The managing authority is defined as the authority responsible for the management, control, operation and maintenance of the harbour. Under section 4 (2) subparagraph (d) the Minister is empowered to appoint such number of officers and servants as he deems necessary for the purpose and provide for their powers, functions and duties. I wonder are those people going to be officers of the Minister's Department? Will they be civil servants or officers used in a different sense? In other words, will the managing authority be purely a Civil Service body or will they be what one might call semi-State employees?
Fishery Harbour Centres Bill, 1967: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section I stand part of the Bill".
They need not necessarily be but they may be. They need not necessarily be established employees of the Civil Service as we know it.
I am not quite sure I follow the Minister. The acoustics are not so good this afternoon. Do I understand the Minister to say that the managing authority will not necessarily be civil servants but that they may be?
Yes.
Perhaps, the Minister could tell us why it was necessary for him to give this authority completely to his Department rather than set up an appropriate semi-State body which could be organised on much more technological lines than the present scheme seems to imply.
The first thing would be in relation to what is the job to be done in regard to those harbours. It arises on other points as to why we should have this legislation at all. There is undoubtedly evidence that the authorities as at present constituted do not have the power to do certain jobs or have not the wish to do them and taking over the management of it in the manner the Bill provides at this particular time seems the appropriate thing to do. It may well be that the development of these harbours and all that goes with them on the fishing side might in future bring about a situation as to whether some such authority as Senator Quinlan mentioned might then be appropriate. I do not think that at this stage there is any real reason why it should be set up to do a job which has not yet arisen.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
I asked on Second Stage if the Minister would contemplate publishing in the form of a White Paper a statement giving an indication as to what, in fact, are his plans for each of these sections, with regard to the land to be taken over, the buildings to be provided, and so on. It is important that the people should know what the Minister has in mind. Very often when the Government make adequate and suitable plans they fail to consult sufficiently with local interests. There should be a communication on their intentions so that there may be opportunity for comment on them with regard to development in a more suitable manner for the needs of the fishing in the particular area.
As I said earlier, the making of the order under section 2 would go right through the section with regard to the making of that order, and that would then be considered to be the appropriate time to refer to the things proposed to be done. I mentioned in the House also on Second Stage that it is felt by us that such indication by way of publicising of such an order would be sufficient indication and would be clear enough as to what was intended to be done.
I do not recall the Minister saying that on Second Stage.
I did. Perhaps my recollection is slipping but I did think so.
I do not think so. One of us is at fault; it may be either of us. I am wondering whether the order which is a very formal document laying down the minimum information would give adequately the kind of picture which would be planned. I would imagine the order would say that the Minister would take over a certain amount of land but what he will do with it, the shape of buildings, and so on, is something which would not go into the order as far as I can imagine. I wonder whether at that time the Minister could issue a statement in some form stating what is planned in such an order. Perhaps the time to do that is when the order is published but I do not think the order itself would be sufficient to give guidance.
The Senator is, in fact, anticipating what the operation would entail. If that order is to be made under the Act undoubtedly it will not be the order itself as such that would give the information. Usually it would be known what is sought to be done, and asked and requested to be done, for some considerable time before we got around to taking the steps to make the order. If things were obscure at the point of time of the making of the order, undoubtedly they would be clarified. If it is any assistance to the House in seeing it in the light I see it, if such informations are not already self-evident, as it were, I will take steps to ensure that they will be evident at the time of making such an order.
It is provided in section 6 that where the Minister makes a draft order objections may be made to it and that the objections shall be in writing stating the improvements and modifications asked for and then the Minister will consider these. It occurs to me that the Minister might be able to deal with this by way of undertaking. Very often it is very difficult within the confines of any written document for any group of persons to set out what their main objections are or why they think the draft order should be in a particular way rather than the way in which it is drafted. I wonder whether the Minister would be disposed to delegate an officer of his Department, if he did not have time himself, to meet people who would appear to have substantial grounds for objection and who would request to be received so that they could give, apart from what may be incorporated in a memorandum, an elaboration on what they have written. I think I see a situation in which you cannot fully deal with what is in a written objection and the validity of an objection and its strength will come out in discussion across the table. Will the Minister be prepared to undertake that one of his officers, in an appropriate case, will meet people who have a desire to discuss objections which they have put in in writing in the first instance?
What the Senator has suggested is a reasonable operation and, indeed, one which would very likely be followed. If we got observations that the order was not clear and did not seem to be made clear by people writing, some such operation as suggested by the Senator would be adopted in such a case. I should like to point out that where objections are being submitted and are not subsequently withdrawn it is provided that the Minister can hold a public inquiry and this, of course, will be to elicit probably rather different information which would be extremely difficult to get across by either written submission or by verbal exchange as between an officer of the Minister and a given person. I think the House can take it that the provision there for power to hold a public inquiry does not impede the possibility of some of these in-between systems that might be better such as a verbal exchange of views to supplement something that may have already been indicated to us or prescribed in writing.
