Amendment No. 33a. is in the name of the Minister; amendment No. 33b. is consequential and the two may be discussed together.
SECTION 88.
I move amendment No. 33a.:
In page 70, subsection (5), lines 18 and 19, to delete "Bulloch Harbour" and substitute "the following harbours, namely, Bulloch Harbour and Sandycove Harbour".
The first of these amendments is put forward to comply with a request from the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which is currently responsible for Bullock and Sandycove harbours, and Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown County Council. Both bodies are anxious that Sandycove harbour as well as Bulloch harbour be transferred to the county council. The second amendment is consequential on the first; it replaces "the said harbour" with "each of the said harbours", which means the provision in this subsection will refer both to Bullock harbour and to Sandycove harbour.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33b.:
In page 70, subsection (5), lines 20 and 21, to delete "the said harbour" and substitute "each of the said harbours".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 88, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 89 and 90 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 33c.:
In page 72, before section 91, to insert the following new section:
91.—(1) The Minister may by order define the limits of a harbour that is under the control or management of a local authority and for so long as such an order is in force the limits of such a harbour shall, notwithstanding the provision of any enactment in force immediately before the commencement of the order, be those defined in the order. (2) The reference in subsection (1) to an order in force shall, as respects such an order that is amended by an order in force under section 3 (4), be construed as a reference to the first-mentioned order so amended.".
Under the Grand Juries (Ireland) Act, 1853, numerous piers, harbours and landing stages are under the control of local authorities. In most cases, however, the relevant local authority only has control over the pier or slipway and has little or no control over the adjacent waters and consequently no control over navigation in the approaches. This amendment enables the Minister for the Marine to define limits for such harbours, which will mean the local authorities will have control over the water around the harbour and more importantly over the approach to the harbour. To date many local authorities have been severely restricted in the management of these harbours, because they had no jurisdiction over any of the waters.
This is only an enabling provision. If the Minister for the Marine made such an order it would have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, either House having the power to annul it within the next 21 sitting days. The second part of this proposed new section is a consequential provision which states that any amendment to an order defining the limits of a local authority harbour will replace an original order.
How does the Minister see this section being used? Does he see the local authority taking the initiative in seeking the delineation enabled by this provision, or does he see the Minister making the order and placing the responsibiliy on the local authority? There is nothing in the amendment about agreement, consultation or who should take the initiative in extending the limits of a harbour.
I expect the initiative will come from the local authority. The demand for this provision has come, by and large, from local authorities who experienced frustration because their responsibility for piers and slipways was limited. They are anxious to have real control of the harbour, including the waters, so I expect the initiative will come from them.
As the amendment is worded the Minister on his own initiative could make an order extending the limits of a harbour — in other words, extending the area of responsibility of a local authority — without its agreement or even without consultation. Is that the case?
In theory I suppose that is possible but it is unlikely that a Minister for the Marine would extend the powers of the local authority concerned wihtout consulting it.
We know that when financial matters are involved in legislation, the Department of Finance is always careful to ensure a provision is included that the enactment will be following consultation with the Minister for Finance. In this case the Minister is seeking to place additional responsibilities on a local authority without having to consult that local authority. Does he not think a clause should be included involving a consultation process and agreement?
I have no objection in principle to that. This amendment has been local authority-driven rather than promoted by the Department. If a situation arose where the Minister wished to take the initiative I have no objection in principle to the local authority being consulted. That is the intention in any event. If the Minister intended to extend the remit of a local authority over a certain harbour, I do not know of a local authority which would not make its views known quite vocally.
I welcome the provision and it is important to have this facility. Difficulties have arisen in the past because the local authority's jurisdiction ended at the pier and did not include the waters. There were occasions, however, when local authorities were quite happy that position obtained. I remember an occasion 20 years ago when a boat was maliciously bombed in my constituency and under the Malicious Injuries Act the local authority was free from any liability. As it was in the water beside the pier, not on the pier, it was not in its area of responsibility. Liabilities can arise from these matters which necessitate agreement between the local authority and the Department before any such order is made.
