Harbours Bill, 1945—Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 38.
I move amendment No. 74:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
A harbour authority in lieu of appointing a person to be a collector of rates for their harbour may appoint the secretary to be in addition a collector of rates.
The point I want to make is that it should be optional for the harbour authority to appoint either the secretary or the harbour master as collector of dues. The harbour master will usually be very fully occupied looking after the work of the port, the maintenance of the machinery and the staff, and if it is at all conceivable that he could not also carry on the duty of collector of dues, then it would be more reasonable that the secretary would be able to do it. The section, as it stands, would prohibit that being done. The amendment will enable the harbour authority to appoint the secretary as the collector of dues rather than the harbour master, if they want to do so.
I think the point is met by the amendment I am moving to Section 41—amendment No. 86. It provides for the amalgamation of offices in a form similar to a corresponding provision in the local government legislation.
Suppose the two offices are vacant at the same time?
I will withdraw the amendment and in the meantime I will see if the Minister's proposal meets the situation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the position of one harbour in County Cork.
The Deputy will have to wait until the section dealing with harbours is reached.
I think it would come under this section, because it deals with the position of officials who are not being paid.
When we come to the section we shall see about that. We will deal with the amendments first.
I move amendment No. 75:—
In sub-section (4), line 30, to insert before the words "shall apply" the words "other than sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 and Section 11 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926)".
This amendment arises from discussions with the Local Appointments Commission. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the 1926 Act empower the Local Appointments Commission to fix the qualifications for offices to be filled. These powers were found to be inadequate and these sub-sections were repealed by the Local Government Act of 1941, which gave the Minister for Local Government power to fix the qualifications for local authority offices. We are following the same procedure here and are proposing that these sections of the Act of 1926 will not apply.
Another amendment will propose that we give to the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to fix the qualifications for harbour offices to be filled by the Local Appointments Commission —powers similar to those given to the Minister for Local Government in the Local Government Act of 1941. The other change effected here—that is, the non-application of Section 11—is proposed because that section is not relevant to the suspension of harbour officers.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 76:—
In sub-section (6), to delete in line 42 the words "a fee of such amount" and substitute the words. "such amount in respect of the expenses incurred by the Local Appointments Commissioners in performing such function", to delete in line 43 the words, "after consultation with the Minister," and to delete in line 44 the word "fee" and substitute the word "amount".
This change is also suggested by the Local Appointments Commission. It was felt the use of the word "fee" might cause ambiguity. Fees are paid by candidates and it is proposed to provide that the harbour authority will pay such amount in respect of expenses incurred by the Local Appointments Commission as may be required.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 38, as amended, be agreed to."
The point I wish to bring to the Minister's notice concerns one harbour in County Cork. There are four harbours in Cork that come under the Bill—Youghal, Cork, Kinsale and Baltimore-Skibbereen. It is to the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour that I would like to call the attention of the Minister. The Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Board was formed about 1884 and it was functioning until recent years. As far as I can learn, it has not been functioning for some time. I have been informed by the chairman of the urban council in Skibbereen that that body got no notification to attend any meeting.
The position there is that there was one man doing the duty of harbour master and lightkeeper. The position of lightkeeper at the lighthouse at Sherkin Island is a very important one. The harbour master has not been paid his salary in recent years. He had to give up the position of harbour master because he was unable to do the work without payment, but he is still in charge of the lighthouse. He informs me that his salary was £52 a year for the two positions. The finances of the board got bad and that amount was reduced to £32. For 5½ years he has received about £46 for managing the lighthouse. This man lives in Sherkin Island and he is not in very comfortable circumstances, but he is still carrying on his duty as lightkeeper.
I would like the Minister to take into consideration that this is not covered by the Bill—the position of such men —and I would also like to call attention to the fact, although it might not come under this section, that there are other harbours, such as Castletown, Berehaven and Bantry, that do not come under the Bill. There are people deeply interested in these harbours, and if these people make application later, as the Minister has power to bring them under the Bill, I trust that he will give due consideration to their request. I would like him to give special consideration to the position of the lightkeeper on Sherkin Island, who has not been paid by the harbour board for a number of years.