I am glad of that. I think it is the attitude that will be adopted and one that will be very helpful. There is another thing in relation to the inquiry that will be held. If a person is given power to take evidence on oath, it does not follow that he is empowered to administer oaths. There is a whole code of legislation as to the people who are empowered to administer oaths. It seems to me that something should be said in section 6. I thought that was not in. I had read it twice but I did not find it. I see now that the point is covered.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".
Subsection (3) contains the familiar code under which compensation, in parenthesis, is paid to persons where land is acquired by any public authority. The code is the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. I had occasion previously to refer to this code. Senators ought to know what the code provides and there is a long case called Comyn versus the Minister for Industry and Commerce reported in the Irish Reports. The reason why that case was fought so vigorously was that the Minister, or his legal advisers at the time, wanted to have the compensation, which was to be payable to that man for the compulsory acquisition of certain property of his in County Clare during the Emergency, assessed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, whereas Mr. Comyn, the plaintiff, wanted to have it assessed by the courts or alternatively under the Land Clauses Acts.
The reason the Department at that time sought to have the 1919 Act applied for the purpose of determining compensation was that Mr. Comyn would thereby get a great deal less compensation than he would get if other standards for measuring his compensation were applied to him. Anybody who is familiar with the operation of the 1919 Act knows that when compensation is calculated under that Act the person gets merely the market value of the property being acquired, and the market value of the property being acquired compulsorily is by no means adequate for the property owner because, if he owned a little shed where he is carrying on certain business in relation to a harbour or a fishery and he had plans for expanding in the future, and that plot is acquired, the 1919 Act sets out that all he is entitled to get is the market value of that property.
The property may be only a few roods and the market value of a few roods of land might be only £50 or £60, but the value to me who wants to expand my business, may be far in excess, and that is where the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, is, in my view, most unfair to the landowner. The same thing would apply if a county council came in on somebody's property on a highway and brought the road right up to the person's door, cutting out the garden and the privacy the person had. The person would get the market value of a few perches of ground but not the value of that land to that person. It is not assessable, it is not reckonable, under the 1919 Act, whereas if the code were such and if the provision were such that it took account of the value of the land to the person from whom it was being acquired compulsorily, it would in my view do what would be fair play to the owner of the land. Though the difference would be substantial in relation to the landowner, in terms of public acquisition of the land it would always be a minor matter.
I do not know enough and I have not had an opportunity of looking up sections 69 to 83 of the 1845 Act which are intended to measure compensation, but the Minister might be able to assure me that this Bill incorporates the kind of provisions that will enable the owner of land to get the value of the land to him when the land is being acquired compulsorily. As I have said, I do not know enough offhand about the provisions of the 1845 Act to say whether these are the facts. I should be very happy if that is so.
The general approach to this matter of land acquisition for public purposes, whether by local authorities, Government Departments or what have you, is that it is agreed acquisition which is normally sought. It is only when it is not possible to get such agreement—this very often has to do with the method of compensation— that recourse is had to the 1919 Act. If the 1919 Act is wrong, then I do not think it is for us here, in this measure, to propose the alteration in it. We may propose it but there is not a lot we can do about it. I have always held that the emphasis in any acquisition by a public authority, State or local, should be to get an agreed deal done. That is a far, far better thing in many respects than having to have recourse to compulsory acquisition with an arbitrary figure being set. It is to be understood that any lands or property proposed to be taken under this measure will be subject at least to the same rights as in any other context where land is being taken over by public bodies. Only in the last analysis, when it has not been possible to reach agreement, will the question of the 1919 Act and its effect on compensation really enter the picture.
I do not think this or any other code is abused in so far as these matters are concerned. Very often it is true that one might say the reverse can be the case—that people might unreasonably hold up unduly the acquisition of land, regardless of the offers of compensation, land that could be of very great value to the public. That happens far more often than the situation in respect of which Senator O'Quigley has been expressing fears. In this measure, the same pattern is very likely to emerge—that we would have the unreasonable person more often than an unreasonable public authority, to the detriment of the public interest.
The vast majority of most kinds of legal relationships between people are disposed of by sensible people in a sensible and orderly way and without recourse, very often, to lawyers, the courts or independent arbitrators. One finds an area, relatively small, where for one reason or another there is a strong divergence of opinion and that can well apply in relation to the value of a piece of land. It certainly applies where the land has a particular value to the individual.