I am happy to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to provide for consultation with the local authority where this is to be exercised.
It would improve the legislation.
It is a perfectly reasonable measure.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33d.:
In page 72, before section 91, to insert the following new section:
92.—(1) Each of the following, namely, a company and a harbour authority, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, make arrangements for—
(a) the proper management, custody, care and conservation of its or their records and archives, and
(b) the inspection by the public of its or their archives.
(2) A company or harbour authority may—
(a) co-operate with one or more local authorities or other persons in establishing and operating a local archives service, and may reimburse those authorities or persons for expenditure incurred by them in establishing and operating such a service in so far as it relates to the company's or harbour authority's records and archives; and
(b) with the consent of any local authority or other person which or who is operating a local archives service, delegate to that authority or person any of the functions conferred on the company or harbour authority by this section in so far as they relate to archives.
(3) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment and the Director of the National Archives, give advice, or, as the Minister thinks appropriate, directions, to a company or a harbour authority in relation to any matter relating to its or their records and archives and, in particular and without prejudice to the foregoing, in relation to the doing of any of the following things by the company or harbour authority as respects its or their records and archives (which each company and harbour authority is hereby empowered to do), namely—
(a) the retention, management, preservation, restoration and reproduction of records and archives,
(b) the certification of records to be unsuitable for classification as archives, and the review of such certification at specified intervals,
(c) the availability of archives for public inspection,
(d) the making and provision of copies and extracts from archives,
(e) circumstances in which archives, or particular classes of archives, may be withheld from public inspection,
(f) the preparation of guides, lists, indexes and finding aids to archives,
(g) the lending of archives to appropriate institutions, bodies and societies, whether in the State or elsewhere, and
(h) the disposal of records and harbour archives,
and the company or harbour authority shall have regard to any such advice and shall comply with any such directions.
(4) (a) In this section, ‘records' in relation to a company or harbour authority, includes books, maps, plans, drawings, papers, files, photographs, films, microfilms and other micrographic records, sound recordings, pictorial records, magnetic tapes, magnetic discs, optical or video discs, other machine-readable records, and other documentary or processed material, made or received, and held in the course of its or their business or as successor to any other body, by the company or harbour authority, and includes copies of any such records duly made, but does not include—
(i) grants, deeds or other documents of title relating to property for the time being vested in the company or harbour authority, and
(ii) any part of the permanent collection of a library, museum or gallery.
(b) In this section ‘archives', in relation to a company or harbour authority, includes all records as aforesaid which are more than 30 years old, except such records as are certified by the company or harbour authority under subsection (3) to be unsuitable for classification as archives.
(5) Section 13 of the National Archives Act, 1986, shall cease to have effect in relation to records or documents of a company or harbour authority.
(6) Without prejudice to subsection (3), the National Archives Advisory Council may advise the Minister on any matter affecting archives of companies and harbour authorities and their use by the public.
(7) Nothing in this section shall affect any rights of a person claiming to be the owner of a document to recover the document.
(8) The making or supplying of reproductions by or under the direction of a company or harbour authority or archives which are held in accordance with this section and are open to public inspection shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright of such archives.
(9) A person shall not conceal, damage or destroy archives held in accordance with this section and shall not remove, publish or reproduce the whole or any part of any such archives without the written consent of the relevant company or harbour authority.
(10) A person who contravenes subsection (9) shall be guilty of an offence.".
It is a new section, entitled "Records and Archives of Companies and Harbour Authorities". This section is proposed at the request of the National Archives Advisory Council. It provides for the preservation and availability for public inspection of harbour records and archives. The draft of this section is based on section 65 of the Local Government Act, 1994. The inclusion of section 65 in last year's Local Government Act has transformed the prospects for the preservation and availability for public inspection of local archives. The local Government Act, however, provides direct protection only for the records of local authorities.
The records of the harbour authorities include some of the most valuable and interesting records held by any local public body. It is very important that these records be preserved and made available for inspection by historians and other researchers. I believe that this can best be done by providing that it shall be a function of the new port companies and other harbour authorities to make arrangements for the management, custody, care, conservation and availability for public inspection of their records. The Harbour Bills provide the opportunity to address this issue.