That is the responsibility of the harbour board.
I have no power to give them any funds.
Is the Minister quite clear that this amendment meets the possibility of certain harbour boards having to apply for men in a technical capacity through the Local Appointments Commission—men who were never intended to be appointed in that manner?
It is intended that technical positions will be filled by the Local Appointments Commission.
Some people felt there was a danger that men described as being employed in technical capacities, such as boilermakers, fitters and so on, might come under the Local Government Act of 1926.
This applies only to established officers.
This Ministerial amendment makes the position quite clear?
In connection with the section, there are many junior officers of Class A harbour boards who went into the service of these boards expecting to receive, after a certain number of years, if they proved satisfactory, a certain amount of promotion.
That is provided for also. A harbour authority can fill any vacancy by promotion. It is only when it fails to fill a vacancy by promotion within three months——
The position has been completely cleared up by this section?
Can the Minister say whether the new harbour boards to be formed under this Bill will take over the responsibilities of the old boards?
I want to be quite clear on this point as to the filling of vacancies, and——
It is quite clear that a harbour board can fill any vacancy, other than the position of general manager, of course, by promotion, provided it does so within three months.
In the same way as a local authority?
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 77:—
To delete the words "and Secretary" in lines 51, 52 and 55, page 23, and in lines 1 and 7, page 24.
I mentioned this amendment earlier when moving another amendment consequential on it. The Harbours Tribunal recommended that each of the four principal harbours should have a general manager and secretary. The Dublin Ports and Docks Board are anxious to have a general manager and a secretary and it is not proposed to make it obligatory upon these harbours to have one officer filling both posts. They may have one officer filling the posts, but they may, if they wish, have two officers, one for each post. This amendment is designed to give effect to that.
The position is that the existing secretary of the Dublin board remains secretary?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 78:—
Before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The general manager of a harbour shall be the chief executive officer of the harbour authority for the harbour.
This is consequential on the change in the title.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:—
To delete sub-section (4) in page 24 and substitute therefor the following:—
(4) The general manager and secretary of a harbour shall, subject to confirmation by the harbour authority, have sole power to engage, suspend and discharge employees (other than officers) of the harbour authority for the harbour to whose appointment the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Acts, 1926 and 1940, as applied by this Act, do not apply but it shall always be competent for the general manager and secretary to delegate in any particular case the powers conferred upon him by this sub-section to the appropriate officer serving under him.
I referred on Second Reading to the position regarding the powers of the general manager, and I think we have evidence of a rather keen desire on the part of the Minister, during the discussion on this Bill, to ensure that the Bill will be strictly in line with local government. I suggest, however, that, in the case of a harbour authority, there is not a line ball position with an ordinary public authority, as, for instance, a county council or a borough council, so far as the position of the manager is concerned.
Here you have the nearest approach to what I might call a private undertaking. In the case of the Dublin Port Board, which manages its business in its own way, so far as staff are concerned, I know of no friction which has ever arisen between the board and its main officers in the matter of staff, and I think I would be correct in saying that the members of the board who have experience of this matter would resent any suggestion, even by implication, that complete powers were to be placed in the hands of the manager in the matter of staff. I know the Minister will refer me to an earlier section regarding the overriding authority of the board so far as the manager is concerned, but the section is very wide in that it gives the manager power to engage, suspend and dismiss and contains no reference to the overriding authority of the harbour board itself.
I understand also that the committee of the port board which dealt with this matter requested that powers might be delegated by the manager to other officers. There are three main undertakings within the jurisdiction of the Dublin Port Board: the engineer's department, the harbour master's department and the warehouses department. Obviously, it would be quite proper to ensure that the existing regulations regarding employment should continue, that is, that these separate officers should have power in the normal way to continue in the matter of employing staff, suspending staff, where necessary, and so on, and that that power should be delegated within the section in the manner I have indicated.
I want to make it clear to the Minister that what I am aiming at is ensuring that the manager of a port authority will not be a dictator within the board so far as staff are concerned. I stress again that it has worked smoothly. The board have never interfered with their main officials regarding employment or anything else, and I have no doubt that even with the manager that state of affairs will continue, but it is eminently desirable, and in fact absolutely democratic, that the overriding authority in the matter of staff should still be the board.