If it is a whole farm of land that is being sold or taken over there is very little difficulty about what happens in the case of the claimants, because the auctioneers and the owners have a fair idea of what the prices are and after a bit of bargaining an agreement is reached. But if it is only part of the farm that is being taken over, perhaps the best field is being acquired, then that is a different thing. How do you assess the value of the best field of a small farm for the man concerned? That is the kind of area where you run into difficulties. The market value of the field may be £400 but the landowner has to find another similar field adjacent to his farm and may have to pay £800 or £900 for it. It is in that kind of area that one finds that people fear going to an arbitrator to have it decided. That is precisely the kind of loss of value to the landholder which may not be taken into account under the 1919 Act. That is precisely the kind of loss he has to grin and bear for the benefit of the public weal. There is no auctioneer or lawyer concerned with the operation of the 1919 Act who does not declare every time on one side or the other that it is most unsatisfactory and unfair in its operation.
The Minister has said that it cannot be amended under this Bill, but, of course, it can. The Statute Books are strewn with references to this Act of 1919, with new rules incorporated in the schedules in order to deal with that particular form of acquisition. I think it occurs in the Derelict Sites Act and also in the Planning and Development Act, 1963. If the Minister wanted to he could well accept an amendment which should be in order, I have no doubt, to this particular Bill in order to ensure that people get appropriate compensation. What I do say is this, that one has always to declare that one is not speaking as a lawyer but as a legislator with the experience of a lawyer in dealing with this kind of claim. We all know that in the vast majority of cases where land is acquired by the Land Commission, in 90 per cent of the cases perhaps the price of the land is agreed between the landholder and the Land Commission. It is in about ten per cent of cases that the price is not agreed, and there is a very simple procedure whereby a person applies to the appeal tribunal presided over by a judge of the High Court and on practically every Friday morning in the High Court a landholder who may have land valued at £600 or £700, or £300, comes in before the judge of the High Court, the auctioneer and the inspector give evidence and the matter is disposed of in half an hour with very little cost to anybody. That system gives tremendous satisfaction to all concerned. It is an extremely fair system because the learned judge of the appeal tribunal has great experience in this particular field and there is nobody who is present at these assessments of compensation who is not impressed by the fairness, and everybody knows that the landholder gets a fair deal and the full market value. But we all know that no arbitrator sitting under the Act of 1919, even if he wanted to, can give the landholder the compensation to which he is entitled. The rules set out in the Act of 1919 prohibit him from giving compensation in particular areas.
People will hear what I am saying and will know cases where people have not got adequate compensation, but I am afraid that very few people are prepared to do anything about it except to extend sympathy to people when they are affected afterwards. The 1919 Act is an unfair measure, and its unfairness to the landholder is to be seen in the figures of compensation provided by the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Having said that, I have no doubt that what I have said will fall upon the Minister with no great result. I should also like to direct the attention of the House to subsection (4) which provides that all claims for compensation in respect of any land or right acquired under the section shall be made within one year after the land or right is first entered on or exercised under the section. These rigid periods of a year or three months or six months always cause trouble. One always finds, for whatever reason except that it is a part of the makeup of human nature, that people who are entitled to money will fooster around and have discussions and fail to put their claim in in writing within the statutory period. One has seen that and has seen people lose hundreds of pounds, and in some cases thousands, because they did not put in their claim in time.
I have no doubt that in this case there will always be somebody late and hardship will occur. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister should accept an amendment to make it within one year or such longer period as the Minister may consider reasonable or may allow to enable that period to be extended. In the Landlord and Tenant Act one finds provision for extending periods where people failed to put in a claim for a new tenancy, and one finds it too in the Workmen's Compensation Act, now deceased to the loss of every employee as we are now hearing and as we prophesied here about the Occupational Injuries Act and how unsatisfactorily it is working. Even in that Act there was provision for extending the period of time. I would certainly put down an amendment to give some authority some latitude in relation to the extension of the period within which to lodge a claim. In subsection (8) we find that the powers of compulsory acquisition conferred on the Minister by this section shall not extend to land or rights vested in the State, a Minister of State or the Land Commission and so on. I wonder why not. Why should the Land Commission not be liable to have land vested in them by virtue of a compulsory acquisition order that they have made being required for a harbour authority, and why should not the Land Commission be liable to have that land taken over compulsorily, or, indeed, any Minister of State or the ESB? There is no reason that they should not, and the Land Commission are about the greatest holders of land in the country.
