am sure that the Senator is fully aware that there are certain very big industries in this country which are not members of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. Accordingly, I think that if you are to give fair representation, you should leave it in the hands of the Minister, and not leave it in the hands of a body which is not fully representative of the interests which it purports to represent.
In that connection, I do not think the Senator should have brought in the question of purely national interests here. I do not think that the federation should confine itself to the rather narrow orbit of purely national interests, nor do I think it is good for the country to do so. In saying that, I do not wish to impute any wrong motives to the federation, but the federation undoubtedly does represent a certain policy which favours the use of tariffs and sheltered conditions for the protection of our industries, which policy some of us, at least, believe is not wholly in the best interests of this country.
Before the Minister concludes, I wonder whether anybody, whether the mover of the amendment or Senator Summerfield, or some other Senator, could give us some information as to the relative importance of the two groups of manufacturers we have in this country. We have the interests represented by the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and there are other industrial interests to which Senator Summerfield has referred. Now, the harbours are the avenues of the world's trade, and the Minister wants these harbours to be as well managed as they can be. That is the purpose of the Bill. The Minister wants to get the best and most competent and efficient people to manage these harbour boards. Now, in this section, certain trading interests are getting special representation, and it would appear that certain other trading interests, which are very much concerned with the export and import trade, are not getting the same opportunity as is being afforded to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. In other words, it would appear that certain trading interests, which must be tremendously concerned with the management of ports and harbours, may not have the same opportunity of expressing their views as is being afforded to what, perhaps, may be a very small number of people connected with the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. Accordingly, I think that if we could have some information as to the relative importance of the trade passing through our ports as between the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and the other people who are not included here, it would be of great interest from the point of view of getting representation for these interests and, at the same time, making certain that the people who have built up an external trade will have an opportunity of having their point of view expressed, particularly in view of their competence to express those views. As the situation is to one who, like myself, must try to look on this amendment from a somewhat objective point of view, I should be concerned to have some information on that point.
I only wish to intervene here in order to get back to the issues raised by this amendment. It is quite clear that whether we name the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, as in the Bill, or adopt the suggestion of Senator Kyle, contained in the amendment in the name of Senator Duffy, the result would be the same, because, in present circumstances, only the Federation of Irish Manufacturers could be nominated by the Minister as there certainly is no other organisation of the kind, and certainly none that would be more representative of Irish industries generally. The question, therefore, is whether such a body should be named in the Bill as a nominating authority for harbour boards, or whether the designation of the body should be left to the Minister as in the case of the live-stock trade. Now, let me make this clear to Senator Sir John Keane. So far as this Bill is concerned, we are not so much concerned with giving preference to primary industries, such as, for instance, the live-stock producers, or other primary producers, as with the proper development of our harbours, and putting on harbour boards the most competent and efficient people to develop these harbours. We want to have on these harbour boards people of business competence and experience to run these harbours, and, following the recommendations of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal, we want to get them by a process of nomination. It was proposed that these nominations should be made by the local authorities, the chambers of commerce and the Minister. The tribunal recommended that the nominations should be confined to the local authority, the chambers of commerce, and the Minister, but it has now been decided to extend the right to particular interests, such as, for instance, the live-stock trade. It was decided to do that, and to give representation to interests such as the live-stock trade, labour, and manufacturing industry, because it was considered that it would help to provide us with the best type of harbour boards.
The Federation of Irish Manufacturers came to me and said that, while they understood that the idea of giving power of direct nomination to the chambers of commerce was to ensure that the harbour boards would contain persons who were representative of commercial interests and who had commercial experience, they had a point of view in relation to industrial development and general economic expansion which was not likely, in present circumstances, to find expression through the chambers of commerce. We know that is so. For various historical reasons, the chambers of commerce represent a point of view in relation to Irish economic development which is different, as a rule, from that held by the majority of our people. The chambers of commerce were named by the Ports and Harbours Tribunal as being a suitable type of organisation to secure representation for commercial interests. Senator Baxter asked if there are not other big trading interests which should be represented on harbour boards. There are and it is through the chambers of commerce, it is assumed, they will get that representation. They can get it otherwise, but that is the most likely channel through which they will obtain it.
In the selection of persons for harbour boards, I hope that all the nominating bodies will remember that they are not putting on, as Senator Counihan seems to think, persons who are to be solely protectors of special interests but persons capable of running the business organisation that a harbour is. Those who are most concerned with the efficiency of harbour administration and who are most directly concerned with that administration are not the primary producers —the food producers—or any other general interest of that kind. They are those who are engaged in the shipment of goods in or out of the country through our harbours. It is a reasonable assumption that, if the management of the harbours is given, in the main, to those concerned with the shipment of goods through the harbours, they will be well managed, the facilities available will be adequate and the rates low.
Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind a certain factor—particularly in present circumstances. I think that Senator Summerfield should take it for granted that Senator Duffy, in framing his amendment, was not animated by hostility to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, because Senator Duffy, in the course of his remarks in Committee, indicated that he was aware of certain factors affecting the management of our harbours in the past that we must seek to eliminate now.
It is quite true that the management of Irish harbours, and particularly Dublin harbour, in the past was so directed as to give major advantage to the development of coastwise shipping, as distinguished from direct shipment of goods from the country of origin and the direct export of goods to countries other than Great Britain. All the facilities and the whole system of charging were designed to facilitate the companies engaged in coastwise shipping business between this country and Great Britain. Everybody knows that. In so far as those who were mainly concerned with that type of development are likely to control the nominations made by the chambers of commerce, until the general mentality of those who are members of chambers of commerce comes more into conformity with the general national outlook, it is desirable that we should make specific provision in this Bill for giving representation upon the harbour authorities to those who, we know, are concerned with industrial expansion and economic progress and are likely to bring to the problems of the harbour authorities minds which will not be unduly influenced by past practice or a narrow conception of where the country's commercial interests lie.
For that reason, I felt that there was a case to be made for mentioning in the Bill the Federation of Manufacturers, because what we are aiming to do now is to give representation on those major harbour boards to the Federation of Manufacturers—not to any organisation of manufacturers but to this particular organisation of manufacturers—which, can, in present circumstances, make a useful contribution to the development of our harbours and introduce a new outlook in the management of our harbours. I mentioned also that, whereas in relation to the live-stock trade, we were ensuring continuity of representation for live-stock interests by the device adopted, because if that organisation disappears some other organisation can be nominated, it is not necessary to do that in the case of manufacturing interests. If the Federation of Irish Manufacturers ceases to exist, it is not proposed to give the same right of nomination to any other body of manufacturers which may then be in existence. In any event, we should not do that without looking at the position again. Possibly, at that stage, it might not be necessary, because the chambers of commerce would be as representative of the sound viewpoint upon national economic development as the federation claims to be now.
It might well be that if the Federation of Irish Manufacturers did come to an end, it would be because the need for it as a separate organisation would have ceased to exist, arising out of a change in the outlook and composition of the chambers of commerce. I think that the arguments are in favour of leaving the Bill as it stands, leaving this sub-section to provide not for representation of any body of manufacturers, nor expressly designed to secure representation for manufacturing interests, but to provide specific representation for the federation, as a suitable body to have power of nomination to the boards of those major harbour authorities.
I do not accept the view put forward by the Minister as regards chambers of commerce, that they are anti-national in their outlook. That was the case made by him, but, so far as the discussion on this amendment is concerned, I am prepared to take the Minister on his own ground. I am prepared to accept his assertion that he considers it necessary that a special viewpoint should be brought to those harbour boards—a viewpoint which is voiced most satisfactorily at the moment by the federation. I differ from him entirely in his reason for arriving at that view. I arrive at it because I think it is desirable that a substantial body of manufacturers should be represented, so that they may bring their experience, such as it is, to the work of the harbour boards. I take the view very strongly that there is no case for giving that particular type of representation to an association as such. An association, as such, has no existence apart from its membership. It might happen quite easily that there would arise another association which did not believe that the existing control of the federation was satisfactory. Another situation might arise which recent events rather led me to consider possible. There was another organisation of sympathisers with Irish manufacturers called the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association. That, I understand, split, and the split wound up in the courts. With all deference to Senator Summerfield, whom I congratulate on his return to the House after five weeks' illness, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the federation will also split. If the federation split, is the Minister to go to the courts or is a particular harbour board to go to the courts to determine which faction of the organisation is properly entitled to appoint representatives?
I do not know whether that point of view has been adverted to. It is quite possible that that might happen. Some time ago there was a feeling amongst certain members of the Irish Federation of Manufacturers that they were not very happy with the control existing at that time in the organisation. I do not know whether or not they were justified in that feeling but I do know that they felt themselves justified to this extent, that they issued a very long brochure by way of a circular letter to every member of the Oireachtas at the time, stating that the writer was not satisfied with the federation. The brochure was quite frankly libellous but it was never challenged for its libels in court. It could happen that a similar feeling on the part of other members might result in another split. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility and, as the Bill is framed, it seems to me that in such circumstances the Minister and the harbour board concerned would have no alternative except to go to the court for a declaration as to which side was the proper side. Ministers and Departments have shown in the past a distinct dislike and distaste for going to court for a declaration of this kind. I would have thought that in this case, for that reason alone, the Minister would have taken the course suggested in the amendment.
Quite apart from that, I think there is no case for singling out the Federation of Irish Manufacturers as against Senator Counihan's organisation. Having already made the decision that, so far as Senator Counihan's organisation is concerned, they should not be named in the Bill, I think there is no case whatever for naming the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. I think the section should be framed in such a way that the particular point of view which the Minister wants to have represented on harbour boards should be represented by such organisation as from time to time the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the day deems to be the proper organisation to be able to bring its particular talents and service to the harbour authority concerned, to the service of an authority which is dealing with, not, as I think most Senators thought until the Minister spoke, only with exports but with imports as well. For that reason I would urge the Minister strongly to accept the amendment tabled by Senator Duffy.
Senator Sweetman made some sweeping charges against the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and as they are going on the records of the House and may meet with a certain degree of publicity outside the House, I desire to express my surprise that a man of his legal training should make the statements he did which are so far removed from fact. I challenge Senator Sweetman now to produce any circular letter such as he referred to, circulated by members of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers at any time since it was formed, questioning the wisdom of the control of that body. The document to which no doubt he refers was the famous pink document, a production of one disgruntled manufacturer who had a grievance against a paid official of the association. That is the fact and that is the reason why the federation, as such, did not feel itself called upon to take the action which it would very cheerfully have taken had the charges been levelled against the organisation as such.
Again I have to express my surprise that on a simple amendment of this kind, the Senator should attack a body which has established itself so firmly in the community life of the State. We also heard a statement from the Senator that at any time the federation might split up. Is it not equally true that the antique chamber of commerce might split up so that it might be reconstituted in a form more in consonance with the general thought that exists and the different outlook that is taken nowadays in regard to industrial matters? I do not however anticipate that the federation is in danger of an early death or of displacement by another body. I think that the Senator's references to the N.A.I.D.A. were in very bad taste. That action is still sub judice as there is an appeal pending. It may interest Senator Sweetman to know that the most loyal members and the original members of the N.A.I.D.A. are members who were there long before the Irish Federation of Manufacturers came into being. The action to which he refers was taken by a few members against that body and not primarily against the federation. I think Senator Sweetman might have been a little more careful in his statements.
Would the Senator deal with the question of the dual representation given to manufacturers? Representation is also provided for the chamber of commerce on which, I understand, there are quite a number of members of the Federation of Irish Industries.
We have a watching brief there, that is all.
The Senator did not deal with that particular point. In all the irrelevancies to which we have listened, the actual terms of the amendment have not been adverted to except by the Minister. I still think that the draft of the Bill, to which he rightly resisted a former amendment, is exactly the same as the draft suggested by this particular paragraph (d). It does not at all attack, as Senator Summerfield suggests, this association. One finds it very difficult to argue in cold language against a person who deliberately takes affront when no affront is meant or mentioned or even hinted at in the terms of the amendment. I still think that the amendment is superior to the Bill as drafted.
It seems to me that it might have been desirable to take amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are dealing only with amendment No. 2.
Supposing No. 2 is passed, it would follow almost automatically that No. 3 would be passed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are dealing now with a different matter from the subject-matter of No. 3.
The Minister mentioned that it would be very wrong to contemplate the permanent existence of certain organisations. Now I want to suggest that unless amendments No. 2 and No. 3 are accepted, there will be a certain want of consistency or coherence in the Bill.
If it is right to have two associations in one case, it seems equally right to have two associations in all cases. I agree with Senator Sweetman in his view that it might have been better from the beginning to have left it entirely to the discretion of the Minister as to the particular organisations that should have the right to appoint members. Senator Counihan's amendment has been rejected. Therefore, it seems logical to me that we should accept amendment No. 2 as it stands, and also amendment No. 3. I do not see how we can avoid doing so if we are to be consistent.
