Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Clare Castle Pier Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig) (for Minister for Industry and Commerce)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This is a Bill which has been introduced in order to set right a certain anomaly which has arisen in connection with the membership of the Board of Trustees at present administering the affairs of the Clare Castle Pier. Under the Shannon Act of 1885 trustees were appointed to administer the affairs of this pier in accordance with the law. In 1931 it was discovered that the trustees who at present occupy the position were not appointed in a valid manner, because under the Act of 1885, five members must be present in order to form a quorum when a vacancy is being filled, whereas three members of the Board are quite sufficient to carry out the ordinary business. It appears that members were co-opted from time to time by a quorum consisting of only three members, while they were not rightfully entitled under the Act of 1885 to co-opt unless they had a quorum of five. It was found that of five trustees who occupied the position only one was apparently validly appointed. The purpose of the Bill is to validate such acts as the trustees may have carried out up to the passage of the Bill; to validate their position, to remove the existing trustees and to reappoint a full board of nine, consisting of the five who are at present on the Board, but four of whom, as I say, were invalidly appointed under the existing law, and the Minister proposes to nominate four others. The names of the nine trustees are given in the Schedule.

Mr. Dillon

Who are the Minister's nominees?

General Mulcahy

I understand that the legislation of 1931 that the Minister refers to deals with the period of office of these trustees and that this Bill is only intended to deal with the trustee position in the past, in so far as it was irregular, and in so far as the future is concerned, for a particular period of office.

Mr. Derrig

In reply to Deputy Dillon's question, the names of the trustees nominated by the Minister, in addition to those who already hold office, are Messrs. Stephen Honan, Thomas Vincent Honan, Seán Hayes and Dr. Moylan.

Mr. Minch

What is the function of these trustees?

Mr. Derrig

If the Deputy reads the Bill he will see that it has nothing to do with the function of the trustees. It is merely to set right a position which has arisen and which was not in accordance with the law. The position of the trustees was not legally sound and this Bill had to be introduced to regularise the matter. The function of the trustees has, I think, nothing to do with the Bill under consideration.

Mr. Dillon

Surely when the Minister is nominating four trustees it is relevant to inquire what he is appointing them to do.

General Mulcahy

This Bill, I understand, is simply to deal with a current period which will terminate according to the 1931 Act at a particular time, when the Minister will appoint others. The Bill makes no provision for any vacancies by death or any other changes. I presume that this simply deals with a current period running into the future, but if not, the structure I think is faulty.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There is evidently at the present moment a way in which these trustees can be appointed. The Minister is departing from that method of appointing them and has taken upon himself to appoint four new persons. I should like to know from the Minister what is the reason for departing from the present statutory method of appointing trustees and, secondly, I should like to put again to the Minister what Deputy Minch has put, what particular functions these persons that the House is now asked by legislation to ratify the appointment of have to carry out.

Mr. Derrig

The Order which is now being made with reference to the pier is similar to the Order which was originally made under the 1885 Act. The purpose of that Act was to empower the Commissioners of Public Works to commit, with the consent of the Treasury, any of the seven piers in the estuary of the River Shannon specified in the First Schedule to that enactment to a body of trustees or to a local authority. I take it that the trustees are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the piers and the carrying out of whatever statutory duties attach to their position under that Act. In reply to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, I am not aware that there has been any departure from the usual procedure in this matter. The trustees have always been appointed by order and I am not aware that there is any departure from the usual procedure in the proposal that the Minister should appoint nine persons. It happens that five of those persons have already been acting as trustees. I am not aware that there is, in fact, any departure from the usual method of appointing trustees in this case.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Am I to understand from the Minister that the practice always has been that the Minister appointed because, if that is so, I find it very difficult to reconcile that with the Minister's opening statement that the normal method of appointment was by co-option and that that method had broken down because what purported to be valid co-options had turned out to be invalid owing to an insufficient quorum for the purpose being present?

Mr. Derrig

The order appointing the trustees was, hitherto made, I understand, by the Commissioners of Public Works. It is now being made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and, to that extent, there is a departure but I do not think there is any other departure. I have not got the Act by me at the moment.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I am only trying to get information. I cannot quite fit in this question about co-option and how it could possibly have arisen if the appointments were always made by the Commissioners of Public Works.

Mr. Dillon

So far as I can see, this Bill falls under two heads (1) to validate what was done by persons who acted as trustees when their appointment as trustees was invalid and (2) their appointment was invalid because they had been elected to the board by a business quorum where the statute required an election quorum, the business quorum being three and the election quorum five. That seems to me to be perfectly all right. It is purely an indemnity Bill. The Minister then goes on, by statute, to dismiss the one genuine trustee, to declare the four invalid trustees are not trustees and to appoint these five gentlemen as statutory trustees and, to that number, to add four new trustees by statute. Apparently, when the Shannon Act of 1885 was passed, the Commissioners of Public Works had power to name de noro the statutory number of trustees. The Minister has not told us how many trustees were provided for.

Mr. Derrig

Nine.

Mr. Dillon

And the trustees allowed that number to fall to five?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

And they did not bother to co-opt?