As regards subsection (3), if, as I say, there are faults in the 1919 Act they are of much more general application and affect far more people than the results of this measure. It would be a more appropriate thing that the 1919 Act should be sought to be remedied rather than that we should start something new here under this particular head. If it is felt strongly that this is affecting people at the moment it should be followed under that head. In the adoption of the 1919 Act procedure I was doing so knowingly and with full knowledge that it has been applied over the years since 1919 with a great deal of success and that what was suitable for this large number of cases is suitable for the type of cases that might arise under this Bill. As regards subsection (4) and this matter of a year and the possibility of the Minister being given power to extend the time, and quoting other enactments where extensions of time are provided for, the fact, and the only real fact, is, that no matter what time is fixed there will be people late.
If people choose to be late whether it be a year or ten years, I do not see how we can provide for continuing a situation wherein we provide a longer time for those who will be late. Regardless of what length of time is fixed this type of person will be late and they are just as likely to be late if it is five, ten or twenty years or whatever the fixed period might be. With regard to the suggestion that there should be power to enable the time to be extended in this particular measure here, I should imagine as distinct, for instance, from the other enactments mentioned by the Senator in regard to the renewal of a tenancy, a tenancy could have been running for some generations, hundreds of years perhaps or at least a long number of years and, therefore, the lack of knowledge of its impending cessation or closure might not be so evident as will be the operations under this particular measure which would yet have to take place and immediately after would be open to the aggrieved parties or parties of claims to be aware of it and then giving them the 12 months after the operation had been applied. If they are not aware of it at that stage I do not know when they are going to be aware of it.
If it is just purely the dilatoriness of human nature as is put forward by Senator O'Quigley as one of the possible reasons why this should happen, no matter what length of time is set out it still would not be long enough. I think that a year is long enough. I think we have only got to consider what is a reasonable time to give and I think that a year is not only reasonable but anybody who has not got around to making a claim which they feel they have within 12 months after a happening, then I do not think there is anything we can do by way of legislation to get these people to do their own business in any time that we set out. I still feel that a year is more than reasonable and extending the period longer than a year into the future would, I think, have other disadvantages in that it would mean that an acquisition and any compensation or rights to be paid for could not be finally wound up until after whatever period we had set out. I feel this would be a messy and unnecessary operation without any great good accruing from it and for that reason I would be inclined to leave the thing as it is in the belief that it is more than reasonable in so far as what we are trying to maintain is concerned.
In so far as subsection (8) is concerned the mention here is why leave out the Land Commission, the semi-State bodies, the local authorities and so on. I suppose we could, first of all, say that this is a customary provision which has been inserted in, I think, all our legislation over the years and we are continuing the practice. As to the basis for this practice, I should imagine straight off that all of these bodies are to one degree or another within, as it were, the competence or jurisdiction of some element of Government whether directly or indirectly and that instead of having legal paraphernalia to solve problems as between elements of the same State institutions that there is the more sensible arrangement that these elements get together, being all in the nature of a public service and that the ultimate good for the greatest number is what would be the determining factor in the mind of both sides in an issue such as this.
It is on that sensible basis that we have the customary provision that I am asking the House to have inserted in the Bill in the knowledge that such a provision in other legislation has worked out and has not thrown up any case wherein something that could and should go on if only the property was in hands other than the hands of these bodies because it is in their hands does not go on. We have no evidence that that has been so. Indeed, if there was evidence of this, the provision would long since have ceased to be put into legislation of this sort and would have been repealed in legislation in which it occurred. The pattern is as I have said and the sensible approach to it has been this provision. I have no reason to believe that there would be any departure from that sort of approach in the solution of any problem that might arise in regard to any of these fishery harbour centres.
For that reason I would not agree at all that there is any need for this. I do not think it arises. If there was need I would certainly not have come to the House and asked to have this provision passed.
I think the Minister was for a short period of his career a civil servant. I was for a period of my career a civil servant and I know the procedures of the Civil Service well, in a way, perhaps, that no matter how long you are a Minister of State you will never get to know the procedures because you must be way down there and see what is happening. When the Minister says that two Departments of State can get together and agree sensibly as to who is to have what, he certainly is not speaking from experience because I have seen in my time files six inches and nine inches thick with memoranda, reports of architects, reports of engineers, comments, further reports, further comments and so on between two Departments as to who is liable to pay sixpence. That is not an exaggeration and when it comes to ceding land just fancy the Department of Defence being asked to cede a bit of land to the Department of Agriculture and the Lands Branch of the Department of Defence telling the Minister for Agriculture where he gets off. Every Department of State is as jealous about its property and about what is going to be put on to its Vote as if they were not part at all of the same undertaking. When it comes to the Land Commission, well the Land Commission was to have been disbanded 40 years ago and it is still a thriving industry, so thriving, in fact, that they are now going to transplant it in Castlebar.