I am sorry that Senator Summerfield has left the House. I wanted to suggest to him that no one member of an organisation could write that pink paper without consultation with anybody else. I make him a present of the point that there is only the one signature. I am afraid, however, that the Senator completely missed the whole point of my argument which was this, that if in the future there was any difference of opinion in the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, that then what occurred in the case of the N.A.I.D.A. must occur in the federation. I agree entirely with Senator Summerfield that the action was not one between the N.A.I.D.A. and the federation, but was an internal action in which some members of the Development Association thought that the control of the association was not being properly handled. If the same thing happened in the case of the federation, then the same situation would arise. The Minister would have to say that the harbour boards would have to go to court to determine which was correct. It seems to me that the Senator's references to those proceedings rather strengthened my argument. I am prepared to say that as things are at present the Minister must nominate the Federation of Irish Manufacturers Limited. I think, however, that Senator Summerfield is right in one point, that there is a case not only for not naming the federation but for not naming the chambers of commerce.
I suggest there is also a case for not naming anyone in the Bill. I will support an amendment which names nobody. If the live-stock people were being named, I would take the view that Senator Summerfield was quite entitled to make the case that the federation should be named. As, however, Senator Counihan's amendment has been rejected, I feel that I must be consistent and say that no one should be named.
The Minister said that it would make no difference whether the amendment was passed or not. I suggest to him that he should consider this matter in a spirit of detachment and allow the amendment to be passed. As Senator Sweetman has pointed out, the naming of one federation may prove embarrassing to the Minister later on. I want to put it, that in certain quarters there is the feeling that it is undesirable that the association between the Department and the federation should be so strong. The feeling exists that those who are in the federation have certain advantages over those who are not in it. I want to say that that feeling exists, and is felt very strongly amongst some sections of the commercial community. I suggest that it would be better for the Minister to take this provision out of the Bill of naming the federation, and in that way show that his attitude is one of detachment.
In my opinion the debate during the last one and a half hours on this matter has been absolutely unworthy of the House. I am not a member of the Federation of Manufacturers, but I am of the opinion that an unworthy attack has been made on the Federation of Irish Industries. The members of this organisation employ over 60,000 industrial workers. That figure has been given to-day, while their wages pay-roll runs into millions. Then we had the last Senator suggesting that there is too close an alliance between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the federation. Is it the Senator's idea that chaotic conditions should be allowed to grow up in our industrial organisations? I am sorry that the debate should have reached such a low level.
It was not in keeping with what I expected. Surely, it should be our object to see that the best results possible are obtained through the operation of this Bill. The Minister told us to-day that it is his responsibility to get the best possible harbour boards. The better a board is the less worry the Minister will have afterwards. No matter how strong the temptation might be, we should avoid at all costs attacking any organisation, and act on some principle such as the Minister has put before us. Senator Sweetman tells us of a reason why you should not allow the Federation of Irish Manufacturers to be mentioned in the Bill, as there might, possibly, be a split. There have been splits heretofore. There might be a split, even in this House, to-morrow; there might be a split in the Labour Party to-morrow, or in any other organisation. There might even be a split between Senator Kyle, on behalf of Labour, and Senator Sir John Keane, on behalf of the banks; although it would appear that both of them want to put the Federation of Irish Manufacturers into oblivion.
Oh, no; they do not go quite so far as that.
Well, at any rate, that would appear to be the case. However, I would say this in all fairness to everybody: there might be some spark of decency in what Senator Kyle proposes, if the suggestion is to wipe out all organisations, but it would seem that the two Senators have combined to shelter the chambers of commerce. I do not know why Senator Kyle should not get up and give us the reason for that, but at any rate, he has not mentioned it in connection with his amendment, and so it seems to me that there must be something wrong here. Now, I suggest that we should not let ourselves be obsessed with personal interests. Our duty here is to help the Minister and the Oireachtas to get what will be in the best interests of the country, and that is the provision of sound, constructive and efficient harbour boards, which will work as a team to provide the best possible harbour and port facilities for the people of this country.
I should like to say that no attack whatever is intended on the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. All that is intended is that if representation is to be given to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, as has been decided upon, similar representation should be given to the National Executive of the Irish Live stock Trade. Both represent very important interests in this country, and our argument is that, since it has been decided to leave the live-stock traders out of the Bill, the Federation of Irish Manufacturers should also be taken out of the Bill.
I have a rather detached view so far as the various interests are concerned, but it seems to me that this is purely a question of machinery. Everybody seems to be agreed that the object of the Bill is to get the best possible type of harbour board which will represent the best interests connected with the development of shipping and trade in connection with the particular harbour or port concerned. Now, the Ports and Harbours Tribunal reported, I think, about the year 1930. I have not the report with me, but I understand that they recommended that representation on harbour boards should be given to chambers of commerce. That has been carried out in this Bill. Since that Ports and Harbours Tribunal issued its report, however, there has been, so to speak, a revival or sort of resurgence of Irish industry, and there has been what one might call a campaign, and a successful campaign, in favour of the development of our own manufactures. As a result, since then, an organisation has arisen, which is called the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, Limited. Now, that organisation, with which I may say I have no connection whatsoever, represents, so far as I understand, the manufacturers in this country who might be described as Irish manufacturers. I take it that it is recognised that Irish manufacturers have an interest in the operation of our harbours and ports. As the Minister has pointed out, up to recently our harbours have been operated in the interests of what one might call local or coast-wise trade. Now, Irish manufacturers are interested in obtaining imports from foreign countries, far and near, and also in exporting their own manufactures to countries, far and near; and, accordingly, it is recognised that these manufacturers are entitled to be represented on the harbour boards.
The only question which arises here is whether or not the interests to be represented should be expressly named in the Bill as the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. As far as I am aware, there is only one organisation of Irish manufacturers—I think the Minister has said so—and that is represented by the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, Ltd. Accordingly, the particular amendment which is before this House now, and which refers to two organisations, would have no operative effect, because only one organisation could or would be nominated by the Minister.
I agree, in principle, with what Senator Sweetman said, that there should be no express mention of any organisation or body in this section, but so long as the chambers of commerce are expressly named in the Bill, then I think a case cannot be made for excluding the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, Ltd. Now, the position of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers has been contrasted with that of the cattle trade, but I say that the position is more comparable with that of the chambers of commerce than with the cattle trade.
Because the cattle traders are exporters, and they are importers.
Well, I cannot speak as to that, but this organisation, as Senator Sweetman will see, is a corporate body, and when a corporate body splits, so to speak, it must go into liquidation. There cannot be two portions of one corporate body, both having legal existence. Therefore, so long as there is a Federation of Irish Manufacturers in existence, it can only speak with one voice, and that is the voice of the corporate body concerned. Accordingly, I do not think that this question of a split is worthy of serious consideration. Now, it should be noticed that in Part I of the First Schedule of the Bill, two chambers of commerce are mentioned. In the case of Cork, there is the Cork Chamber of Commerce and the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping. There may be another chamber of commerce in Dublin somewhat analogous to the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, so far as I know, but at the moment that does not appear; so that the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, I think, obtains the right to nominate four members on the harbour board. Now, if the Minister would agree to remove the chambers of commerce from this Bill, then I would agree to the removal of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers or such bodies.
I think that both the chambers of commerce and the federation represent what I might call industrial or trade elements, in particular, on this board, and although there may be a certain amount of overlapping I think that the point of view is quite different. As far as I am aware, the chambers of commerce in this country are exotic plants. They were, I think, more or less offshoots of chambers of commerce in England, and as far as I am aware they have been maintained and kept alive during the years that have passed by the representatives here of English trade organisations. Therefore, as I say, the point of view of a chamber of commerce in, say, Dublin, may not necessarily be the same point of view as that of an Irish manufacturer. Accordingly, in my opinion, the chamber of commerce is not competent, if I might say so, to represent the latter-day industrial revival in this country in its fullest sense, and so, as long as the chamber of commerce remains in the Bill, I think the Federation of Irish Manufacturers is also entitled to remain there, although, personally, I think that no organisation, industrial or otherwise, should be named in the Bill. I am quite willing that local authorities should be represented, but I think that what might be called sectional or trade interests should not be represented.
I rather agree with the concluding remarks of Senator Ryan. I think that it was Senator O'Reilly who first suggested that the logical conclusion of this debate, so far, was that the names of all those bodies should be deleted. Like Senator McEllin, I am rather aloof and distant from all these matters. I am rather, I think, more aloof and distant from industry than Senator McEllin is, although he spoke with magnificent aloofness from all those interests. Last week, my friend, Senator Counihan, had an amendment down about the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade.
Senator Counihan is a friend of mine and I yield to no man in my ignorance of the Irish live-stock trade. I sat throughout the debate with a view to supporting Senator Counihan if I could. He is a good debater and he put his case extremely well. What happened to me last week was that the Minister for Industry and Commerce convinced me that he was right in leaving out the name of his organisation and in reserving to the Minister for Agriculture the right to nominate the appropriate body. That is what happened to me last week in all sincerity.
It seems to me that all the arguments used against Senator Counihan's amendment and against the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade could also be used against the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. It seems to me also that the Minister no more criticised the Irish live-stock traders or their methods of organisation than Senator Kyle or Senator Duffy last week criticised the federation. The trend of this debate has been that we should not name any of those bodies in the Bill but leave to the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to nominate the body which, in his judgment, best represents the Irish manufacturers, just as the Minister for Agriculture so determines in the case of the live-stock traders. That body would then automatically have the right of nomination to the harbour boards. I entirely agree with the Minister's view as to what line people should take in making appointments to the harbour boards. I agree that manufacturers, as distinguished from chambers of commerce, should have representation. I do not understand at all the type of language which we heard here to-day. Senator McEllin talked about the "unworthy attack" which had been made by Senator Kyle and Senator Sir John Keane. Senator Sir John Keane is rather a substantial attacker when in the mood but he, certainly, attacked nobody this evening. Neither did Senator Kyle. He poured the milk of human kindness on everybody in the course of the debate on this amendment. I do not understand that kind of language nor do I understand the reference to nobody "with a spark of decency" doing so-and-so. I do not understand the story that something must be wrong somewhere. I see nothing wrong except that the Bill is not logically framed.
I do not think that the Minister was at his very best in making the case which he has just made. It seemed to me that he was doing a bit of special pleading, and that he had put in the name of the federation without adverting to analogy of the Irish live-stock trade. I shall go a step further and say that it seems quite clear that the federation is a body which ought to be in existence, and which, being in existence now, does in fact represent Irish manufacturers. Like every other human body, it has its failings. I attended some of its functions, and the fulsomeness of the speeches about the Minister for Industry and Commerce almost turned my stomach. I think that they rather turned the Minister's stomach, too, but he could not say so. The federation is a very necessary body, and I do not express any hope that it will split. We have had sufficient splits in the country, and whatever we have holding together will, I hope, continue to do so. Every argument that has been used, both last week and this week, on this Bill, would indicate that we should take out all the names and leave power to the Minister to nominate the body which, in his judgment, represents traders or represents manufacturers. That, on the part of the Minister, would be an administrative act which could be reviewed in the Dáil. If the Minister were to nominate a body which manifestly was not representative—I do not say that he would do so, but if some other Minister were to do so—that could be reviewed in the Dáil. It seems to me that the amendment is sound, that it casts no reflection on the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, and, if adopted, that another amendment should be introduced to delete the chambers of commerce. Then, perhaps, everybody would be happy. Senator Counihan and his body have, it appears, a guarantee from the Minister for Agriculture that they will be the body to represent the Irish live-stock trade, while the Minister for Industry and Commerce would choose the Federation of Irish Manufacturers as the body to nominate representatives of the manufacturers. In that way, we should get rid of all this rather irrelevant talk as to the merits of those bodies, and the Bill would be one which would work not only now, but in the future.
We are legislating not only for the moment but for a long time to come. A Minister for Industry and Commerce will continue and his nomination of those bodies will give the proper kind of harbour board. I agree with Senator O'Reilly's statement and with the final remarks by Senator Ryan.
Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil mórán le rá ar an gceist seo. Tá súil agam nach glachfar leis an leasú so. Ní dóigh liom go rachadh sé chun leas an Bhille no an chuspóra atá i gceist i alt a 7 atá ós ár gcóir. The purpose of Section 7 might be stated to be the securing of the most effective and efficient boards to run and develop Irish harbours. When Senator O'Dea and I were looking through the section at first, it occurred to me that a great deal of the wind had been taken out of the sails of those who usually speak against Ministers because of the fact that the Minister had gone so far, in this case, as to name the various interests which he thought ought to have the power to appoint representatives on those boards. I am sure that, if the section had not been framed as it is, we should have had a considerable amount of invective directed against the Minister because he was taking power to himself to appoint the representatives on those boards. He would be accused of being a dictator.