I ask the Deputy to remember that we cannot just frame this Bill, which is to lay down the law for all harbours, exclusively on the basis of the experience of the Dublin port authority. The Dublin port authority established certain practices in relation to the recruitment of staff which were very commendable, but in which I think they were alone. Certainly, in the case of a number of other port authorities different practices were followed, practices which were much more open to question than those followed in Dublin. I would not be prepared to agree to modify in any way the responsibility which it is proposed to give to the general manager of these Class A ports in respect of the engagement and suspension of employees, other than the executive officers who are to be appointed through the Local Appointments Commission. I think an intelligent manager will discharge this function in agreement with his board, but the ultimate legal responsibility for the recruitment of staff and the management of staff must rest upon the general manager.
I should like to consider further the Deputy's suggestion concerning the power of delegation. I do not see that there need be any objection in principle to empowering the manager to delegate his power to subordinate officers. I should not like to create a situation in which the subordinate officers could act independently of him. It is clear that the responsibility must be the manager's, and that, if he delegates it, he does so, knowing that he is delegating not merely the power but also the responsibility. In the case of a port like Dublin, however, I can appreciate that it might be an administrative convenience to have that power rather than to have a situation in which the manager had inevitably to act himself and could not authorise anyone else to act on his behalf. If the Deputy will leave that part over, I am prepared to consider whether we could frame an amendment for Report Stage which would provide for the delegation by the manager of this power, but I would not like to accept any words which would imply that the responsibility of the manager in relation to the recruitment of subordinate staff is not absolute or would be in any way subject to the overriding authority of the board.
Very well. I may possibly be able to get the Minister to agree with the interpretation of sub-section (3) regarding the question of the general manager, that is, that the overriding authority is still the port authority. However, we can discuss that again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 80:—
Before sub-section (5), page 24, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) the general manager of a harbour shall have the right to attend meetings of the harbour authority for the harbour and to take part in the discussions at such meetings as if he were a member of the harbour authority, but he shall not be entitled to vote on any question which is to be decided by a vote of the members of the harbour authority.
This is also consequential on the change in the title of general manager.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 81:—
To delete sub-section (5) and substitute the following new sub-sections:—
(5) The general manager of a harbour may suspend any officer of the harbour authority of the harbour, but any such suspension may be determined by the harbour authority.
(6) The harbour authority of a harbour may suspend or, with the sanction of the Minister, remove the general manager of the harbour, but no such suspension or removal shall be effected save by a resolution passed by the harbour authority for the purpose of such removal or suspension (as the case may be) and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of the harbour authority voted and which was so passed after not less than seven days' notice of the intention to propose the resolution had been given by post to every member of the harbour authority.
This amendment gives the general manager power to suspend an officer of a harbour authority subject to this, that the harbour authority is given power to terminate the suspension. The officer might be guilty of a misdemeanour, but the amendment makes it clear that the harbour authority will have the final decision in the matter. The amendment also provides for the redrafting of the sub-section in regard to the removal or suspension of the general manager by the board.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 39, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On the section I want to say that, as is known, the Dublin Port and Docks Board is proceeding in a voluntary way to secure for itself a general manager and is utilising the Local Appointments Commission. It may be that the actual appointment of the manager through the Local Appointments Commission will not take place before this Bill becomes law. If that should appear likely I may have to propose an amendment to this section on the Report Stage. I want to give notice of that now. I will also propose an amendment to provide for the suspension of officers in respect of Class B ports. The provision in the Bill relates only to officers of Class A ports, so that there will have to be some provision made in relation to the suspension of officers of Class B ports.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 40.
I move amendment No. 82:—
In sub-section (1), to insert in line 17 before the word "shall" the words "the harbour authority for which is mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act" and to delete in line 18 the words "for the harbour".