That is how they hope to close it down.
That may well be so but I do not think that the Government are as devious as that. However, that is the view of the Minister. I am glad that the Minister has that view of the persons who serve the Government and serve the public, that they are a sensible body. Mind you, in every one of these memoranda the arguments are convincing. They go a little stage further and the counter argument is quite convincing and then a little further again and so the memoranda pile up. However, I hope that if it becomes necessary and the Minister is aware of this kind of codology going on, the Land Commission holding on to a bit of land needed for the development of the fishing industry in a particular harbour, that he will come back into the House with the necessary amending legislation. Mind you, it does not do to say that the Minister for Lands will talk to the Minister for Agriculture. That will not happen either because the Ministers will have to be guided by their own officials and each, like good Ministers, will defend the view of his own Department. However we will leave it at that.
Hear, hear.
I am inclined to agree with the Minister—and this is something that does not happen very often—that no matter what period one fixes for the making of a claim for compensation you will always have somebody who will be late and the Minister and myself are at one as to why this is so but I would ask the Minister to do what is now being done to the Act which the Minister had a major part in, the Local Government Planning and Development Act, of compulsorily incorporating in a notification that a person has a particular right and that they should be notified of that right, the right to claim, within 12 months.
Therefore I would suggest to the Minister that when he or the managing authority enters upon any land that he should notify the owner and occupier and that he should also notify them that they have the right to claim compensation under section 3 of the Act within one year of the time they enter on the land. That should not present any great difficulty but suppose somebody has emigrated and is not to be found. They hear from the neighbours that the Government or Minister were in on their land, they come home at Christmas and then they find that it is 13 months since the first day on which the Minister went in. Such people are out and they have no remedy.
Where a person is abroad, or ill, or in a mental hospital a case can be made that that person cannot make his claim within the year and there should be some provision in the Bill to enable the claim to be exercised where a reasonable cause is shown for the delay. That is not unreasonable. The majority of the incorrigible late claimants could be dealt with because they could not show any reasonable cause for the delay. I would have no sympathy with such people but I would have sympathy with persons who had emigrated, who were ill or who were in a mental hospital.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Under this section the Minister proposes to provide, or arrange for the provision of facilities in the centre for the sale of fish landed at the centre. I should like to ask the Minister if we are going to reach the stage where it will be possible to purchase fish retail on the spot at these centres. There is at present a ridiculous system under which fish may be landed at Galway but you cannot buy it retail where it is landed. It has to come to the fish market in Dublin, at what cost I do not know, be bought there by some person in Galway, go down to Galway by train and then you can buy it retail in Galway.
That system does not operate now.
I think it does. I have tried to buy fish where it was landed and could not do so.
The system of sending it up to Dublin and sending it back again to where it was landed does not obtain any longer.
Would it be possible for the Minister to say whether under the rules he will make it will be possible to buy fish retail where it is landed? Paragraph (c) does not say whether the fish can be sold wholesale or retail.
There is an interesting point to this question of the retail purchase of fish at the landing points. Neither can you purchase a box of matches where it is made, and there are good reasons for this. If fish are to be sold at any landing point and are auctioned the buyers will be retailers from the local towns and cities. I am sure that if fish were to be sold retail off the boats this would be resented very much by the retailers whose custom at the wholesale market would be essential if you were to have an auction on the pier. These are the considerations you have to keep in mind when you ask the question as to whether fish can be sold retail at the landing point.
In making a realistic appreciation of this matter, I realise quite clearly that to make a promise that this could be done would be making a promise that would not be capable of being kept and I do not like making promises that I cannot keep. The sale of fish by retail at the landing points could work against the best interests of the fishermen and their interests are of primary importance to me and to this measure. If the facility can be provided with advantage to all concerned then let us do our best to arrange that such a facility can be provided. It would be a very nice thing for those who are able to proceed to the pier at the time of a landing of fish and buy the fish from the boats but such people can only be a very small and select part of the population. If we can provide this facility without hurting anybody or without hurting the fishing industry as a whole it would be well worthy of consideration but to make the promise that it will be done is something I could not do.
It does appear that there may be some improvement because, under the Bill, instead of there being only one fish market there will be five. There will be some improvement in that. I see from another section that the Minister is going to make bye-laws. A variety of these will have to be made to deal with the operation and development of the centres and in sub-section (6) the Minister says:
A person who contravenes a provision of an order or bye-law under this section shall be guilty of an offence.
That is fair enough but the fact that strikes me is that these bye-laws and orders are going to give rise for a prosecution for an offence and, at the same time, they are not being laid before either House of the Oireachtas, although they are making a criminal offence. I would ask the Minister why they are not going to be laid before the House under section 10.