There is no question of the Minister actually appointing the representatives.
Let us see what exactly is contained in this amendment and to what extent it conflicts with the aim of the section as it stands. What interests ought to be represented on those boards? Nobody has said that any of the interests mentioned should be omitted. They agree that they ought to be represented though some have a doubt as to how the representatives ought to be appointed.
In passing, I may say that, to an extent, I should agree, because of experience, with the omission of chambers of commerce. I happen to be a member of a chamber of commerce. On principle, however, I take no part in any election or in any matter that intimately concerns the interests of commercial men proper, in that chamber. The chamber of commerce of which I am a member has a considerable roll of professional and non-commercial members. If only on those grounds, I might argue against the inclusion of chambers of commerce. But, looking at the matter objectively, I am convinced that these chambers have sufficient interest in the ports to entitle them to direct representation. They have sufficient experience. They are eminently qualified, taking the thing by and large, to be entitled to nominate a certain number of representatives on the board. I might, as I said, make a case against them; but in fairness to them I must make a case for them. On balance, the argument is definitely in favour of giving them the right to nominate and of naming them in the Bill for that purpose.
Comparisons were made between the Federation of Industries and the Irish Livestock Trade, but surely there is little room for comparison. In passing, I might refer to remarks made by several speakers to the effect that it does appear strange that there should be a close liaison between the Federation of Irish Industries and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think that is something about which we should be very pleased, something on which we should congratulate the Department and the federation. But does not a very close liaison also exist between the agricultural industry and the Minister for Agriculture—to such an extent that every branch of agriculture is brought together in a consultative board and meets the Minister personally frequently during the year? That is something about which we should be very happy rather than anxious. There is, however, a great difference between agriculture and manufactures. Manufacture is something very definite. You may divide manufacturers into certain groups but nevertheless between all the groups there is some very definite close tie. That does not hold with regard to the industry of agriculture. It is because of that very great difference between the manufacturing interest and the agricultural interest that it would seem to be impossible to incorporate in the Bill which specific agricultural organisations should get representation on harbour boards. At least that is how the matter appears to me.
The case has been well made for the right of the Federation of Irish Industries to nominate. They are interested in overseas trade. I am prepared to pay a full compliment to the chamber of commerce and the other trading interests who have been associated with the chambers of commerce and who are to be associated with them in the future, but at the same time I cannot close my eyes to the fact that in the past Irish shipping companies have been allowed one by one to disappear. I cannot close my eyes to the fact that notwithstanding that chambers of commerce largely dominated the affairs of these harbour boards, our harbours have declined together with the Irish shipping companies who used them. That is an argument perhaps against the chambers of commerce but only as they have existed up to this. But it is true to say that chambers of commerce being composed in the main of people dealing in the wholesale and retail trade could be and were largely influenced by the terms that could be offered them by outside or non-national business interests, and that it was to the interests of these traders to knuckle down to whatever influence was brought to bear on them by outside interests. If it was only as a corrective to any tendency of that kind it is fair and right that the interests represented by the Federation of Irish Industries should get direct representation on these harbour boards. As I pointed out and as I think Senator Summerfield and some other Senators mentioned, they are concerned with something more than a coast-wise trade, something more than a cross-Channel trade. They are concerned with the development of something which can be of paramount importance to this country —the development of an overseas trade.
It is very questionable.
Perhaps the Senator will explain in what way it is questionable. Certainly the extent to which it has developed trade and industry has convinced the Irish public that as a body and as a movement it was well justified and well worth having in the years gone by and I am sure it will justify itself even to a greater extent in the days that are ahead. One has to remember always the aim of the section which as I said is to get the very best representation we can to control these harbours and then consider how best we may secure these representatives. The way to do that is to find out which interests are most likely to be concerned with the development of our ports. Is it possible to name these interests? If it is possible to name these interests precisely and to know definitely whence these representatives are to come, it is better that they should be named. It is to be regretted that the whole agricultural industry is not organised into a specific body or bodies.
Vocational bodies do you mean?
Whatever kind of bodies you like to call them—functional bodies, vocational bodies, federation guilds and so on. The name does not matter. If they were organised into definite bodies then it would be possible to name them and perhaps incorporate them in the Bill, but the industry being so varied and having so many aspects, that does not seem possible. You might organise the various branches of the industry but I wonder where would one stop. I think it is far better that an arrangement should exist as suggested in the Bill, namely that the Minister in contact with all these various interests and knowing the importance of having these interests generally represented on the harbour boards, should have the power to nominate the agricultural representation to these boards.
There is no analogy whatever between the live-stock executive mentioned by Senator Counihan and the Federation of Irish Industries. I do not want to detain the House any longer, but in conclusion I think it well to advert to the statement made by the Minister, when he intervened in the hope that he was going to shorten the discussion, to the effect that it could happen that the need for the Federation of Irish Industries would cease at some date in the future, and if that happened, conditions might then be such that there would be no need to have such a body directly represented; that conditions will have so changed throughout the country in the composition and attitude of chambers of commerce that there will be no fear that the manufacturing interest will not get its full representation or that the national interest will not come first.
I am sorry that Senator Hayes has gone out. I was going to express my sympathy with him on having such a very delicate stomach. I hope sincerely that the Minister has a stronger stomach and I am glad that he has a stronger and better head than some of his critics. It was regrettable to hear him talk about the fulsome speeches at the meeting of Irish industrialists. I have no brief for them, none whatever.
I believe that it is a right thing to name responsible bodies to go on these boards. In that way we can hold the Minister responsible. I hope the Minister will not adopt the policy of a colleague of his, and get these people to pledge themselves in advance. Nothing of that sort is being attempted in this Bill. I have no complaint whatever to make, but I do think that the amendment is uncalled for. It visualises splits and further splits. Somebody mentioned that there might be another split in the Labour Party. Well, the scientists have split the atom, but I think it would be nearly impossible to have another split in the Labour Party.
It is not as small as that.
I am opposed to the amendment on principle. Just imagine what would happen if no body and no party were mentioned in the Bill. You would then have the Minister going along to the Fianna Fáil clubs and asking them to nominate people to act on these boards.
He would never do the like of that.
We may not always have the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, although, personally, I hope we will, but some other Minister might come along and adopt a policy of that sort. If such a thing as that were done, would we not have nice scenes in the Dáil and Seanad? I think it is a proper thing to tie the Minister down, and to commit him to taking representatives for what we may call representative bodies in the country.
Including the representatives of the live-stock trade.
I do not believe they are a representative body. I think they ought to be in the chamber of commerce. I know as much about the control of harbours and of how trade can be affected through their control as any Senator. I think I have more experience of harbours than most Senators. To my mind the Bill is properly constructed, and that the amendment, if accepted, would injure the whole fabric of the measure. I believe that this Bill will be a very effective instrument for the development of our harbours and the trade of the country.
I do not think it makes a great deal of difference whether the amendment is accepted or not, because, as things are at present, if it were accepted the people who would get on the harbour boards are the representatives from the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. If that were to be the net result of the acceptance of the amendment, we would not have got very much further. I do not know if any of us can prophesy what the future holds for us. Senator Foran said that he knew a good deal about the management of ports. He probably knows how trade can be diverted from ports.
That is not always the fault of the harbour board. Senator Ó Buachalla showed very great consideration as to why the Federation of Irish Manufacturers should get representation, and deplored the fact that the primary producers, the farmers, were not organised. I wonder is the Senator aware of the magnitude of the organisation known as the co-operative movement which is on a vocational basis? I pressed for representation for that organisation on the last day, but I did not get any support from Senator Ó Buachalla.
Perhaps the Senator would explain to what extent the co-operative societies generally, as we know them, differ from ordinary trading organisations?
I did not want to go back on my amendment, but I do want to say that when I moved an amendment asking for representation for the trading organisation known as the co-operative movement I could not get any support from Senator Ó Buachalla.
Apart from the fact that the co-operative societies are free from the payment of income tax, will the Senator say in what other ways can a distinction be drawn between them, as we know them, and an ordinary trading organisation?
Perhaps it might help Senators if I was to say that I understand legislation dealing with co-operation will be introduced some time in the future.
When people make points that are rather wide of the mark, and introduce them unnecessarily, they cannot surely expect to get away with them if facts can be produced which prove disagreeable to them. The fact is that I pleaded for representation for a certain trading organisation which exports considerable quantities of produce out of the country. When I did so I could not find any great friendship from among people who are prepared to support this proposal with regard to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. It would be the greatest mistake in the world either for Senator Ó Buachalla or Senator Summerfield, or any one else, to think that any one in this country is blessing them. Let there be no pretence about it, that there is not an enlightened self-interest on the part of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers in seeking representation on these boards.
Does not that apply all round?
Of course. It applies to the cattle traders and others, and these are the facts that have to be faced. I would ask the Minister to address himself to the question of the amount of external trade that is passing through our ports. Let me say in passing that what this amendment aims at is to separate the sheep from the goats and the goats from the sheep. We have Irish industries in the country and we have industries that may be called other than Irish industries. It is not for me to classify them. One may say that they are being classified by implication in this section. But let us take the two groups, and let us be told which group is sending the most trade through our ports. There is also the point that people who are in the Federation of Irish Industries are also free to be members of the chamber of commerce. In that way they could have a double vote. What is to prevent those other Irish industries that I have referred to getting into another organisation and claiming representation on the grounds that the external trade that they are doing is greater than that which is being done by the Federation of Irish Manufacturers? What would be to prevent them claiming that the Minister should also give them, as a group of Irish industrialists, the right to have representation on the harbour boards?
Would there not be scope under the Bill to enable such a body to get representation?
Of course, we are told that they can get in through the chambers of commerce.
If the industries concerned can convince the Minister that they are of such importance, cannot he bring them in?
Well, I do not think that that is so up to the moment. In any case, I think it is very unsatisfactory to have legislation whereby we are separating, as I have said, the sheep from the goats. I think that that is faulty legislation. I have no use for any body, whether a chamber of commerce, a particular group representing Irish industries, or anybody else, who want to use the ports and harbours of this country for their own personal interests, and if there are such people, then the Oireachtas should endeavour to circumvent them, but I would do that openly and frankly. There has been no evidence, however, produced here to support that. The whole matter is very difficult, I admit, but I doubt whether the Minister is dealing with it in a way that would be really satisfactory, and it seems to me that the proposal by Senator Kyle would not be any improvement.
My only point in connection with the amendment is that I think it improves the Bill. The various irrelevancies that have been introduced here do not really matter. Actually, the amendment uses the words of the Minister himself in the penultimate section of the Bill.
When I saw Senator Baxter's amendment down, I was against it, because he proposed in his amendment the insertion of the words "co-operative trading societies". Now, if he spoke of co-operative societies for the purpose of general manufacture, I would be in favour of it—in fact, I would be very strongly in favour of it.
When I mentioned co-operative trading societies, I had in mind co-operative societies, generally, such as creameries, and societies dealing with pork, bacon, and so on.
Yes, but I am sorry to say that most of the co-operative societies that have been established in Ireland did not succeed, and they certainly were not such people as would be calculated to improve the business of any port or harbour with which they might be associated. I think that the Federation of Irish Manufacturers has justified its existence, and enough has been said in its favour to show what it has achieved. I was inclined at first to think that they should only have representation on the Dublin Port and Docks Board, as their trade is mostly in Dublin, but, as Senator O Buachalla has pointed out to me, three other ports are mentioned in the Bill, which they would have to use, such as Cork, Limerick and Waterford. For that reason, I have got over that objection. However, I should like to point out that at one time in this country there was an association of chambers of commerce which certainly did not deserve well of this country. There was a time when these chambers of commerce tried, in my opinion, to do very great harm to the relations between this country and our neighbour. However, that is past history now, and I am hoping that the chambers of commerce for the future will take a greater interest in the trade and industry of our country and that there will be a general improvement in that respect. For that reason. I am rather more in favour of having bodies nominated rather than to have the Minister appoint too many nominees. As somebody has pointed out, you will have different Ministers and different ages, but this Bill will be passed for all ages to come.
I cannot quite understand what Senator Hayes meant by his remarks. He ought to know the tremendous work that has been done by the present Minister towards the establishment of industries in this country, and I think it would be very difficult to say that any words of praise would be too great for the work the Minister has done in that regard. It is very natural that he should get praise, and I think it should be remembered that he got praise from people who were not at all of his way of thinking. These people expressed their appreciation of the work the Minister has done.