This is also consequential on the change in the title of the general manager.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 83:—
In sub-section (2), to insert in line 19, before the word "shall", the words "the harbour authority for which is mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act" and to delete in line 20 the words "for the harbour".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 84:—
Before Section 41 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may declare a qualification of any of the following classes or descriptions to be a qualification for a specified office under a harbour authority or for such of the offices under harbour authorities as belong to a specified class, description or grade, that is to say:—
(a) qualifications relating to character,
(b) qualifications relating to age, health, or physical characteristics,
(c) qualifications relating to education, training or experience,
(d) qualifications relating to residence,
(e) qualifications relating to sex,
(f) the qualification that any woman holding the office in question be either unmarried or a widow.
(2) The Minister shall not declare under this section that any qualification relating to sex is a qualification for any office unless he is of opinion that the duties of the office so require.
(3) Before declaring under this section that any qualification is a qualification for any office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Acts, 1926 and 1940, as applied by this Act, apply, the Minister shall consult with the Local Appointments Commissioners.
(4) Every reference in the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926), as applied by this Act, to the qualifications prescribed under that Act shall be construed in relation to every office under a harbour authority as a reference to the qualifications (if any) for the time being declared under this section to be the qualifications for such office.
(5) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6) of this section, no person shall be appointed to any office for which any qualifications are for the time being declared under this section to be the qualifications unless he possesses those qualifications.
(6) Whenever it is necessary to fill immediately any office for which any qualifications are for the time being declared under this section to be the qualifications, and no suitable person possessing such qualifications is available for appointment, the Minister may, on the application of the harbour authority concerned, authorise an appointment, limited as to its duration to a specified period, to be made to the office without reference to such qualifications and thereupon such appointment may be so made.
(7) A person appointed to any office in pursuance of an authorisation under sub-section (6) of this section shall (unless for any reason he has previously ceased to hold office) cease to hold office on the occurrence of whichever of the following events first occurs:—
(a) the expiration of the period specified in that behalf in the authorisation,
(b) the appointment to the office of a person possessing the qualifications for the time being declared under this section to be the qualifications for the office.
(8) For the purposes of this section, the fact that a person has been recommended by the Local Appointments Commissioners for appointment to any office shall be conclusive evidence that he possessed at the time of the recommendation the qualifications (if any) for the time being declared under this section to be the qualifications for the office.
(9) The Local Appointments Commissioners shall, before recommending a person to a harbour authority for appointment to any office, satisfy themselves that such person possesses the requisite knowledge and ability for the proper discharge of the duties of the office.
This is the section which enables the Minister to declare the qualifications which must be held by candidates applying for various offices under the harbour authority. Under the original Act establishing the Local Appointments Commission there was a local appointments commissioner given the power to prescribe qualifications. That was found in practice to be unsatisfactory, and under the local government code the relevant sections to the 1926 Act were repealed and that power was given to the Minister for Local Government. We are adopting a similar procedure in relation to harbour boards.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 85:—
Before Section 41 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) A harbour authority may, with the sanction of the Minister, remove any officer in their service.
(2) This section shall not apply in respect of the general manager of a harbour.
This is the section which provides for the sanction of the Minister before a harbour authority may remove an officer in their service. The powers to employ and remove officers derived in the case of most harbours from the Commissioners Clauses Act of 1847 which was incorporated in the Acts and Orders relating to harbours. That section gave power to employ and dismiss officers. In the case of officers employed by these harbour boards they will now have the added protection of this clause. The harbour board can vote for the removal of an officer, but their decision in that regard will not become effective until the sanction of the Minister has been secured.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 86:—
Before Section 41, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where the Minister is of opinion that any particular offices under a harbour authority should be amalgamated, he may, subject to the provisions of this section and after consultation with the harbour authority, by Order amalgamate the offices, and thereupon the offices shall be deemed for all purposes to be one office under such title (if any) as is specified in the Order.
(2) Offices shall not be amalgamated under this section unless—
(a) each of the offices is vacant, or
(b) each of the offices is held by the same person, or
(c) one only of the offices being not vacant, the holder thereof consents to the making of the Order, or
(d) in any other case, the same person holds each of such of the offices as are not vacant and such person consents to the making of the Order.