Mr. Derrig

I am not in a position to state who is to blame as I do not know the exact period over which the events took place. All I know is that, in 1931, through the Department of Local Government and Public Health, we were advised that six persons claimed to be trustees and on investigation it was found that, apparently, only one person out of the six had been validly appointed although the order, when it was made in 1886, specifically mentioned nine persons and laid down that when a vacancy occurred the vacancy should be filled by a meeting at which a quorum of not less than five trustees should be present.

Mr. Dillon

The difficulty at the moment is that the original order vested in the Commissioners of Public Works the power to nominate nine persons but the board was to be kept full by co-options. This Bill names nine persons and the question is whether these persons are to be re-elected at regular intervals or whether they are trustees for life and whether the board will be kept full in future, under the supervision of the Department of Industry and Commerce, by co-option. Does this statutory appointment differ in any particular from the appointments under the Act of 1885?

Mr. Derrig

I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Dillon

We are somewhat in the dark as to what we are doing.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

So far as I understand from the Minister, the position was this: That the Commissioners of Public Works appointed, to begin with, nine persons; as they fell out others were to be co-opted, while now there are as a matter of fact five persons, one of whom is correctly a trustee, the other four having been improperly co-opted. Would not the ordinary course for the Minister to adopt be to validate the co-option of those four, who together with the one who is correctly there would make up a valid quorum and could co-opt, if they liked, another four? That would be the ordinary course. It would be an ordinary Bill of indemnity which we would expect, I think, to see adopted. Why has the Minister departed from that? Why is he now, under this statute, taking for the time being the power to nominate four himself instead of validating the improper co-option of those gentlemen who were improperly co-opted and enabling them for the future to act legally and to co-opt fellow trustees?

Mr. Derrig

I dare say there are several ways by which one can accomplish the same effect but this Bill is the result of the advice of the advisers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I take it that they consider that the proposals in the Bill are the best and the quickest way to remedy the situation.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That may be so. I have not the slightest doubt that the advisers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce—they are gentlemen of very considerable ability——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is the Second Stage of the Bill. Does that convey anything to the Deputy?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It conveys this much to me that I should like to know something about it; even on the Second Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already made two or three contributions to the debate, but I am not stopping him.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That is correct. Pardon me.

Mr. Minch

If this House is to give sanction to certain appointments, surely it is perfectly pertinent to ask what these appointments are; what the duties attaching to them are; how often the persons appointed are to meet and what exactly the trust is for. I have asked those questions and I have not got an answer.

Mr. Cosgrave

Even though the Minister's advisers may have recommended the adoption of this course, we are faced with the problem that, as soon as the number of trustees goes below nine again we will be in the same position. Bills such as this ought not to be brought continually before Parliament. Either the Minister ought to have power to make nominations in certain cases, or to validate certain Acts in other cases. No adviser, I think, would question the wisdom of having some such clause as would cover that in a measure of this kind. We have nine recommendations. I presume they are all right. I do not know that I know any of them, but they are placed in very extraordinary order. They are not alphabetical and some of the additions are not where they would be in the ordinary course. The whole Bill seems to me to be rather hastily considered and I would suggest to the Minister the advisability of amending it on Report Stage so as to provide power to deal with a situation of this sort if it should arise again, without having to come to Parliament to validate certain Acts or, alternatively, leaving people in a position to question these Acts outside. All this machinery of Government ought to be so arranged that it should not be necessary to bring Indemnity Acts into Parliament and that it should not be necessary, for the purpose of appointing nine trustees to a Board for a small place such as this, to take up the time of Parliament. That could be obviated by the inclusion of such a clause as I suggest.

Mr. Derrig

The position arose during the Deputy's administration and it was not regularised until now, although it has been about two years under consideration. I cannot agree with him that, if a similar situation arises in the future, the Department concerned will have cognisance of it in advance, and will be able to take the ordinary steps to see that a vacancy is filled in the proper way.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister, then, has had 18 months to consider it.

Mr. Dillon

We are trying to extract information from the Minister. I would like to ask him——

Mr. Derrig

I submit that the Deputy is out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Technically he is, but inasmuch as there have been no set speeches on this Bill but rather questions and interrogations, I will allow the Deputy to put his question.

Mr. Dillon

What I want to know is this: Is the Minister in a position to give the House any explanation of this departure in naming by statute certain gentlemen to be members of this Board under an Indemnity Act? All the Minister had to do was to indemnify before the pseudo-trustees, and then validate the appointment of these gentlemen, whereupon those four gentlemen, acting as valid trustees, could have filled the Board in accordance with the original statute. If that had been done the necessity for this schedule would have disappeared. That would seem to me to have been the more regular way to have gone about this business. The Minister does not seem to know why that was not done. All that he does know is that his advisers, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, told him to do something, but that is not a satisfactory case to make to the House. There ought to be some explanation, I think, given to the House as to why there is this departure. Deputy Minch asked what the trustees do. Apparently the trustees, as defined in Section 1, are required to maintain Clare Castle Pier, in the County Clare, but whether they are entitled to levy tolls on that pier, or to impose charges, we do not know. What I object to is the naming of these nine gentlemen by statute, when it is quite unnecessary, and of trying to get from the Dáil an expression of approval——

Mr. Derrig

Is this a speech or a question?

Mr. Dillon

——of certain gentlemen. I think that is a mistaken course to pursue. I think the Minister would have been much better advised to redraft his Bill for another stage, or even to withdraw this Bill, and give us another Clare Castle Pier Bill (No. 2).

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4th July, 1933.