There are two matters that I cannot allow to go unchallenged, and one is the attitude of Senator McEllin, to the effect that because one attempts to express a free and independent view on a matter such as this, one is attempting to discredit the House and to disparage our country. Surely the Senator is not entitled to say that we are attempting to discredit the function of this House or to disparage the country, when we say that we refuse to sign on the dotted line, so to speak. Surely, because we refuse to be "Yes-men", that does not mean anything in disparagement of the functions of this House? Senator Ó Buachalla says that the primary aim of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers is to develop an overseas trade. I do not think that they themselves make that claim. I think that what they aim at, principally, is national self-sufficiency.
If I gave that impression, that the primary interest of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers was overseas trade, I did not mean to do so.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed, Senator Kyle?
Yes, Sir.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Barnville, Henry L.
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Counihan, John J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Johnston, Joseph.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kyle, Sam.
- McGee, James T.
- Moore, T.C. Kingsmill.
- O'Reilly, Patrick John
- Sweetman, Gerard.
Níl
- Clarkin, Andrew S.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Douglas, James G.
- Farnan, Robert P.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Hearne, Michael.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Horan, Edmund.
- Johnston, Séamus.
- Keane, John Thomas.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Peter T.
- Lynch, Peter T.
- McCabe, Dominick.
- McEllin, John E.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Dea, Louis E.
- O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- Nie Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Ryan, Michael J.
- Stafford, Matthew.
- Summerfield, Frederick M.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators J. Johnston and Kyle; Níl: Senators Clarkin and Hearne.
Amendment declared negatived.
I move amendment No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Duffy:—
In page 11, Section 7, sub-section (1), 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 largely covers the same sort of subject as the previous amendment, so I do not think that we need go very far into it. The intention of the purported amendment is to improve the Bill, as was the intention of the former amendment. Members of the Seanad did not see eye to eye with the proposal. I do not think, therefore, that there is very much point in going any more fully into the matter except to say this: I do hope that the Minister will not regret failing to put this amendment in the Bill because, on the last occasion, he referred to the unfortunate division that has taken place in the trade union movement in the City of Dublin and in the country generally. Like some of the rest of us, he deeply deplores that division. I hope that when the time comes in October next for him to make the nomination to this particular authority —which, as a harbour board, has special significance through all the associations that we have in our minds in connection with 1913—I hope and sincerely trust that the Minister will be right in resisting this amendment. Personally, I do not think he is right in resisting it, but it is a matter for him and the members of this House.
This amendment was discussed in Committee, and I expressed the point of view I held in relation to it on that occasion. Senators who remember what I said will realise that it is not a point on which I feel very strongly but it seems to me that the balance of argument is in favour of the Minister having the power to nominate one organisation as the designated organisation for the purpose of making these nominations.
I should think it would make not merely for better harbour administration that both of the persons nominated as representatives of labour interests should be the nominees of the same organisation, but I am equally anxious not to appear in the position of being desirous of perpetuating an undesirable situation. I hope that by the time this measure comes to be implemented there will be only one organisation for the Minister to designate, but even that not being the case, I think there should be only one organisation. If there was, however, strong feeling in the Seanad in favour of the acceptance of the amendment, I would not resist it, but in so far as there was an expression of opinion in Committee, it seems to me that the opinion was the other way.
I realise that a majority of Senators will be hesitant about expressing themselves because the matter is one of some delicacy, but the position can be clearly stated. In the past, there was one trade union council in Dublin which had in its membership all, or practically all, of the trade unions operating in Dublin, and particularly the unions that were associated with harbour work of any kind. When representative opinion from organised labour in Dublin was desired, or when representative personnel was required, that council was approached.
That council is now split. It has, in fact, lost the affiliations of most of the unions that are catering for dock labour or for other workers associated with dock-side employment. Those unions which withdrew from it have constituted themselves another body. It has not got the same history, but it might be held to be more representative than the former body.
It is a situation nobody desires, a situation which I hope will end soon, but if it does not end, I think the obligation should be on the Minister to pick whichever body is most representative and to give that body the right to nominate.
As the Minister says, it is a delicate subject. However, having acquired the reputation of saying what other people are only thinking, I am not afraid to touch it. I tackle it from this point of view: it is most important, not only that the Minister should be impartial, not only that people should think he is impartial, but that there should not be any considerable body of persons who might suspect he was not impartial.
It is absolutely inevitable, I think, that if the Minister were to appoint two people, both coming from one of the conflicting organisations there would be a considerable body of the public, perhaps a very suspicious body, who would suspect the Minister of doing it because either influences had been brought to bear on him or he wished to bring influence to bear on somebody else. As a matter of fact, I think that people more usually go wrong in being over suspicious than in anything else, but I am dealing with facts, and people are over suspicious. Therefore, I do not think the Minister should be thrust into a position in which certain accusations must inevitably be made against him, no matter how unjustified they are.
The Minister himself is not at all anxious to take the mantle upon himself, and I would urge the House to accept this amendment on the grounds that if the Minister follows the old principle of equity that equality is equity, nobody will be able to put in a shadow of an excuse for making allegations which I would assume to be quite unwarranted. For that reason I do urge this amendment upon the House. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment, not because I have any doubts as to his courage but because it is most undesirable that a Minister of State should by legislation be put into a position in which he must inevitably be exposed to criticism, human nature being what it is.
I would like to intervene again just to correct the false impression created by the last remark. It is not proposed that the Minister should make nominations to harbour boards. The Bill proposes that he shall designate an organisation or organisations to make nominations.
I beg the Minister's pardon for making a slip.
That is the situation I would ask the Seanad to bear in mind. The suggestion is that if there are two members to be appointed and if an organisation is split one should come from each of the parts. In this particular case, there is the Dublin Trade Union Council which has lost the affiliation of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, the largest union in the country, and of the Irish Seamen and Port Workers' Union, a body specially organised for the protection of port workers.
In the circumstances, is it desirable that there should be two organisations, each one nominating one member? Is there not the possibility that one will claim it is unfair to it, on the grounds that it has affiliated to it by far the largest number of workers concerned? If that is so, is it not desirable to say to the Minister that the choice he must make is not the simple one of giving one representative on the board to each of the two bodies, but of picking which of the bodies he considers most representative? In that case you will have both men working and acting together as two colleagues. That is the issue.
I appreciate that I spoke inaccurately when I talked of direct nomination. But it might equally be reasonably argued that although port workers are represented by a union of their own there is a large number of other workers indirectly interested in the port, namely, the workers who make things going out of the port, or who subsequently handle what comes into the port, and who might also think their interests should be represented.
Now, there is nothing like the friction which exists between friends when they fall out. I do envisage division and friction. I can conceive the Minister might act both correctly and courageously in choosing that one body should have the appointment of both nominees. But, even if he was both correct and courageous, I still think that the amount of public discussion and suspicion which would be aroused would not compensate for the extra benefit of having two people from the one organisation, and it is to avoid friction and to try to evolve a method which may not be perfect, which may only be a safety valve or a governor, that I support this amendment. I do think it is going to avoid a certain amount of animosity and a certain amount of undesirable friction in the Labour movement which, I think, we are all anxious to see both strong and united. I certainly am for one, and I do not think any harm can come from it. I again urge it on the Minister. If you like, it is a cowardly compromise, but I believe it is an expedient one in the present circumstances.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is now 6 o'clock.
Could we have some decision now as to what is likely to happen in the next couple of days if it is proposed we should meet on Friday and Saturday? It looks as if we will not be finished for a week. We are at amendment No. 3, and there are 36 to go.
I would not be intimidated by the slow progress made up to the present because a large number of the other amendments are only consequential.
Will the Central Fund Bill be taken to-night? You must pass the Central Fund Bill to-morrow whatever you do. You could postpone this Bill, but not the Central Fund Bill.
There was an understanding that the second Report Stage should be taken immediately after this.
We agree. A mistake was made. I understood that the arrangement we made was that we should recommit only in respect of No. 83 and subsequent amendments. I had handed the Clerk an amendment to a section earlier than No. 83, and I told him not to put it on this Order Paper.
I think it is intended to take amendments merely on Report.
No, we have had the Committee Stage.
I take it we are going to recommit all the amendments not taken at the last sitting.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Can we dispose of amendment No. 3 before we adjourn?
The Minister has said he will have the matter looked into.
Oh, no, that is not my point.
I gather that he said that if there was any strong feeling on the matter——
May I explain? I said I would not oppose it strongly if the Seanad were strongly in favour of it but if I were framing this Bill to be implemented by another Minister, I would say: "I am going to put on that Minister the responsibility of deciding which of the existing organisations is most representative," and that organisation should have the right of nominating both members. From my own point of view, it would be an easy matter to have as many members as organisations and that would simplify matters, but I think it would be a better course to put on to the Minister the obligation of choosing which organisation is to get the right to nominate both members.
That is to leave the Bill as it is?
Yes. What I wanted to make clear was that if the Seanad passed the amendment, I would not ask the Dáil to reject it.
Labour cannot be very strong on it themselves. They are not here in the House.
Labour is divided.
It is not very easy in a House like this composed of representatives of various vocational interests to speak as one would like on a subject of this nature. I am here as a representative of the Trade Union Congress. I am in the House as that, and it is as that that I am trying to act in the best interests of the trade union movement as elected vocationally to come here to do a little job. It is not easy, as I said, because members of the House do not understand and could not be expected to understand fully the trouble that arose in the trade union and Labour movement. The Minister does know a good deal about it but I think that even he would agree that he does not know all about it.
I certainly do not.
Senator Duffy really put this amendment down from the point of view of making it easy for the Minister, or any Minister, to administer this Bill because he feared, and I agree with him, that there is the grave possibility of there being trouble over something about which there ought not to be trouble in the near future, and this would obviate it. The Minister on the other hand is in a difficult position.
He does not want to pick and choose between these organisations and I largely agree with his point of view that it is better to choose the two members from the one organisation. One could not help but agree with that. This amendment gives him that power and it makes it possible to have more common-sense exercised in the trade union movement than would be possible under the Bill as it now stands. However, if the Minister sees fit not to accept the amendment, I hope that his judgment will not be proved unwise in the future.
Let us hope the situation will have ended by next October.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In answer to Senator Quirke's suggestion, we have agreed to finish this Bill and to finish the Children's Allowances Bill.
My anxiety is to get the Bill this month.
It is not a Fifth Stage Bill. We must finish the Central Fund Bill this week and we must finish the Army Bill before the end of March. Therefore it appears clear that we must meet on Friday. I take it that the time will be 10.30 a.m., the same as the Dáil, to allow Senators to get home.
This matter has been mentioned from the point of view of giving adequate notice.
But it does not mean that we are going necessarily to meet on Friday.
Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 11, Section 7, sub-section (2), to delete paragraph (d) and insert instead the following new paragraph:—
(d)—
(i) in the cases of the Drogheda Harbour Commissioners, the Sligo Harbour Commissioners, the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners, the River Moy Harbour Commissioners, the Westport Port and Harbour Commissioners, and the Wexford Harbour Commissioners, one member appointed by the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade and two members (in this Act also referred to as nominated members) nominated by the Minister;
(ii) in the case of any other harbour authority, three members (in this Act also referred to as nominated members) nominated by the Minister.
This amendment proposes that the national executive should have power to nominate one member of each of the authorities of those ports from which live stock is exported. It is very important, in connection with the development of those ports, that some person associated with the live-stock trade should be on the board to see that proper facilities are given for export. If such facilities were given, I am sure that live stock would be exported. Those ports cannot hope to develop without an export trade. In the case of most of those small ports, they can get sufficient cargo for an import trade but there is very little to export. If we want to develop the small ports, we must have an export trade. The only export trade that could be developed in connection with any of those ports is the live-stock trade. There is little else to be exported. In that case, the National Executive of the Livestock Trade should have the selection of a member of the board concerned.
The essential thing in all these cases is to provide proper facilities for export. The boats will come if they get the trade. They could be chartered in the old days and, when shipping becomes more plentiful, I suppose they will be available for charter again.
The only people who can develop an export trade from those minor ports are the cattle traders. If any influential exporter in the vicinity of one of those ports were put on the harbour board, I am sure he would do a lot to develop the ports and provide facilities for export of live stock. The fact is that the Minister has changed his mind completely and thinks a great deal more about imports than exports, as shown by his attitude to the Federation of Manufacturers. The federation export nothing. They import an occasional piece of raw material, and that is the sole extent of their trade with the ports. Still, the Minister fought to a finish to retain their nomination, together with the nomination of the chambers of commerce.
I should rather see the Federation of Manufacturers represented on the harbour boards than the chambers of commerce. I have not much regard for that section because, in the majority of cases, the chambers of commerce I know are, more or less, clubs. Many of the members have no interest whatever in trade. The only interest of a number of members of chambers of commerce whom I know is golf, and I know as many of that class, perhaps, as the Minister. If that is the attitude of the Minister, he does not think as much about the National Executive of the Irish Livestock Trade as he should. He does not think as much about it even as the British Government did. During the whole of the emergency, the British permit office took our guarantee in respect of any cattle trader who wanted to go to England. He got a permit for three or six months. I do not think that a single application was turned down but I know that they would be turned down by the Department of Industry and Commerce if we had to apply there. As the Minister has made up his mind on the matter, there is not much use in developing the argument.