You have mentioned section 10.
That is so. There are going to be orders made by the Minister under the section which we are dealing with at the moment, section 4. Surely orders made under this section should be laid before the Oireachtas.
That is the correct reading of it.
I think it is possibly an error of drafting.
They are not of the same importance and the making of them need not have any lasting irrevocable consequences, whereas the orders made under the other section would have an irrevocable quality about them and should, therefore, be laid before the House so that there would not be any danger in them.
I think that any kind of order that warrants any punishment or involves the imposition of a penalty amounting to £100 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, is sufficiently important to be laid before either House of the Oireachtas. It seems to me, and I think the Minister would agree with me, that it should be included in section 10.
It is not so much the question of their importance. As I was emphasising, it would be their irrevocable nature as was indicated in an earlier section. There is nothing irrevocable about those. As time goes on undoubtedly changes might be necessary and if for any reason it was found at any time to be unsuitable to the circumstances, then, as I say, the very fact that they did exist would not at times prevent their being changed. Those type of regulations refer to the setting up of certain physical works on roads adjacent to the ports. If the order were capable of being changed it could only be changed at a very great expense of time and money but in the case of the bye-laws there will be time to bring about changes in those and they would be capable of being changed and no damage need necessarily be done by them. They could be good in themselves at the outset and fall to be renewed, amended or revoked at any given time by the passage of time and the change of circumstances.
They are, as I said, not to be related to the others that have been quoted here as being laid before the House of the Oireachtas. It is not a question of importance. The question of the £100 fine is important but it is the laying of the bye-laws that the Senator has in mind. It is only the consequence of the breaking of those, to which one might take objection, that brings in the question of the £100 fine. It has to be done in two ways. One is the making of the bye-law and the other is the breaking of it.
I quite appreciate the distinction. Once the order takes effect it is irrevocable. Then there is the fact that regulations and so on in relation to any particular harbour may be changed at any time. For instance, if one thinks of the Planning Act of 1963 the Minister there has power to make a variety of regulations. Equally so, the Minister has power to amend and revoke those regulations if circumstances change and perhaps even when the order or regulation was made it did not quite do what the Minister wanted it to do and it had to be redrafted. I can think, for instance, of the regulation which was made under the Planning Act fixing the payments that were to be made by the local authorities and the Minister for Local Government in respect of petrol pumps.
I remember that particular order was brought before the Dáil. I do not know whether the Minister changed it or not at the time, having had second thoughts. At any rate, the Dáil had the right to bring in that and say: "The charges you are making for every single item of equipment in a petrol station are much too high and the cost of the licence fixed is unfair". Equally so, it might well be that there would be a particular view in relation to rates or at least on charges that might be fixed or some order that would be made by the Minister or advice that might be difficult to work or too difficult to observe and those would impose great obligations on people and they should be revoked or it certainly should be possible to have the matter debated in the Dáil or the Seanad. It is certainly necessary also because the breach of any of those bye-laws or orders will bring with them a penalty of up to £100 and that kind of bye-law, not because it is going to be permanent but because it is important, should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. I do not think the Minister dealt with that aspect but I think that is the right point of view from which it should be regarded.
I wish to support the case made by Senator O'Quigley. I had thought this, going through the the Bill, as something that was rather strange and out of line with the orders under section 4 which are excluded from being laid before the House. Apart from the penalties involved, there is also a scheme under subsection (7) (v) by which the Minister publishes locally certain of the bye-laws but then, having received the local objections or suggestions on those under section 5, he can do whatever he thinks fit. In other words, he can ignore them if he wishes.
It is only right and proper, therefore, that an opportunity should be afforded to discuss the orders in the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is a power which we should guard especially in a Bill in which we are giving so much blanket powers to the Minister. We should keep this modicum of control by amending this when we come to section 10 to ensure that all orders are laid before the House.
One of the things which rather surprises me is that local authority bye-laws are not required to be laid before Houses. Mind you, they can be and are of a very controversial nature. They can be quite important and embrace a great many matters which might be regarded as infringement of established rights of a great number of our people. It is strange that they can be dealt with in this manner and yet in the making of bye-laws and the making of orders under this particular section, as distinct from the other section earlier, under this section it is provided that they can be amended or revoked. In the case of the bye-laws it has not been necessary to say they may be revoked or amended because in the 1927 interpretation Act this is understood to be the case.