Subsection (10) of this proposed new section provides that a person who contravenes subsection (9) shall be guilty of an offence. This means that section 6 of the Bill will have to be amended by the inclusion therein of a reference to this new section. This will be done on Report Stage.
As somebody who had the responsibility for the provision of a similar section in the Local Government Act, I welcome this provision. There is a new awakening in interest in all of these matters and it is crucial that we are able to protect all of the historical and other aspects of harbour developments over many centuries. Enormous interest is developing in that area. Does the Minister envisage any State or Exchequer support to the new companies, even as a token, towards the costs and provisions which will be involved? Many of the buildings are not suitable for storage of records. The proper accommodation of records can involve expense and not all harbour companies may be in a position to comply immediately. Is there a further incentive, as well as the statutory provision, that could be granted? It would be a nice gesture on the part of the Minister to provide a little State aid in tandem with this legal provision, to show the central interest in the provision and care of these matters.
The purpose of the amendment is to oblige the companies to protect the various harbour records for the reasons that I have stated. It is not explicit or implicit in that there are resources attached to it, but there are many ways open to harbour companies or to others who have an interest in the protection of records to obtain resources from the State. The State is quite generous in this area. The Department of the Marine provides some funding, for example, for the maritime history museum and the National Maritime Institute.
There are ways open to companies through local historical societies and various funds provided through the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Various schemes are operated under the aegis of FÁS which are available for assisting in the protection of historical records, so the question of resources should not be a difficulty in this area. In fairness, the harbour commissioners through the years have by and large done a very good job on the protection of their records and have been conscious of the historical dimension of their ports and protection of their records. It was a very significant part of their thinking and culture. As we move into a more commercial era for the companies, I wish to ensure that this very valuable dimension, the historical dimension, continues to be protected.
This is an extraordinarily interesting and important part of the Bill. It had escaped me on reading it. I heard the Minister saying it is a completely new section. It has tremendous cultural and historical ramifications. I know, as a member of Waterford Harbour Commissioners, that the records for Waterford harbour boards going back centuries have been kept in University College Cork which is the only safe and reasonable place to keep such records. Those records go back over 200 years and they contain an extraordinary run down of passenger lists of people who went to America, Canada and Newfoundland in the middle and end of the 18th century.
It is very important that records like that, which are scrutinised and used by people from universities in America and Canada, be made more readily available to the general public and to historians in this country. It is important that the new boards which this Bill sets up have the finances to organise and allow for these records to be examined at first hand in the cities of their origin. It is all a bit obtuse at the moment and a bit removed when the records are kept, for instance, in Cork, which is 80 miles from Waterford, and when they are primarily used by American and Canadian university professors who are doing research. There is a tremendous need for those records to be made easily available and that the examination can be carried out locally.
This section of the Bill is very interesting and it would be very desirable if the boards and companies were obliged to provide finance to employ people in the heritage area who would help individuals who want to trace items from those records. Would the Minister comment on that in his reply?
Sitting suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 91, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 92 to 97, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 98.
Amendment No. 33g is consequential on amendment No. 33e and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 33e:
In page 75, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "a company" and substitute "Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company".
The effect of this amendment is to restrict the provisions of this section from applying to all the new harbour companies. Instead it is proposed that it should apply only to Dún Laoghaire. This amendment has been requested by the Department of Finance. The section as currently drafted states that any successful legal proceedings against a new port company which were commenced before the company was given semi-State status can be claimed against the Minister for Finance if the new port company does not entertain the claim. It also states that the Minister will be able to reclaim any payment made on behalf of a company from that company.
At present the Minister for Finance has no financial responsibility for any of the harbours proposed for semi-State status, with the exception of Dún Laoghaire which is under the control of the Minister for the Marine. Under the Harbours Act, 1946, harbour authorities are bodies corporate and have the power to sue and they can be sued in their own name. This means they have to face up to their own liabilities and, consequently, I feel it is only right that port companies formed from these harbour authorities will continue to retain this liability.