(3) An Order under this section amalgamating any offices may adapt any reference in this Act to any office under a harbour authority in such manner as the Minister considers necessary having regard to such amalgamation.
(4) The Minister may by Order revoke or amend an Order previously made by him under this section.
This is the amendment to which I referred when dealing with an amendment of Deputy Mulcahy's. It provides power to amalgamate offices and officers in the service of harbour authorities in certain eventualities.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 41.
I move amendment No. 87:—
In sub-section (1), line 35, to delete the words "and secretary".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 88:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(2) Where a person was, immediately before the passing of this Act, secretary of a harbour the harbour authority for which is mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act—
(a) such person shall continue to hold that office after the passing of this Act,
(b) in the case of Limerick harbour, the following provisions shall have effect until such person ceases for any reason to hold that office:
(i) the office of general manager of Limerick harbour shall be deemed not to be created,
(ii) the references in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 39 and Sections 164, 165 and 166 of this Act to the general manager of a harbour shall include a reference to such person.
This amendment is designed to continue in office the present secretary of the Dublin Port and Docks Board by clause (a), and clause (b) provides for the continuing in office of the present secretary of the Limerick Harbour Board who will retire shortly on age grounds, at which time a general manager will replace him. While he continues in office he will be chief executive officer of the harbour.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 89:—
In sub-section (1), line 8, to delete the words "and passengers".
This section makes it mandatory on harbour authorities to provide facilities and accommodation for passengers as well as for vessels and goods. It might be a very expensive thing, in the case of the Dublin Port Board if it were made mandatory on it, to provide accommodation and facilities for passengers. If the board had to undertake that risk it might prove to be very expensive. In the past that has been done in the ordinary way by the companies who are making big money out of the traffic.
The ultimate responsibility for providing facilities for passengers would rest on the harbour authorities. It may be that the transport companies will ultimately provide facilities in order to attract business to themselves, but even in the case of Dublin I would not agree that the facilities provided are adequate. There certainly have been many complaints in regard to the facilities provided for migratory labourers. It was frequently found that they had to wait for long periods in order to get transport. I would not agree to the amendment, because I think that in Dublin and elsewhere the ultimate responsibility for providing facilities for passengers should be on the harbour authority.
I agree with the Minister that the accommodation for passengers in Dublin is not all that it might be, but I do not think that the primary responsibility rests with the port board. You might have a situation arising in which one of the big companies making a great deal of money out of passenger traffic would refuse to supply adequate accommodation for passengers. In that case the port board through its refusal under this section might be forced by law to spend a great deal of money which really should be spent by the shipping companies.
We cannot put the responsibility on the shipping companies. We must put the responsibility on someone, and obviously the right one to put the responsibility on is the harbour board. If proper facilities are provided there will be no complaints, and if there are not, then it is the responsibility of the board to see that they are there.
Will the harbour board have power to recoup itself?
Yes. It may make a charge which is considered appropriate and which the Minister is prepared to sanction.
Of course a situation might arise where it would be very difficult for the board to recoup itself.
I think the Minister is quite right in insisting on harbour boards providing whatever facilities are necessary. We have had the experience of shipping companies providing facilities for cattle and not for human beings. Deputy Coburn referred to it yesterday. By allowing such property to pass out of their hands they will be parting with rights which eventually will be found very essential for the control of harbours. For these reasons, I thinks the Minister is doing the proper thing in throwing the onus on the harbour boards to provide all facilities necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 89 (a):—
To add at the end of the section the following sub-section:—
(3) A harbour authority may make such charges as they consider proper for the use of any facility or accommodation provided by them under this section for passengers.
This amendment is really to remove doubts. The Dublin Port and Docks Board suggested that the Bill should contain a specific provision enabling the harbour authorities to charge for facilities for passengers and this section makes it clear that they will have ample powers in that regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, and Section 43 agreed to.
SECTION 44.
I think Deputy O'Sullivan will agree that amendment No. 90 is met by amendment No. 92a.
Yes, but I wanted to say something about it.
We will take it as not moved and the Deputy may then say what he has to say on the matter.