I am becoming convinced that Senator Counihan is a fifth columnist operating against the cattle trade. He produced certain amendments here to provide representation on harbour boards for the National Executive of the Live-stock Trade, and he made speeches which turned people against his amendments. The only effect of the speech which he has just made is to make it almost impossible for members of the Seanad to vote for his amendment, even if they wanted to do so. I indicated the reasons why I am against this amendment in the case of the small ports. I think that the authorities of these small ports should be composed solely of representatives of local interests. I am against putting on these small port-authorities representatives of national organisations. In the case of most of these small ports, the development of an export trade in cattle would be expedited far more by the introduction of a shipping service than by the introduction of a couple of members of this national executive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 13, Section 7, to delete sub-section (9), and in lieu thereof to insert the following sub-section:—
(9)—
(a) In the selection of persons to act on a harbour authority as nominated members the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of making reasonable provision for the representation of important industrial or commercial towns, situated on, or immediately adjacent to, a river or rivers which flow into the harbour which is under the control of the harbour authority and which are not more than 30 miles distant from the administrative area of the local authority entitled to appoint members of such harbour authority in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) (a) or (2) (a) (i) (ii).
(b) For the purpose of implementing the provisions of the preceding paragraph and to assist him in making reasonable provision for the representation of industries and trading organisations carried on in other parts of the areas served by the harbour the Minister may invite local authorities to nominate persons for inclusion on a panel from which he will select persons for appointment as nominated members of the harbour authority concerned as and when required.
(c) One at least of the nominated members of a harbour authority mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall be a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, is representative of labour interests.
As a preliminary, I should like to remind the House that the river has been described as "the king's highway to the sea". Not having a king at the moment, I do not know what term should replace that, but the saying conveys the idea. Speaking, again, in general terms, most of us are aware that nearly all the important towns have grown up on the banks of rivers. Therefore, the river, leading, as it does, to a harbour, has an importance, in the eyes of the community living along its banks, which is very great indeed. The Minister has just now emphasised the importance of local interest and it would appear that, when Section 19 was being devised, the Minister and his advisers considered that this local interest should be defined, as it were, and its limits indicated by a radius of thirty miles from the particular harbour. In the amendment which I move I mention a distance of 30 miles as the limit of an area within which people should naturally be expected to take a great interest in a harbour. There are one or two points which I should like to mention here. While there is nothing that I can find in the Bill itself to provide for State assistance, the Minister in his statement in the other House and also in the memorandum issued in his name and on his behalf, mentions that the existing legislation is sufficient to enable the Minister to give State assistance to harbours. That being so, it is not merely people living within the hinterland of the harbour area who are interested in this matter. The nation as a whole should be interested in every harbour since the nation as a whole will almost certainly have to contribute towards the upkeep of the harbour.
I find further that there is no special provision for the levying of a rate or, at least if there is, it is not obligatory on a local authority to levy a rate, though it may do so in accordance with Section 133. It would appear that two or more local authorities may contribute if they feel they should do so. In this connection, I should like to mention that the particular area from which I come is contributing, to a small extent, if you like, towards the upkeep of essential equipment for Waterford Harbour—that is, the great swing bridge which was erected some years ago. I find the county council is contributing between £200 and £300. Again, I should like to emphasise this idea of local interest and it might be better to illustrate the general case by quoting particular cases. Up to the present, the town of Clonmel was entitled to appoint five representatives to the Waterford Harbour Board. Under the present Bill, the town will have no right to appoint any representative. It has been said that the members from Clonmel had not been attending regularly and, perhaps, that is true, but if we consider for a moment the authority under which these members were acting and the way they were appointed, we should see at once the reasons for the comparatively small interest taken by these members in the Waterford Harbour. They were appointed, apparently, under a very old Act of 1846, I think. At the time, of course, there was considerable traffic between Waterford and Clonmel, but about the time that the Ports and Harbours Tribunal was in being the river traffic had ceased. Not alone that, but the town itself had gone down very much in the economic sense. It had probably reached its very lowest level in the period, say, between 1920 and 1930. In my recollection the town never reached such a low level from the business standpoint.
The position has very much changed for the better since 1930 and year after year the town has been regaining its old industrial importance. We have at present, amongst other industries, the great cider factory of Bulmer and Magner's; we have established within the last month or so a very important tinware factory. There is a boot factory and various other industries.
That shows that the town is regaining its old industrial importance. I should not like anyone to think that if members were nominated by the local authority at present such members would dare to neglect their duties as members of the Waterford Harbour Board. As one living in the town, I would say that that would be quite impossible. They would be called upon within a very short time to resign if they neglected their duties. There was also the difficulty in former days, as explained in a letter which appeared in the local Press recently, with regard to transport arrangements. Members had to start at 8 o'clock in order to get to Waterford for the harbour board meetings which were held about 12 o'clock and attendance at a meeting might mean the loss of a whole day. With present transport arrangements, one can get to Waterford within an hour on a motor car, attend a board meeting and come back to carry on one's own business for the rest of the day so that the position has changed very much for the better.
The desire to emphasise local interest reminds me of a conversation I had with a very big business man in Clonmel, one connected with the principal industry there. He pointed out that there is very keen competition at present between Rosslare Harbour, which I understand is now largely run by Córas Iompair Éireann, and Waterford Harbour. Since Rosslare is situated at such a great distance from Clonmel, that would appear to be an unnatural competition. The natural harbour for Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir and indeed for all South Tipperary, should be Waterford. This particular industrialist mentioned the unsatisfactory arrangements which exist at Waterford Harbour. There is an additional cost of something like 4/- per ton on goods coming to Clonmel as they have to be carted from one side of the river to the other. That increases the cost of goods to people in Clonmel very much and it indicates the advantage that would derive to this particular town by having representatives on the harbour board.
I should like to say that I am illustrating general principles by mentioning Clonmel and that similar remarks would apply to other places. One other obvious place is the town of Navan in relation to Drogheda Harbour. Drogheda should be the natural outlet for the great cattle trade of Meath. It would appear that if the Navan Urban Council were given the right to nominate a person or persons to represent them on the Drogheda Harbour Board, that would create greater interest in the areas surrounding that particular town and the harbour would derive considerable advantage in that way.
It has been stated that owing to the discontinuance of the river traffic between Waterford and Clonmel the town is no longer interested in Waterford Harbour because most of the goods coming from Waterford are hauled by rail or lorry. That is, perhaps, so, but is there any place where a ship is able to deliver goods right into the factory where these goods are required? I think Senators will have to admit that there is not except perhaps in the case of some mills. The point I want to make is that haulage to some degree is required no matter what the ultimate destination of the goods is. If you have a haulage for two miles or three miles and if the argument is put up that people living 20 or 30 miles away have no interest in that traffic then equally the people living within two miles should have no interest since the ship does not come right up to the place.
Now, I might perhaps put forward some hypothetical things, something to be dreamed about. Anything that can be thought about is possible—at least that is my reading of philosophy. I might mention that about 15 or more years ago a man very much interested in the town of Clonmel put up a rather interesting scheme. His idea was that if the bed of the river could be lowered from Carrick-on-Suir to Clonmel then the river would be tidal right up to the town of Clonmel, and that it would be possible, with the fall thus provided, to generate a considerable quantity of electricity. The power so generated could be utilised for the haulage of boats and in all other ways. Schemes of this type have been adopted on the continent. It has been stated that the cost of generating electricity by water power is even greater than the cost of generating it by coal.
I believe that is more or less a fact because of the great capital expenditure involved. In this case it is a tossup as to whether, by digging down a bit, you would not get a means of generating electricity quite as efficient and at much cheaper cost than by the usual way of providing great embankments, and in doing so submerging quite a lot of valuable land. I suggest that that dream is not an impossible one. It is one perhaps that the electricity people might take account of. A plan involving the submerging of land may be carried out near the town of Navan. It is not so long ago since the Minister was here talking about a rural electrification scheme. Under it provision was to be made for the construction of a big dam near Drogheda. I suggest that, in the event of that scheme materialising to a large extent, the town of Navan would also be in a sense navigable from Drogheda by the provision of locks. These things, it may be said, are very much in the air, but I think they are practical propositions.
It is not possible for me to make a case in full without referring to some extent to the composition of the present harbour board. The Waterford Corporation is to have five members. According to the report that is here, I see that it owns the ground on which the harbour is situated, but beyond that does not seem to have any liability whatever. Yet, it is given the privilege of appointing five members. It may levy a rate in aid, but is not obliged to do so. The chamber of commerce is entitled to nominate four. From experience, I certainly agree with a good deal of the criticism that was made here about chambers of commerce. They are bodies that, like mushrooms, spring up in the night and disappear in the morning. I do not say that is true of all of them. They are bodies, however, which have not a proper corporate existence, and yet they are to be entitled to appoint four members. Senator Counihan has had his way and is getting two representatives on boards such as that of the Waterford Harbour. The manufacturers are to have two, Labour is to have two, and I think four are to be elected. At any rate, out of a total membership of 23, we find that the local authority representation is very much submerged. It has only five out of 23. That local authority is the only authority that can be said to have a corporate existence in the true sense of the word. Unless an atomic bomb is dropped on it, the City of Waterford will for ever have a corporation or equivalent representative body.
A lot of the large volume of trade that passes through Waterford Harbour—I have not the actual figures with me—goes to Carrick-on-Suir, Clonmel and parts of South Tipperary. There is a considerable export trade from that area now. There is Bulmer-Magner's cider factory, the Clonmel boot factory and the new tinware factory. It cannot be said, therefore, that the people in these areas are not interested in the success of Waterford Harbour. I say that it is, or should be, as much their property as it is of the harbour commissioners. The Harbours Tribunal recommended that, in spite of some ancient Act giving over legal ownership of Waterford Harbour, power should be taken to restore its ownership to the State. It must be agreed, I think, that the harbour is really State property, and will become more so when a considerable amount of State money has been put into it.
In the other House the Minister said the Bill contained two important deviations from the recommendations made in the Report of the Harbours Tribunal. One is that county councils, as well as urban district councils, are given representation in the case of the smaller harbours, and the second is that the Minister is required to include a representative of Labour amongst his nominees. I suggest that the authorities within the 30-mile radius served by the harbour authority should be given the same right of nomination. I have put that in my amendment in the most general terms possible. I do not want to handicap the Minister in the slightest degree. I am merely suggesting that important as Labour interests are, important as manufacturers' interests are, and all the rest of it, the local authority represents all the interests. In my own town it includes all the interests that have been mentioned here: the live-stock interest, the co-operative interest, the Labour interest and the manufacturing interest. It is entitled to speak for all of them. If my suggestion were adopted the people nominated for inclusion on the panel suggested would go on the board in a sort of dual capacity.
On the one hand they would represent the particular industry or interest that they are associated with themselves, and on the other they would be obliged to take account of the fact that they were nominated on behalf of the people generally. Even if they were inclined to act selfishly, there would still be a check on them because of the fact that they had been nominated to represent the people as a whole. In my amendment I provide that:—
"For the purpose of implementing the provisions of the preceding paragraph and to assist him in making reasonable provision for the representation of industries and trading organisations carried on in other parts of the areas served by the harbour the Minister may invite local authorities to nominate persons for inclusion on a panel from which he will select persons for appointment as nominated members of the harbour authority concerned as and when required."
A lot of interests anxious to secure inclusion on the panel would, I think, be able to do so. A co-operative society is usually of sufficient political importance locally to be able to secure consideration of its claims on a local authority.
Now, again getting down to a special instance of the application of this amendment, if it is adopted, it would mean that Clonmel would have, say, one representative, that Carrick-on-Suir would have another representative, and that the county council would have another, and the Minister would have still one other to play about with. The last time that we were discussing this matter, my namesake, Senator O'Reilly from Leitrim, said that he was mystified about the manner in which the Minister proposed to get the names of people suitable for nomination on these boards, and it certainly does seem to me to be a rather mysterious provision that the Minister who resides in Dublin can select, let us say, a manufacturer in Cork or in Galway for representation on the board. That method of selection has led to the suggestion that the Minister might be influenced by political considerations. Now, I am not making any suggestion of that kind. I do not believe that the present Minister would lend himself to anything like that. He has been described as a hard-boiled Minister, and when it comes down to trade, industry and commerce, these things have a very levelling effect. I am not suggesting that the Minister would be influenced in that way, but I do suggest that it would not be unwise on his part to seek the co-operation of the local authorities in putting forward people who, in their opinion, would be suitable for nomination.