The case of Dún Laoghaire harbour is different. Its management is being handed over from a State Department to a semi-State company. In default of payment by the Dún Laoghaire company, the liability will fall on the person against whom the proceedings were commenced, that is the Minister for the Marine and, by extension, the Minister for Finance.
Amendment No. 33g. is consequential to amendment No. 33e. It merely substitutes "Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company" for "the company concerned" in order to complement the proceding subsection.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33f.:
In page 75, subsection (1), line 34, after "him", to insert "or her".
This is a technical amendment making the section gender correct.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 33g.:
In page 75, subsection (2), lines 35 and 36, to delete "the company concerned" and substitute "Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 99 to 102, inclusive, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE
Amendment No. 34 has already been discussed with amendment No. 32h.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 78, line 16, in the second column, to delete "Shannon Port Company" and substitute "Shannon Estuary Ports Company".
I know this amendment has already been discussed but I want to ask the Minister whether he sees any difficulty for Foynes being caused by changing "Shannon Port Company" to "Shannon Estuary Ports Company." Does he see the potential for international confusion in response to marketing by the estuary and similar marketing by Foynes? It could be perceived that there is only one ports authority for the entire estuary. Can he not envisage international confusion if it is perceived that there is only one port authority for the entire estuary?
This name change was requested by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. It is a question of finding a name for the company that describes it reasonably accurately. It would be a misnomer, for example, to call it the Limerick Port Company since much of its activity is in the Shannon estuary. With the exception of the port of Foynes — however the jurisdiction of that port will be defined eventually — this company will have jurisdiction over the rest of the estuary. The original formulation "Shannon Port Company" tended to suggest that it might be related to the town of Shannon. The suggestion put forward by Limerick Harbour Commissioner, which was reflected in an amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy, was reasonable.
Limerick Harbour Commissioners probably felt it important to include the word "estuary". However, that could have been achieved by calling it the Shannon Estuary Port Company as opposed to Shannon Estuary Ports Company. Foynes exists as a separate entity. It is a port on the estuary. In the international marketing of the estuary, particularly if it is carried out by Shannon Estuary Ports Company, this may be misconstrued in international circles if people were unaware of what is on the estuary.
That will not arise. The use of the plural is to reflect the fact that this company will have responsibility for what are effectively private ports at Aughinish and Moneypoint. It reflects that plurality of responsibility. It is not intended to convey that it will have jurisdiction over the port of Foynes, which is the responsibility of a separate company. The difficulty being envisaged by Deputy Finucane is unlikely to arise. Shipping interests which intend to use either the Shannon Estuary Ports Company or the Foynes Port Company if they are contemplating doing business there will be sufficiently familiar with the geography of the Shannon estuary to know which port is which. I doubt that it will give rise to confusion.
I accept the Minister's comments. However, I maintain my reservation regarding the title.
I put down my original amendment because the designation of the area of responsibility of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners as the Shannon Port Company would be an entirely inaccurate designation of the new company's area of responsibility. Limerick Harbour Commissioners have six installations in the estuary, not one. To change the name to Shannon Port Company would imply, as the Minister siad, that the town of Shannon had a port. The Merchant Shipping Act defines a port as one place, not several places.
The area under the jurisdiction of Limerick Harbour Board is about 30 miles long and covers 190 squares miles. To call that area the Shannon Port Company would be a misnomer and would give a completely misleading impression as to where the port was located. I am pleased that the Minister has agreed with the amendment and has put down a similar amendment himself. When the companies are established the Limerick harbour company will in future be known as the Shannon Estuary Ports Company. To use the singular "Port" would not be a true description of the area of jurisdiction and the number of harbour installations for which it has responsibility.
Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 34a:
In page 78, line 36, in the first column to delete "36 & 37" and substitute "32 & 33".
This merely corrects an error in the list of enactments repealed in the legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34b:
In page 78, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following row:
"
|
No. 2 (Private) of 1929 |
Dublin Port and Docks (Bridges) Act, 1929 |
The whole Act |
"
This amendment is to rectify an omission which was made in the list of enactments repealed in the Bill as drafted. The legislation being repealed by this amendment deals with the bridges and quay walls which are currently under the jurisdiction of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. These walls and bridges are being transferred to Dublin Corporation under this Bill, hence the need to repeal the old Act.