The other thing, of course, which I think I mentioned on an earlier stage of the Bill is that those bye-laws and orders under this section will be published in full in Iris Oifigiúil so that from the outset there is an opportunity, if it should miss anybody's notice, that it will not and secondly, as I say, the battle can be taken on if ever such would be needed, to correct, if it was a mistaken matter, which is unlikely because, as Senator O'Quigley said, none of this is lightly undertaken by a Department of State. All civil servants write a great deal. In fact, they write mostly everything they think when it comes to their transmitting the right to us. They do not, as some of us foolishly do at times, depend on their memories as to what took place and why it took place. They usually set that down at the time. If these pass from one to the other there is no doubt that at the end of the day and in the last analysis in all matters and in this matter specifically there will be a full record built up stage by stage as to why these things were decided in a particular way, how they came to be argued out and what the merits and demerits were or proposals indicating what bye-laws or orders may be. They are not done lightly or hastily and are subject to and capable of rectification or amendment, both as to the orders and as to the bye-laws. I do not see the dangers which are suggested here arising at all. I do not see that the precedent, for instance, in regard to local authority bye-laws arises. They do not claim to be required to be laid before the Houses here and they are all as onerous and far-reaching and are very much more general in their application than this particular measure which applies only to particular sectors of five all of which are unanimously agreed to require to have a great deal done to them quickly to facilitate development of the fishing industry in this country. To do things which are capable of being done there is nobody enabled to do them, financially speaking, or who has the wish to do them even if they had the way of doing them. The manner of procedure here is in accordance with the relative importance of what is proposed to be done by those bye-laws and orders and setting it apart from the very important orders as outlined in section 2 which does require that they be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
This gives power to the Minister to do all that is necessary for the maintenance of harbours vested in him. Is that merely the five harbours referred to in the Schedule or are there any other harbours apart from these five when they become vested in the Minister?
No; this refers to these five.
I could only wish otherwise. There are places around the country, other harbours, which could well be maintained by the Minister if he had the power.
That is another day's work.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill".
The question I wish to raise might well be valid on section 9. It is in relation to accounts in the fishery harbour centres. They should be properly prepared accounts and not in the form in which current and capital figures are given together, so that there is no clear picture of what the financial position is.
In regard to this matter, which the Senator raised earlier, the Comptroller and Auditor General is the man in the last analysis who is responsible for this and it will be for him to satisfy himself as to the manner of his presentation of accounts in doing his job properly.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's job relates to his requirements in relation to accountability for moneys. His job is to see that nobody pinches the money. He has not to initial the accounts of semi-commercial activities undertaken by Government Departments. They are not in a form which is considered acceptable. They do not set out the accounts in a balance sheet form. The accounts he deals with are the accounts of Government Departments. He accepts the accounts and the revenue and expenditure as stated there. He may well have a prejudice for this kind of data in a balance sheet form. What I am concerned about is that these harbours will be run as a commercial enterprise of some kind. In those circumstances, I do not think we should have a post office type of position in which all the expenditure has to be voted by the Dáil on the one hand and all the revenue on the other and there is no account of what the capital investment or the current revenue and expenditure is. It is precisely because the Comptroller and Auditor General is involved and is antipathetic to the commercial approach that I raise this matter.
I take it the practice to be adopted by the Comptroller and Auditor General is that which he practises at the moment.
For Government Departments?
And some outside bodies as well. There are some—for instance Bord Iascaigh Mhara.
I do not think we are on the same point. If a body such as a commercial enterprise or a statutory board were to present their accounts in a form which is appropriate such bodies should present their accounts in the form I have mentioned, that is, with a balance sheet, stating assets and liabilities and the current and profit and loss account or whatever it may be. In some cases he audits these in the form in which they are presented. He does not require that the commercial activities of State bodies are not presented in that form. All he is asked to do is see whether somebody is pinching the money or whether it is used properly for the purpose for which it is promoted. He has no function to require that commercial accounts be produced for enterprises of this kind. It is because of that I want the Minister to ensure that the accounts will be produced in the form in which An Bord Iascaigh Mhara produce their accounts.
The Comptroller and Auditor General does not accept generally anything and everything that is put to him by State boards. He has on several occasions suggested alterations and alternative methods of presentation if they do not satisfy him as to how he is doing his job. If the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries feel that there are certain suggestions in regard to the accounting and the checking of these accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which we felt would give a knowledge which we would wish to have on the overall operation, control, management and well-being of these particular centres, there is no reason why we should not and will not indicate to the Comptroller and Auditor General the changes we wish to have. This is anticipated and presumably if he will not do his job in a way that would give us a commercial picture, then we would undoubtedly be seeking that these informations would be made available to him and if necessary we would make the necessary suggestions and promptings to him to see that this situation was brought about. That is what the Senator is concerned about—that we should not have a stereotyped accounting system that did not disclose the real position.