Now, the Minister is not yet bound, nor would he be bound, to accept these names, and supposing that the local authority should put up the wrong type of nominees, the Minister would not be bound to accept them, but he could consult with the local authorities as to the best type of nominees that would be suitable for inclusion on the panel. He could get from the local authority, for instance, what has been already provided for in the case of Waterford. The Minister, in such a case, having before him the names of the people nominated to the board by the various authorities, would then be in a position to decide which of those people would be the most suitable for nomination.
I think I have said enough on this matter, and I only hope that the Minister and the House will consider this amendment sympathetically. While I have mentioned only two cases, I must say, to be quite candid, that I have not had sufficient time to read up the report of the Harbours and Ports Tribunal; in fact, I was not able to get a copy of the report except the copy in the Library. I think that, had I been in possession of the report, I would have been able to mention other cases. I am quite sure, however, that there are many members present who can see how this amendment would affect their own particular areas. I can assure the Minister that the Corporation of Clonmel is extremely anxious to get representatives on this board, and the same would apply to the Carrick-on-Suir Council. I have been speaking to members of the council there, and they are anxious to secure representation. I would appeal, therefore, to the Minister and the House to give sympathetic consideration to this amendment.
There is one other remark that I should like to make in conclusion, that is if adjacent local authorities are allowed representation in the first place through the provision for nominated members, then in the event of some additional financial assistance being required by the harbour authority such nominated members would, through their experience as members and their knowledge generally of the work be in a position to explain to the local authorities which they would be representing the advantages likely to follow from the improvements contemplated. In this way applications for special assistance from local authorities whose administrative areas are within the area served by the harbour authority would be likely to receive more sympathetic consideration.
As the Minister has said, there had to be a rateable valuation of so much. That has now been abolished, and a different type of representative will be necessary at the moment. In connection with the town of Clonmel, I might mention that during the first Great War, the British Admiralty issued a notice to the effect that none of the enemy warships had been seen recently off the Port of Clonmel. I was reminded of this rather extraordinary notice by the provisions for the appointment of harbour commissioners representing the Town of Clonmel mentioned in the Report of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal.
I explained to the Seanad that the tribunal recommended that the Minister should have power to make nominations to harbour boards for the purpose of ensuring that certain interests, which might not otherwise be represented, and which were important interests, would get representation on these harbour boards. Clearly, you will defeat that purpose if you tie down the Minister, in advance, in respect of his nominations. If it is not intended to give the Minister that power, then you might as well abolish it; on the other hand, if it is intended to give the Minister that power, then he must be given discretion, and should not be tied down in advance. For that reason, I would resist this amendment. One of the matters the Minister must take into consideration is the matter of adjacent localities. The tribunal made special reference to that situation in respect of Dublin Harbour, but what it said would also apply to other harbours. Senator O'Reilly mentioned certain other ports. He mentioned the case of Drogheda, but I may say that in the case of that particular harbour, the Meath County Council were offered representation, but they said that they did not want it. The Bill, however, provides that where a local authority grants financial facilities representation can be provided, and that, I think, is as far as we should go. I do not think that the Seanad would desire that a local authority might be compelled to give financial assistance.
Has Waterford City given any financial assistance in this matter, or are they levying a particular rate?
I could not answer that question now, but the Waterford Corporation are given representation on the Waterford harbour authority in any case.
Yes, I know, but there is the suggestion that it is only in the case of that particular area that representation should be given.
Provision is made in the Bill for additional representation to local authorities in adjacent areas where that local authority gives financial help.
Yes, although Waterford City is not giving any financial assistance, and the chamber of commerce is not giving any financial assistance.
But these are the local authorities.
Yes, but the question is, what are local authorities?
That is all set out in the Bill.
I thought that it might be mentioned in Section 19. Not one of these bodies is giving financial assistance, but all are given representation. As I have said, there are four members to be elected, who may live in different places, perhaps far away from the area actually to be served by the board. If you put people representing local authorities in on a nominated basis, and these people have an opportunity of becoming familiar with the working of the harbour board, then, if the harbour board, at some future time, should embark on some proposition which might need financial assistance from the adjacent area, the nominated members representing that area might induce the local authority which they represent to contribute. It does seem extraordinary that one local authority is entitled to representation even though it is not bound to contribute towards the expenses of the harbour authority while another, the whole or portion of whose administrative area is served by the harbour cannot claim such representation unless it levies a rate in aid of the harbour authority. The boundary is, indeed, an artificial one.
Even if Waterford is levying a special rate, there is no obligation on them to provide that assistance, but the difference between Waterford and these other local authorities is that five representatives are given to it whereas the others have none. I think that there is very big principle involved here, and I believe that I am advocating something that will tend to make this Bill more successful and that will secure a much wider interest in it. If the particular town that I represent is told that the Minister may or may not do these things, I think there is nothing unreasonable in suggesting that he should have regard to the question of such industrial towns.
The Senator is proposing in this amendment that it must be done.
No; what I am proposing is the desirability of making reasonable provision for representation.
I think that what the Senator wants is that we must appoint one such representative.
No, I do not say that. I say that the least that the local authorities concerned might expect would be that one or two should be appointed. In the alternative, of course, that cut-throat competition will probably continue, and it will not be in the interests of the community. The natural harbour for us is Waterford just as the natural harbour for Meath, or a good portion of it, is Drogheda. The same thing applies to other places. I am not suggesting to bind the Minister in the slightest.
If the Senator does not want to bind the Minister, there is no need for the amendment. I explained previously that one of the reasons why the Ports and Harbours Tribunal recommended that the Minister should have the power of nomination was to ensure that adjacent areas which should be represented could be represented.
Can the Minister or Senator O'Reilly tell us how much is contributed annually to this particular harbour by the area outside the area represented directly on the local councils?
I have not got the exact figure, but I am informed by the county council that it is somewhere between £200 or £300 at present. I am not sure, but there are other charges. I do not know but so far as the bridge is concerned we have been contributing that amount. It does seem hard that one local authority is given a definite legal right to have representation, while others are not given the right. Would the Minister consider giving those who have not the right at present one or two representatives, even if it became necessary—if he thought the board would be overloaded—to take off one or two from the chamber of commerce or some similar body?
No, I would not. If Tipperary County Council or any urban authority in the area has taken responsibility for the giving of assistance to Waterford Harbour, provision for representation is there in the Bill as it stands.
I would ask Senator O'Reilly not to push his remarks any further. I did not intend to speak on this until I heard him say that he was representing Clonmel. Half an hour ago, we had a discussion as to who was representing the cattle trade. A claim was made for Senator Counihan. I do not think that Senator O'Reilly can claim to represent Clonmel alone in this House.
I did not.
I happen to be an Alderman of the Borough of Clonmel and I happen to have been a member of the county council for a number of years although I am not now, and I have been in touch with the Department of Industry and Commerce for a considerable time in connection with the point made by Senator O'Reilly. It was pointed out to me, as has been pointed out here, that when the town of Clonmel had representatives on the harbour board, the people did not attend. I agree with Senator O'Reilly's suggestion that it is not fair to say that people nowadays would adopt the same attitude as people adopted in the past. I do not think it is right to say that the sins of the fathers should be visited on the children, even to the first generation, but I do say that it is true they did not attend.
I am, I think, as interested in Clonmel as anybody else. I was bred, born and reared there, and I am satisfied that Clonmel can get representation under the Bill as it stands and I do not think that any special provision for it is necessary. If it can be done, there is no reason why it should be put into the Bill. I believe that in the future Clonmel will be a more important town than ever it has been in the past, and so far as Waterford Harbour is concerned, it will be possible for it to secure representation within the provisions of the present Bill.
There will be no opposition from Waterford.
There is no doubt that Waterford will welcome all the help it can get from Clonmel or from New Ross so far as the harbour is concerned.
As I mentioned, the amendment is of general application. I thought I would illustrate it best by taking Clonmel as an example but the intention is that it should be of general application.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Yes.
Mr. P.J. O'Reilly rose.
I think we will agree between us that it should be withdrawn.
Mr. O'Reilly
I should like to say that I did not claim to represent Clonmel.
I can only take the Senator on what he said.
Mr. O'Reilly
I voiced the views of a considerable section of Clonmel Corporation, as expressed to me, as also of Carrick-on-Suir Council and Tipperary County Council.
The Senator said he represented the town of Clonmel.
Mr. O'Reilly
We shall see the Official Report. I certainly do not claim to represent Clonmel. Senator Quirke is a member of the Corporation of Clonmel.
An alderman.
Mr. O'Reilly
That makes his responsibility in withdrawing this amendment all the greater. Since the Senator is satisfied, from his knowledge of the Corporation of Clonmel, that the Bill will enable the Minister to make reasonable provision in this regard and since there would not be much advantage in pressing the amendment against the Minister's present attitude, I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 14 not moved.
Government amendment No. 15:—
In page 21, Section 24, sub-section (3), lines 37 and 38 to delete the words "save where the question is the election of the chairman".
Senator Duffy drew attention to the fact that these words were unnecessary and I am moving to delete them.
I presume the Minister means that Senator Duffy convinced him they were unnecessary.
As the matter is provided for in Section 22, it was considered unnecessary to put the words in here.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 25, Section 38, before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) A harbour authority may also appoint as officers of that authority an engineer and a solicitor who, although not whole-time officers of such authority, shall be deemed to be officers for the purposes of this section and of Section 151 of this Act.
Section 38 provides that the harbour board may appoint "so many officers, including, in the case of a harbour authority mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, a secretary and, in every case, a harbour master and a collector of rates and servants as may be necessary for the due administration, management, operation and maintenance of the harbour of the harbour authority". The Bill in other parts refers to a general manager, a deputy general manager, a secretary and a collector of rates. I thought that it was doubtful, from the wording of the section, whether any other person could be held to be an officer within the meaning of the Act. The word "including" is used but there seems to be no provision for the appointment of either an engineer or a solicitor unless they could be held to come under the word "servants". I do not think that they could be held to be servants of the authority. I am proposing that the harbour authority may also appoint as officers an engineer and a solicitor who, although not whole-time officers, shall be deemed to be officers for the purposes of this section and of Section 151 of this Bill. I leave that governed by sub-section (4) which means that they come within the Officers and Employees Acts, 1926 and 1940. For that reason, I think it is all the more necessary that these boards should have power to employ part-time officers. If they were whole time, they would have to be paid salaries which would be entirely beyond the power of some of the harbours mentioned in Part II.
I think that an engineer or a solicitor who does a general practice will be able to give more expert advice on matters of engineering or law to the harbour authority than if he were confined to work pertaining to the harbour authority. The salary will not be so high if he is allowed to practise. As he has to be appointed by the Appointments Commissioners, it follows that a man may be brought from outside into the town in which the harbour is situate. In that case, unless the salary was very tempting, he would not accept the position if he were not at liberty to undertake other work. Therefore, I think there is very good reason for urging that there should be power to appoint these officers and that they should be only part-time.
A question of this nature was raised in the Dáil on a different section. In that case I think that the Minister was of opinion that it was contrary to the Local Government Act to give superannuation allowance to a solicitor who was not a whole-time officer. I think that that was a mistake. I should say that Section 8 of the Act of 1919 provided that a solicitor would be entitled to pension even though he had not devoted the whole of his time to the service of the local authority under which he was employed. That section has been repealed but, even so, the effect of it still remains in Section 48. Section 42 of that Act defines "pensionable officer" as one who either
"devotes the whole of his time to the service of one or more local bodies or is required by virtue of his office to be a registered medical practitioner, nurse or midwife",
and it includes
"any person who, as an officer, has devoted the whole of his time to the service of one or more committees or joint committees, appointed for the purpose of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899... any person duly appointed standing solicitor of a local body before the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, and any person permanently appointed before the passing of this Act to be a compounder of medicine".
Section 43 gives the power to opt out under sub-section (1).
Sub-section (2) of Section 43 states:—
"Any officer of a local body to whom by virtue of this section this Part of this Act does not wholly apply shall remain and be subject to such of the enactments repealed by this Act as relate to the granting of superannuation or compensation for loss of office to officers of local bodies as if this Act with the exception of the sections specified in sub-section (1) of this section had not been passed, save that in the application of Section 8 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, to the granting of allowance to such officers by a local body the expression ‘case of dispute' in that section shall include a dispute of the right to or amount of an allowance granted after the passing of this Act raised by an auditor of the Minister..."
Section 8 is retained in relation to certain officers under the Act of 1925. There is no reason why a similar provision should not be put into the Harbour Acts. There are certain arguments in favour of having a part-time officer. It may be easier to employ him and he may be more effective, by reason of the extra experience he will gain. There appears to be a certain difficulty in appointing solicitors or engineers as officers unless they are named. Other Senators may differ from me, but as far as the Bill itself is concerned, there seems to be no room for them in the Bill. Whereas certain other officers are named, it may be doubtful whether they could be considered officers and I do not think it could be contended that they are servants.