Amendment agreed.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 34c:
In page 79, paragraph 4 (b), line 41, to delete "North and South and East walls" and substitute "North Wall, the South Wall and the East Wall".
This is a rephrasing amendment which was put forward by the parliamentary draftsman. It has no impact on the provisions of the Third Schedule.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36c is cognate to amendment No. 34d. Both amendments will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 34d:
In page 80, paragraph 4, line 2, to delete "Bailey" and substitute "Baily". These two amendments arise from the fact that "Baily" is misspelt in the draft of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 80, lines 22 to 26, to delete paragraph 7 and substitute the following:
"7. Limits consisting of the Harbour Works and the land vested in Foynes Port Company from time to time together with the waters and foreshore of the sea and River Shannon lying within the boundaries of County of Limerick, between the meridans 90th5' West of Greenwich passing through the mouth of Robertstown River, and 9th12' West of Greenwich passing through the mouth of the White River at Loghill.".
I support Deputy Smith's amendment. The Minister stated during our first meeting that a mediator had been appointed. Foynes harbour has accepted the mediator. Have Limerick Harbour Commissioners accepted the mediator?
Yes. We will await the outcome of the mediator's work.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 80, to delete line 40 and substitute "Shannon Estuary Ports Company".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36a:
In page 81, paragraph 11 (b), line 1, to delete "Killotteran" and substitute "Killoteran"
This is a spelling correction in the name of Killoteran in the definition of the limits of Waterford harbour.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36b:
In page 81, paragraph 11 (b), line 2, to delete "Lickelstown" and substitute "Licketstown".
This is a spelling correction in the name of Licketstown in the definition of the limits of Waterford harbour.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36c:
In page 81, paragraph 15, line 35, to delete "Bailey" and substitute "Baily"
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 82, to delete line 6 and substitute "Shannon Estuary Ports Company".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 82, paragraph 20, line 17, to delete "Cranny" and substitute "Granny".
The amendment is to correct a typing error and to place the name "Granny" in the definition of the limits of the pilotage district of Waterford Harbour.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Third Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
On line 47, page 89, could the Minister explain what a "clows" is?
It has to do with dock gates.
What is a clows?
It has to do with the dock gates.
I do not want to put the Minister on the spot. If the Minister told me he did not know I would accept that, but I find it hard to accept it when the Minister tries to explain it by saying it is something to do with the dock gates. It puzzles members of my harbour authority and I assured them I would be able to discover what this was during the course of the discussion on the Bill because the people who wrote the Bill are in the Department of the Marine.
The best thing I can do for the Deputy is to supply him with a technical description.
I will accept that.
Perhaps the Minister could make that available for the information of all the Members.
In view of the fact that it is in the interests of the Galway Harbour Commissioners we should get in both languages not only a description but a translation.
I would agree with that.
Question put and agreed to.
Fourth and Fifth Schedules agreed to.
SIXTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 90, between lines 30 and 31, but in Part 1, to insert the following paragraph:
"43. Providing for anything the making of provision for which is, in the opinion of the company, necessary to enable it to comply with a direction given to it by the Minister under section 44.".
This amendment is an addition to the list of purposes for which by-laws may be made under section 42. It is a somewhat general provision which will enable port companies to make by-laws if they feel it necessary in order to comply with a ministerial direction of a general kind on the development of the harbour, the safety of ships, navigation and operations generally in harbours, the levels of harbour charges and any other matter affecting the function of that company.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 91, paragraph 52 (a), line 32, to delete "master or first mate" and substitute "the person in charge".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 91, paragraph 52 (a), line 34, to delete "master or first mate" and substitute "the person in charge".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41a.:
In page 91, paragraph 52, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subparagraph:
"(c) to pass an examination by a competent authority that they can adequately and safely communicate in, and understand, English, to such a degree as will not compromise the safety of operations within the Pilotage District.".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that people seeking a pilotage certificate exemption shall be able to communicate in a language that the people with whom they will be dealing will understand. The harbour master should be able to understand the pilot and communicate with him.