In the operation of the harbours, it is a commercial position rather than the operation of a Government Department in the goings and the comings and the movement of what was voted and what went out. What the Senator fears will not and cannot be allowed to happen. It would be contrary to our whole approach to the commercial well being of a venture in its preparation and its workings.
Is not the Comptroller and Auditor General somewhat hamstrung by the provisions of sub-section (1) which provides that the accounts will be in such form as may be approved by the Minister for Finance? If the Minister for Finance says the usual kind of accounts shall be kept to show that no moneys have been misappropriated, the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot do anything about it. I do not say he will, but if the Minister for Finance chose to have the more simple type of public Department accounts kept, the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot do anything about it because the accounts are being kept in the form approved by the Minister for Finance. The Minister is nearly going the whole way with Senator FitzGerald.
Towards the end of his remarks.
He is coming round. What clearly should be done, and I rather think what the Minister is saying will be done, is that the ordinary commercial accounts will be kept in relation to each centre and that they will set a target for the managing authority of the centre when they know what the position was last year. They will know that the public, the Members of the Oireachtas, are keeping an eye on them. That is the hope of the Minister but he has not gone the distance of saying so, perhaps because he does not know what the Minister for Finance will prescribe.
The Minister's closing remarks seem to be accepting that what I was aiming at is what he is trying to do. Earlier, the Minister seemed to be speaking as if the Comptroller and Auditor General was the person who kept the accounts and that he would ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to prepare the accounts in a suitable form. The fact is that the section we are dealing with provides that the Minister shall keep the accounts, not personally perhaps, but through his agents, in a form approved by the Minister for Finance. They then will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. What I am concerned about is that the Minister prepares his accounts. It is his responsibility under this section to prepare the accounts, a commercial form with balance sheet and profit and loss account. The Comptroller and Auditor General's role is to audit them and see that they are prepared in accordance with legislative requirements. Those requirements could be easily met because they are so vaguely expressed here, either by lumping everything in with no balance sheet or by having a commercial type account.
If either of these would meet the requirements of the Comptroller and Auditor General, he has no function. Of course he might advise that a different method should be adopted in the future but he has no power to require anything if the vague requirements of this subsection are met. What I am concerned about is the Minister's preparation of the accounts. Is it his intention that his Department will prepare the accounts in the form I have suggested for submission to the Comptroller and Auditor General and that they will then be subject to the usual discussions with the Comptroller and the Auditor General to see that they meet the requirements of accountability? Is that the Minister's intention?
To say yes would be dangerous. I will not say yes or no. The situation is being slightly confused, probably by both of us, to be charitable.
I accept the charity.
The fact of the matter is that I am not misleading myself but if I have misled the House I am sorry. What we have been talking about is the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. What I have said in regard to him is, that being an experienced and responsible officer, he will in so far as possible seek to have, if necessary, changes made in the keeping of accounts so as to fulfil his function. In addition, it is true to say that subsection (1) provides that the Minister for Agriculture shall keep or cause to be kept accounts in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister for Finance, but it does not provide that if the requirements of the Minister for Finance are so lightly dealt with as to fail to disclose the commercial well-being or otherwise of the harbour—I know the requirements of the Minister for Finance will not so fail—there is nothing in subsections (1) or (2) to prevent the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries seeing to it that the accounts are kept in a proper manner as far as he and his agents are concerned.
Undoubtedly the nature of this whole venture will make it one in which the really vital element will be its commercial well being—how is it going on, what way is it doing, is it losing or gaining, making up ground or losing ground, what are its assets, what has gone into it, will it be viable or otherwise? This is the essential pattern which will decide if we are to expand the harbour, which we will not do blindly. We must know once a year how much money went in and how much came out. We must satisfy general accounting procedure in relation to a Department of State.
We must know once a year if we are succeeding in what we have attempted to do. We must have a measure as to whether the gain was worth the candle, and I can assure the House that neither I nor anyone who succeeds me will embark on this sort of operation without at least keeping a very close eye to see whether it is getting where it was proposed to go or whether it is dying or failing, in which case we should have to decide whether it should be scrapped or whether the gap should be closed. It is so fundamental to the whole exercise that perhaps I underestimated what Senator FitzGerald is seeking. However, I shall state fully and finally that irrespective of whether the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Minister for Finance seek the information about the commercial well being of the enterprise, the Minister for Agriculture will make very sure that he is made aware fully, each year at least, of the commercial account as to what the state of the enterprise is.
I am very happy with the assurance of the Minister and glad that the responsibility has been placed on him. I say that because I would not rely, like he does, on the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Minister for Finance in view of the fact that neither has shown anything in relation to the Post Office during the past 50 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th June, 1968.