I think there is no doubt that Section 42 of the Local Government Act of 1925 operated to preserve the then existing rights of certain local officers but makes it quite clear that a solicitor is not pensionable except he devotes his whole time to work of that local authority. As far as this Bill is concerned, there is no question as to the power of a harbour authority to employ a solicitor or an engineer on a fee basis. Neither is there any barrier under Section 151 to a harbour authority proposing to give a pension to a part-time officer employed on a salary basis but I want to give no hint or suggestion that I would approve under that section of a pension scheme that did in fact propose to give pensions to part-time officers—not certainly without knowing all the facts. Under no circumstances would I think it justifiable to provide for pensions for engineers, architects or solicitors employed on a fee basis. If that is the purpose of the Senator's amendment I would be very strongly against it.
I entirely agree that where the payments are on a fee basis there can be no question of a pension. I am concerned with the question of where an officer is employed on a basic yearly salary from two points of view. There is, first of all, the point of view Senator O'Dea mentioned—the point of view of an officer who is partly in the service of a local authority and who is partly in general practice. There is another point of view as well—that of a person who is whole-time in the service of several local authorities or harbour authorities. It might be more economical for a harbour authority plus a local authority to combine to appoint a whole-time officer to do the two jobs, but he would be only part-time to each body. I want to be quite satisfied that if he is part-time to each the superannuation scheme would include him.
If he is employed on a salary basis.
I admit that there is no case if he is employed on a fee basis.
I have asked the legal adviser whether it was quite clear that Section 151 as it stood permitted a local authority to prepare a scheme providing pensions for part-time officers. He said that there was no doubt that the local authority has power but whether the Minister would approve of it or not is another question. There is no need for any anxiety as to the power of the local authority.
If I understand the Minister aright, he would not oppose a pension?
If the officer is employed on a salary basis there is power to include him in a superannuation scheme.
Some of the harbour authorities make a profit out of these officers. They make arrangements whereby all the fees are paid directly to them. I came across one case where they made quite a good thing out of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 17:—
In page 28, to insert before Section 43 a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may prescribe any specified age to be the age limit for every office under a harbour authority to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Acts, 1926 and 1940, as applied by this Act, apply, or for every such office as belongs to a specified class, description or grade or for one or more specified such offices.
(2) Every regulation for the purposes of this section shall come into force six months after the day on which it is made.
(3) Where a regulation for the purposes of this section is for the time being in force in relation to any particular office, the following provisions shall have effect:—
(a) if on the day when the regulation comes into force there is a holder of the office, the regulation shall not apply to such holder,
(b) if, on a day after the said day, a holder of the office (other than a holder to whom paragraph (a) of this sub-section relates), reaches the age specified in the regulation as the age limit for the office, he shall cease to hold the office on the day on which he reaches that age.
Senator Duffy had an amendment suggesting that the Minister might prescribe regulations in regard to the age of retirement. I suppose there is no objection to taking these powers but on the whole I feel that the fewer the powers the Minister has in relation to the conditions of employment of officers of harbour authorities the better. As, however, there appears to be some feeling in favour of this section I propose to have it inserted in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:—
In page 38, Section 76, to delete lines 15 and 16 and substitute the following words:—
"shall inquire into the cause and extent of any damage which may have happened to such goods either by sea damage, improper storage or otherwise and shall make a written report to the harbour authority of such survey, examination and inquiry."
This is a redraft of a section which caused Senator Duffy some difficulty. The new wording does not alter the sense very much but it does make the meaning of it clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:—
In page 38, to delete lines 38 to 54 inclusive, (Section 79).
This is to delete the section. Senator Duffy proposed an amendment to delete this section. I am accepting the amendment as it is by no means clear that the section is necessary.
I must congratulate the Minister on having "bested" the Revenue Commissioners.
I am not so sure that we have.
From this point on I will now call the sections one by one, and if any Senator has a question to raise he can raise it after I call.
Sections 80 to 82, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 83 to 92, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 93.
Question proposed: "That Section 93 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (2) of this section provides that a person who contravenes sub-section (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £10. I do not know if this Bill gives the harbour authority power to prosecute. I should like that power to be given also.
It has power to prosecute.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 94 to 99, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 100.
Question proposed: "That Section 100 stand part of the Bill."
I notice that sub-section (3) of this section states:—
"A remission or compounding of or exemption from rates granted or conferred under this section shall not give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person or subject any person to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."
Who is to determine the reasonableness of the rates?
In the first instance, the Minister has to give his consent and, presumably, an aggrieved party can either make representations to the Minister or go to the court for a declaration.
I do not see where the Minister has power to deal with a specific case. He has power to approve of the rates, but an undue preference might be given in one specific instance or in a few specific instances.
In effect the Ministerial consent will be the main safeguard. As the Senator is no doubt aware, it has sometimes been alleged against harbour authorities that they give an undue advantage to one trader or unduly prejudice another. One of the reasons why this Ministerial supervision is being introduced is to ensure uniformity of treatment and to protect individuals against unfair discrimination or to empower the Minister to inquire into complaints of undue discrimination if they arise. In effect, the sub-section is an indication to a harbour authority of the principles that they must follow in this respect.
I am still not quite clear about this. I could understand a general schedule of rates in relation to which preference was alleged, and that the Minister would then come in. Is power being given to the aggrieved party, directly or indirectly affected, to appeal to the Minister or has the party affected to go to the courts?
The Minister can, by Order, require the harbour authority to terminate any exemption or partial exemption from rates in force in the harbour under sub-section (2).
Under what section can an appeal be made to the Minister to take action in that sense?
The whole principle on which the Bill is framed is that a complaint can be made to the Minister who can direct the holding of an inquiry to find out if, in fact, there is this discriminatory action by the harbour authority. The Minister has power then to rectify the position, or, in the last resort, to remove the members of the harbour authority if they fail to rectify the position.
There is power then to appeal to the Minister to institute an inquiry?
In so far as the Minister will be the authority, he has the power to investigate complaints. It is to the Minister that an appeal will be made. In the past I have got complaints from traders in local port areas. In the past there was no power to rectify the position. It often happened, however, that the position was rectified on representations being made to the harbour authority. There was no power to make the harbour authority do so if it was disinclined, but there will be that power in the future.
May I take it that there is power for an aggrieved party to appeal to the Minister if it should feel that a special preference is being given in one case or in a few cases?
There is, certainly. In the first place, the Minister must consent to the remission of the rates or to the partial exemption of rates under this section. In the second place, if, on investigating the matter, he thinks it desirable to do so, he can require the harbour authority to terminate the exemption of rates or whatever other preference it is giving.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 101 agreed to.
SECTION 102.
Question proposed: "That Section 102 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I desire to call attention to the wording of sub-section (1) which refers to a vessel which is obliged "from stress of weather or other sufficient cause" and so on. There is no definition in the Bill of the words "sufficient cause". Are we to take it that what is meant is sufficient cause in the opinion of the Minister or in the opinion of the harbour authority or, ultimately, in the opinion of the court?
I should say, ultimately in the opinion of the court.
But, surely, the court must be guided in some shape or form as to what is intended. What I gather is envisaged is a break-down.
I should imagine that this is a type of business on which there is a whole code of decided law. The provisions in this part of the Bill are, in the main, taken completely from special Acts which apply to harbours. We are trying to make them standard for all harbours.
If the Minister would ascertain whether this sub-section is taken from the standard form it will satisfy me.
I am certain that it is.
It would seem to me that practically the whole of Part VII is taken from one or other of the existing Acts. There is a familiar ring about all these sections. I imagine that one is safe in assuming that there are no novel inventions in this part of the Bill.
Not in the sense in which the term might be popularly used. There are in this part some provisions which may not appear in any of the special Acts here, but which were, in fact, taken from a recent Act passed by the Port of London authority which is probably the most modern piece of harbour legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110 agreed to.
SECTION 111.
On behalf of Senator Duffy I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 47, Section 111, sub-section (1), line 38, to delete the word "notice" and insert instead the words "or such shorter notice as they may specify".
I am accepting the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 111, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 112, 113, 114 and 115 agreed to.
SECTION 116.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Question proposed—"That Section 116 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 117, 118 and 119 agreed to.
SECTION 120.
Question proposed: "That Section 120 stand part of the Bill."
On sub-section (2), will the Minister say why the Minister for Finance is brought into it?
He brought himself in.
On what grounds?
That he has certain responsibility in so far as the general financial policy of the State is concerned: to require that substantial borrowings of this kind might be taken into some general picture of the total capital liabilities likely to be incurred during the year either for the purpose of determining State policy in that regard, or of timing other borrowings of that nature. It is not really intended that the Minister for Finance should have a function in relation to harbour policy, but it is intended that he should have a certain power of supervision in the case of substantial borrowings of harbour authorities so as to be able to relate those borrowings to projects of the same kind which a local authority, or the State, may be undertaking.
I am afraid that the Minister is mixing up two things. It seems to me that the Minister for Finance wants to retain the power to deal with public issues. This does not deal with public issues but with particular borrowings. While I would be quite prepared to accept the view— I would do so with great reluctance— that the Minister for Finance should be able to say to a harbour authority "this is not the moment to float a public issue," I do not at all accept the view that he should be able to say to a harbour authority that it cannot borrow or mortgage anything. The two things, I submit, are quite different. The Minister's reply dealt with the question of the public issue of stock, but the point is that a harbour board may want to raise money elsewhere.
The purposes of the section there was really to deal with the question of public issues: the terms and the time of flotation, and also the possibility of an unsuccessful flotation which might damage the credit of the State.
Would the Minister not agree that the sub-section would be better if we were to put in some such words as "shall not be subject to liability for borrowing"? I agree that there is not very much in it.
I do not think so. The consent of the Minister for Finance would only be withheld on the grounds of general policy. It would be merely on the ground of the supervision which he exercises.
Well, coming back again to the administration of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, there is something similar there. The local authority cannot borrow from an outside source without the consent of the Minister, and there have been cases where the Minister was not prepared to grant permission to the local authority to go to an outside source because he evidently wanted them to go to the Local Loans Fund. I think that that would be very undesirable.
That is different. That only comes in where the local authority decides to pledge the local rates for the benefit of a harbour authority.
I was not referring to that.
I know, but that only applies to a local authority borrowing money for the harbour board, and in that case I think the Minister should have power to intervene.
At any rate, I think that the rate here is much too high and that it should be brought down. I do not think that any attempt should be made here to bolster up the Local Loans Fund rate.
I do not think that is so. I think that in this case it would be the other way about.
Very well; I am satisfied.
Sections 120 to 132, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 133.
Government amendment No. 26:—
In page 58, Section 133, to insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Where the amount required to be raised by a local authority for a local financial year ending on or after the 31st day of March, 1947, in order to defray the cost of assisting harbour authorities in that local financial year, exceeds:—
(a) in the case of the corporation of a county borough, a sum equal to a rate of one shilling in the pound on the total of the rateable valuations of the hereditaments and tenements rateable to the municipal rate in the county borough at the commencement of that local financial year,
(b) in the case of the corporation of a borough not being a county borough, the council of an urban district or the commissioners of a town, a sum equal to a rate of eightpence in the pound on the total of the rateable valuations of the hereditaments and tenements rateable to the poor rate (or, in the case of the borough of Dún Laoghaire, the municipal rate) in the area of the local authority at the commencement of that local financial year,
(c) in the case of the council of a county, a sum equal to a rate of fourpence in the pound on the total of the rateable valuations of the hereditaments and tenements rateable to the poor rate in the county at large at the commencement of that local financial year,
then, the Minister may, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, pay to the local authority a sum equal to one-half of such excess as a contribution towards such cost.
I mentioned in the Dáil that I would ask the Seanad to insert this amendment. The effect of the amendment is that where a local authority has guaranteed a loan for a harbour authority, the obligation to meet the guarantee falling upon the local authority, the Minister for Industry and Commerce may, out of voted moneys, assist the local authority to meet the obligation where it exceeds an amount equivalent to a rate of 1/- in the £ in the case of a county borough, 8d. in the £ in the case of a corporation of a borough not being a county borough, or the council of an urban district or the commissioners of a town, and in the case of a county council a sum equivalent to a rate of 4d. in the £. There is a similar provision under old railway legislation relating to the guarantees given by local authorities in connection with the building of railways. In that case, many of the local authorities had to make good their guarantee and pay the interest on the guaranteed stock, or make good other deficiencies, and there was power to give assistance out of Government funds to local authorities where the amount exceeded a certain figure. A similar thing is provided for here. In the past, a number of local authorities guaranteed the loans of harbour authorities, and where the harbour authority failed to pay the interest, the local authorities had to make good, and there was no power for the State to come in to help the local authorities. The power is provided here for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to come in and provide assistance out of voted funds.