In readling this section, am I correct in saying that a person who brings a ship in regularly to a certain port might be entitled to a pilotage exemption for that port, and that the exemption could be granted to the master or skipper of a foreign vessel who may not have very good English? There is need for caution in such a situation so that pilot exemptions would not be granted to people who were not able to communicate adequately with the harbour master or whoever they contacted at the harbour prior to entry. Perhaps the Minister has something to say about that.
I support that because it is a common-sense approach. It is sensible from the point of view that if something is not understood it might cause safety problems.
The amendment is not necessary. Paragraph (b) empowers a port company to insert in pilotage by-laws, in relation to an application to a company for a renewal of a pilotage exemption certificate, such other requirements that the company deems appropriate. Paragraph 52 of the Sixth Schedule deals with by-laws on applications for renewals of pilotage exemption certificates. Presumably, before such a certificate is granted in the first instance a port company would have satisfied itself that the applicant was competent in English.
Paragraph 51 of the Sixth Schedule deals with by-laws on applications for the grant of pilotage exemption certificates. Perhaps Deputy Molloy intended the amendment to be inserted in this paragraph. Paragraph 51, as presently drafted, enables port companies to provide for this requirement in by-laws.
The port authorities have the competence to provide their own pilotage by-laws as of now, but the Minister is changing that. In this Bill the Minister is laying down all the ground rules for the operation of the pilotage service in future. In those circumstances it was considered appropriate that such a requirement should be made in order to avoid the extraordinary position arising where somebody with an exemption certificate comes in with a ship and the people on shore cannot understand what he is saying.
The section providing for pilot exemption certificates sets down a range of requirements that have to be met. Clearly, we have to allow, at least, for a very basic level of common-sense on the part of port companies. To suggest, as Deputy Molloy appears to be doing, that port companies would grant pilot exemption certificates — or would be tempted to do so — to people who would not be able to communicate with the harbour master is, quite frankly, a bit fanciful. There is adequate provision in both the section dealing with pilot exemption certificates, and in the Schedule, to provide for this and for this to be included in by-laws.
Is the amendment being pressed?
The Minister might be interested to know that I did not think this up. I have a communication here signed by every harbour master in the country requesting that this be written into the legislation. It is not just something which I thought might be useful to insert into the legislation. I examined all the submissions which were made to me. I did not agree with all of them but I tabled amendments to see if those which I thought were sensible could be implemented, and the Minister has been very receptive to many of them.
All the harbour masters — Captain Liston in Foynes, Captain Sheridan in Galway, Captain Cowman in Waterford, Captain Myler in Arklow, Captain Donnelly in Drogheda, Captain Farnham in Cork, Captain Coughlan in Limerick, Captain Foley in New Ross, Captain Gray in Dundalk and Captain Garvey in Wicklow — who have very heavy responsibilities under their terms of employment, thought it fit to request the inclusion of this provision in order to ensure that they will not be caught out in trying to communicate with somebody who cannot speak English.
In a way, that just confirms what I am saying. The pilotage by-laws and the granting of the pilot exemption certificates will be done by the port companies. It is quite clear, as Deputy Molloy said, that in virtually every one of the ports concerned the harbour masters are of the view that an ability to communicate on the part of the person controlling the vessel and the harbour master is a basic requirement. I do not see how one could end up with a pilot exemption certificate which does not make provision for that. This is something which will be done by the companies themselves. I cannot see the requirement to put this into the primary legislation, since it is a matter of very basic common sense.
In my area one will not get a house improvement grant unless one can speak Irish. Obviously, the harbour masters are concerned that the regulations should ensure that whoever qualifies for an exemption certificate should be competent in English. They have obviously experienced difficulties in communicating, particularly over ships' radios which can experience a great deal of interference in bad weather. It could be quite serious if there was an urgent matter and the person involved could not speak English.
The distance between us is so small that it is reasonable to ask for this amendment to be included. The Minister is speaking the same language as we are — we want to ensure that those involved can speak adequate English. I am sure that in 99.9 per cent of cases companies will ensure that the candidate speaks sufficient English but it is possible that one would slip through the net. It is reasonable to ask for it to be included.
I support what the Minister said. I would be surprised if a commercial company did not have the competence to determine whether a person could speak English.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 91, paragraph 57, line 50, to delete "whose master or first mate" and substitute ", the person acting in charge of which".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 92, paragraph 57, line 1, to delete "of the ship" and substitute "thereof,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 92, paragraph 57, line 11, to delete "master or first mate" and substitute "person in charge as aforesaid".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 93, paragraph 66 (b), lines 2 and 3, to delete "a master or first mate who is bona fide acting as master or first mate" and substitute "a person who is bona fide acting as the person in charge".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 93, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following paragraph:
75. Providing for anything the making of provision for which is, in the opinion of the company, necessary to enable it to comply with a direction given to it by the Minister under section 80.".
This amendment is an addition to the list of purposes for which pilotage by-laws may be made under section 71. It is a general provision which will enable port companies to make by-laws if they feel it necessary in order to comply with a ministerial direction of a general kind in relation to all aspects of pilotage. A similar amendment has been tabled in relation to normal harbour by-laws.
Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title of the Bill".
It has been suggested to me that while the Irish version of the Short Title of the Bill is the same version used in the 1946 Act, it may not be the correct translation of "harbour". The Short Title in Irish is An Bille Cuanta. It has been put to me that "cuan" means bay and "calafort" means harbour. I will have that looked at again before Report Stage in the interests of linguistic correctness.
Question put and agreed to.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
That Select Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Before we conclude, I wish to thank the Minister and his officials. It has been one of the most detailed considerations of a Bill on Committee Stage in many years. I particularly enjoyed chairing this session as a former member and chairman of a harbour authority. I thank the Opposition spokespersons and every Member who contributed to this very lengthy and exhaustive examination of this important Bill. History has been made, not alone in the Dáil but wherever there is a port. I also thank the staff who have been so helpful to me in piloting this Bill through Committee Stage.
Do you get an exemption certificate, chairman?
You will once this Bill is passed — you will be exempted from sitting on the harbour board. I join with you in thanking the staff and I thank you for the excellent way in which you piloted the Bill through Committee Stage. It is quit a long piece of legislation and many parts are quite technical and complex. I thank the Members for their contributions and for their co-operation in getting the Bill to this stage.
We have improved the Bill in the course of discussing it. Obviously, we will return to it again on Report Stage and there will be another debate on it in the Seanad. I thank the officers in Roinn na Mara for their invaluable work on the Bill and the preparation of briefing material in advance of the debate.
I thank the Chairman for the impartial manner in which he conducted these proceedings. I also thank the Chairman's support staff.
The Minister has shown himself to be quite flexible and a number of important changes have been made following suggestions from the Opposition as well as from the Minister. We have had access to many organisations and, being a landlocked TD, it has not been easy for me to become familiar with "pilotage" in other terms. I am particularly grateful to the Members of the House who have previous experience of serving on harbour authorities for the expertise they have brought to the debate. With the exception of one or two contributions, the debate has been a pleasant experience. We look forward to Report Stage when, perhaps, further changes will be made. At the end of the day we will have a Bill that will begin the process of not only giving commercial freedom to the ports but in augurating a new era for their development, prosperity and employment opportunities. We have tried to ensure that the staff, management and legal provisions will be sufficient to enable that to happen. On the final Stages we can add to the Bill if necessary to ensure that it is the best possible Bill we can provide.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made about the Chairman, the Minister's staff and the staff of the House. This Bill changes harbour boards, which were deemed in a way to be local authorities, and moves them into the semi-State commercial arena. I look forward to the day when a Bill is introduced to finally privatise these ports. We might see real prosperity and full employment then.
I have not been advised of our next business or of the legislation we will deal with next. I will ensure the committee is notified when the programme has been decided by the Whips. I wish the members a safe journey home.
The Select Committee adjourned at 2.50 p.m. sine die.