I do not understand this, because it seems to me to be purely a discretionary power that is left to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is not that so?
Yes, certainly.
Well, I do not see why this is the proper place to bring it in. I think it would have to be included in the Appropriation Act, and would not the year in which the particular money is voted be the proper time for this? I cannot see why this discretionary power should be given here, if it is to be duplicated in another Bill when it is found necessary.
That is why it is put in here. I have already mentioned the case of local authorities guaranteeing loans for the building of railways. In that case power was given, which was apparently considered to be statutorily necessary to advance money from Government funds, and a similar provision is made here.
But the Minister will agree that it must be passed as part of the Estimate?
Yes, it must be voted. It cannot be paid out of the Central Fund.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 133, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 134 agreed to.
SECTION 135.
I move amendment No. 27, standing in Senator Duffy's name:—
In page 60, Section 135, sub-section (2), sub-paragraph (b), line 2, to delete the words "a newspaper" and substitute instead the words "two newspapers".
I shall accept that amendment.
Amendment No. 27 put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 28:—
In page 60, Section 135, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) An Act passed by the Oireachtas to confirm a provisional harbour works Order shall be deemed to be a public general Act.
I am advised that it is necessary to have this provision to remove doubts as to whether an Act to confirm a provisional harbour works Order would be a public or private Act. This is to make it clear that it is a public Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 135, as amended, agreed to.
Section 136 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 137 stand part of the Bill."
On that section I want to ask the Minister if there is any safeguard in the Bill for dock labourers generally? In other words, is there any obligation on a harbour authority to ensure that the gear on machinery being used in the discharge of ships in the docks is such that it is reasonably safe for the dock labourers to use it?
I do not think that would arise. It would come under the Factory and Workshops Acts.
Unfortunately, that is true. I thought the Minister would say that. I have experience of the Factory and Workshops Acts and I think they are absolutely useless as a safeguard for the dock labourers in Dublin. I remember a case under the old régime where they were using a plank which was entirely unsuitable for discharging a ship. It was 40 or 50 feet long. After a complaint to the factory and workshops people they said they would send an inspector and the inspector arrived at the office of the union expecting to see the plank there. That is the kind of protection the Dublin dock labourers get under those Acts.
I may tell the Senator that I hope to have a new Factory and Workshops Act sometime in the comparatively near future.
How soon?
I have been five years getting it drafted, so I should not think it would take very much longer.
Another five, anyway.
There should be some obligation on the harbour authorities to see that stevedores engaged in the discharge of ships use proper gear. There is no obligation on them to do that now, and bad gear, ropes, pulleys and so on are a menace to the men and make their work more dangerous than it is.
I will certainly look into the matter. I am not quite sure what are the obligations on the stevedores and shipowners generally. I do not think there is any obligation on the Port and Docks Board.
There is up to a limit, the old type of gate policeman who ought to be in pantomime. He is supposed to see that the gear is all right. I believe that the time has come when there ought to be a proper safeguard for the men who are contributing to the prosperity of the port and I hold that the obligation should rest on the proper authority.
In respect of equipment provided by the harbour authority, yes.
Or anybody else.
As I said, we have a Factory and Workshops Bill in draft. I should say that drafting is very nearly completed now, but the final compilation of it will take some time, because as many Senators are aware you cannot rush such a measure. The wording is most important but I should hope it will be available within 12 months or so.
I can tell you in advance that it is not going to help the Harbours Bill to have that particular section covered by the Factory Acts. There is a great difference between harbours and workshops. A man can go around a factory and see everything that is in it.
But the obligations placed on employers will be under the Factory and Workshops Act.
I think it is most unfortunate that provision was not included in this Bill.
Section 137 agreed to.
Sections 138 to 142, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 143 stand part of the Bill."
On this section, would not the more normal way to deal with this matter be to provide that the harbour authority should make regulations with the sanction of the Minister?
No, the intention is that the Minister should make regulations as to the requirements of the harbour authority. The Senator can easily visualise the type of regulation governing the invitation of tenders by public advertisement and the giving of certain notice.
I was thinking of a different thing, the manner in which the harbour authority would deal with the opening of tenders.
That would be provided for by regulation. The regulation would also provide for the acceptance of the lowest tender and similar matters.
I can only say that the Minister is departing from local government procedure, which I understood he was trying to make the basis of this Bill. The situation there is that the local authority may make regulations for the acceptance of tenders, which regulations must be sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
The intention is to make regulations applicable to all harbour authorities and to have the practice uniform.
I think it is an undesirable reversal of the procedure in local authorities.
I think it is a desirable innovation in regard to some harbour boards.
Section 143 put and agreed to.
Sections 144 to 150, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 151.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 64, Section 151, to insert after sub-section (1) a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Such superannuation scheme shall include provisions by virtue of which service, if any, as an officer of any harbour authority (other than that by which the superannuation is granted) and as an officer of any local body (as defined by Section 42 of the Local Government Act, 1925), shall be aggregated with and reckoned as part of the service of that officer with the harbour authority by which such superannuation is granted.
The Minister, in his next amendment, has met me for part of the distance, but for only a part. I want to ensure not only in regard to the position between one harbour authority and another that rights will be interchangeable, but that the same interchangeability will take place between harbour authorities and local authorities. That is a matter which I think would have to be dealt with partially here and having been dealt with partially here, there would also have to be, on the other side of the picture, a similar provision to deal with the reverse working in the Local Government Bill at present before the Dáil.
I am quite frank about it that my amendment is only a sketchy and bare outline and the details necessary to distinguish between the various contributing authorities, between harbour and local authorities, would require considerable draftsmanship. But I think that the principle is a desirable one, that if both officers are going to be chosen under the 1926 Act, it would be desirable that their pension rights would be the same whether they have been with the harbour authority and went to the county council or had been with the county council and went to the harbour authority. While the Minister has met me to some extent, I think he ought to look at it from the other angle.
There is not very much objection in principle as I see it, but the Minister for Local Government considers it is a matter of considerable difficulty and it would be impossible to make a decision when there is no scheme already in existence for these harbour authorities. This Bill gives them power to inaugurate pensions schemes. I understand that the Minister for Local Government is bringing in a Superannuation Bill at some stage in the near future in which the possibility of making provision in this respect so far as local authorities are concerned can be discussed, but if it is to operate the other way there might at some stage be fresh provision required to enable harbour authorities to contribute to the pensions of former employees who had left to go to local authorities. But, until the Local Government Bill is forthcoming, I do not think we should attempt to provide for harbour boards. It is a bit too early to do it until we have some more knowledge as to what the schemes submitted by harbour authorities will be like.
I am quite satisfied. I take it that I am correctly interpreting the position that the Minister is favourably inclined if the principle can be worked out?
There is no objection to the principle.
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make. I daresay that the details of the scheme will be different. In view of the Minister's assurance I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 30:—
In page 65, Section 151, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
() Where—
(a) an allowance or gratuity is payable by a harbour authority (in this section referred to as the paying authority) to any person under a superannuation scheme in respect of his ceasing to hold office under them, and
(b) in ascertaining his service at the date of such cesser any service under another harbour authority (in this section referred to as the contributing authority) has, in accordance with that scheme, been aggregated and reckoned, and
(c) at any time during which he was in the service of the contributing authority there was in force in relation to the contributing authority a superannuation scheme applying to him,
then, the contributing authority shall refund to the paying authority a part of the allowance or gratuity reckoned in the prescribed manner.
This makes provision in relation to allowances or gratuities payable by harbour authorities.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 151, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 152 to 160 inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 161.
Government amendment No. 31:—
In page 67, Section 161, to delete the words "local authority" wherever they occur and substitute the word "person", and to delete the words "local authorities" wherever they occur and substitute the word "persons".
Waterford Harbour Board drew attention to the necessity for this amendment. The section empowers a harbour authority to make and carry out an agreement with a local authority to undertake jointly any work. It is desired by Waterford Harbour Board that a harbour board should be enabled to make and enter into an agreement with other persons than local authorities to carry out desired works.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 161, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 162 to 164 agreed to.
SECTION 165.
I am prepared to accept amendment No. 32 by Senator Duffy as follows:—
In page 69, Section 165, sub-section (1), after the word "authority" in line 24, to insert the words "and of any committee appointed by the harbour authority".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Section 165, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 166.
I move amendment No. 34 in the name of Senator Duffy:—
In page 69, Section 166, after line 45, to insert the following new sub-section:—
( ) A harbour authority may provide a ferry service or other convenient form of transport free of charge for the use of dock workers employed within the limits of the harbour of such harbour authority.
The idea was that, when decasualisation takes place, after registration, the docker should be entitled to this facility.
The section enables the harbour authority to provide free transport service for its own officers and servants. This amendment would enable it to provide a free service for persons working in the docks.
After registration and decasualisation, we hope that the docker will be a direct employee and that he will be entitled to travel the same as the servants of the harbour authority.
If he becomes a direct employee of the harbour authority, they can give him this free service.
But, if you do not put it in the Bill, even the best of these harbour authorities will not be able to do it.
I think that it is too much to ask a harbour authority to provide free transport for everybody working at the docks.
This amendment only gives them power to do so.
The power to provide a ferry service at the North Wall is given by charter to the Dublin Corporation.
How will Section 166 cut across that?
That section does not refer to a ferry service.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 166 to 170 agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
Sections 171 to 180 agreed to.
SECTION 181.
Government amendment No. 36:—
In page 73, Section 181, to delete sub-sections (1) and (2), lines 40 to 48, and substitute instead the following sub-sections:—
(1) In this section the expression "the corporation" means the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Waterford.
(2) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by Order declare that, on and from a specified day—
(a) the charges commonly known as water bailiff's fees chargeable at Waterford Harbour shall cease to be charged, and
(b) any obligations of the corporation (whether acquired under charter or by statute or otherwise) whereof the said fees or any part thereof were in consideration shall cease.
(3) The Order under this section may contain such supplemental and ancillary provisions as the Minister thinks proper, including provision for the payment by the Waterford Harbour Commissioners to the corporation of such sum as the Minister thinks proper towards compensating the corporation for loss sustained by them owing to the operation of the Order.
This and other similar amendments are really designed to make clear that the Minister has specific power to fix the compensation which will be payable. They are really a redrafting of the section and do not alter the sense, save in that respect.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 181, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 182.
Government amendment No. 37:—
In page 73, Section 182, to delete sub-sections (1) and (2), lines 51 to 59, and substitute instead the following sub-sections:—
(1) In this section the expression "the corporation" means the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin.
(2) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by Order declare that, on and from a specified day—
(a) the charges commonly known as city dues chargeable at Dublin Harbour shall cease to be charged, and
(b) any obligations of the corporation (whether acquired under charter or by statute or otherwise) whereof the said dues or any part thereof were in consideration shall cease.
(3) The Order under this section may contain such supplemental and ancillary provisions as the Minister thinks proper, including provision for the payment by the Dublin Port and Docks Board to the corporation of such sum as the Minister thinks proper towards compensating the corporation for loss sustained by them owing to the operation of the order.
This amendment deals with the same point in relation to city dues in Dublin as arose in the case of Waterford.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 182, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 183.
Government amendment No. 38:—
In page 74, Section 183, to delete sub-sections (1) and (2), lines 3 to 11, and substitute the following sub-sections:—
(1) In this section the expression "the company" means the body corporate known as the Commercial Buildings Company of Cork.
(2) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by Order declare that, on and from a specified day—
(a) the rates and duties, chargeable under the British statute passed in the year 1814 and entitled an Act to raise a fund for defraying the charge of commercial improvements, within the city and port of Cork, in Ireland, shall cease to be charged, and
(b) any obligations of the company (whether acquired under charter, or by statute or otherwise) whereof the said rates and duties or any part thereof were in consideration shall cease.
(3) The Order under this section may contain such supplemental and ancillary provisions as the Minister thinks proper, including provision for the payment by the Cork Harbour Commissioners to the company of such sum as the Minister thinks proper towards compensating the company for loss sustained by them owing to the operation of the Order.
This amendment deals with the same point as those other amendments in relation to the cockett tax in Cork.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 183, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 184 to 186 agreed to.
SECTION 187.
Government amendment No. 39:—
In page 75, before Section 187, to insert a new section as follows:—
A harbour authority which is a pilotage authority may make such contributions towards the expenses incurred by them in their capacity as such pilotage authority as, with the consent of the Minister, they may determine.
Waterford Harbour Commissioners drew attention to the necessity for this amendment to enable harbour authorities to contribute towards pilotage funds some of which have become seriously depleted during the emergency.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 187, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 188 to 190, First to Fourth Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take the Report Stage now.