The only point is that I think the words would be better in Section 44 rather than in Section 45 because, in Section 44, at the point I have indicated, there is an enumeration of services which would obviously include those which I have mentioned. It is a matter of opinion but it would appear to me that the words would fit in better in Section 44 rather than before Section 45, which deals with a definite specific service.
It is, yes. It is only a matter of opinion.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.
I move amendment No. 91:—
To delete sub-sections (2) to (5) and substitute the following sub-sections:—
(2) A harbour authority may make such charges for the use of anything provided by them under this section as, with the consent of the Minister, they may fix from time to time.
(3) Where a harbour authority were, immediately before the passing of this Act, making charges authorised by law for the use of anything mentioned in sub-section (1) of this section, such charges shall be regarded for the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section as having been duly fixed under that sub-section.
(4) A harbour authority may let out for hire anything provided by them under this section for any period not exceeding three years on such terms as they think proper.
There are a number of changes being made here. The amendment deletes the first paragraph of sub-section (2) of the original draft and this new sub-section is substituted. It was thought that charges for the use of appliances and machinery referred to in sub-section (1) would be included under service rates which are regulated under Section 103. On reconsideration, however, it appeared that that was not the case. The amended section provides for the consent of the Minister to the rates as fixed from time to time. The deletion of sub-sections (3) to (5) of the original section is merely a drafting change. These are being inserted in another part of the Bill, where they are deemed to be more appropriate. The new sub-section (3) provides that statutory charges for appliances, machinery and the like, are to be deemed to have been fixed under the section. They can, of course, be altered from time to time with the Minister's consent. The new sub-section (4) is introduced to meet a point raised by the Cork Harbour Commissioners. They pointed out that the lease of a transporter crane for a period of years might conflict with the provisions of Section 91 which provide that facilities shall be available equally to all persons on paying the appropriate rates. The section permits of the lease of these facilities by a harbour board for a period not exceeding three years.
Amendment agreed to.
I should like to move amendment No. 92 in the name of Deputy Browne:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) A harbour authority may let on hire or by charter any part of its equipment or plant whether inside or outside the limits of its harbour area and may make such charges as they think proper for the use of any equipment or plant so let on hire or by charter.
It is covered by another amendment.
The point in the amendment is that there are harbours, say, like Ballina, which had equipment and that might require to lend them to neighbouring harbours and that they ought to be allowed to have facilities to do that.
The amendment which I have moved seems to me to cover it, by allowing them to lease facilities for a period not exceeding three years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
I move amendment No. 92a:—
Before Section 45 to insert a new section as follows:—
A harbour authority may provide for or in connection with their harbour all or any of the following:—
(a) transit sheds,
(b) transhipment sheds,
(c) silos,
(d) fire-fighting equipment.
I do not know if Deputy O'Sullivan appreciates that I am not putting this in in Section 45; I am putting it in as a new section. It merely has to appear in that form for the purpose of Dáil procedure.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46.
I move amendment No. 93, in the name of Deputy Larkin:—
Before Section 46 to insert the following new section:—
A harbour authority may provide and operate service vehicles for the conveyance of workmen and other persons lawfully having recourse to the place at which ships are discharged, to transit sheds, to customs posts or offices or to any vessel loading or discharging cargo within the precincts of the port under the management or control of such harbour authority.
I think the point that Deputy Larkin had in mind here was the necessity of having a bus service along the quays to facilitate a number of people of a good many descriptions who would be using the port and docks, etc., as, for instance, the workmen engaged in the port service and all other services along the quays and a number of individuals who would be using the Custom House docks, and merchants generally. I think the Minister, who knows the district pretty well so far as the Port of Dublin is concerned, knows that it is a rather inaccessible place from the point of view of general business. The service that is in operation would not appear to be all that could be desired or to fulfil the need. I understand that the amendment is based on the fact that a service of this character is in operation on the other side, particularly in the Port of London, which actually gives free transport from the head of the city down to the docks. The Minister does provide, in another section, for an arrangement with carrying companies where services can be entered into but the point that Deputy Larkin had in mind was that the port authority itself should have the power, if it so desired, and if it felt it necessary, to initiate transport services for the purpose I have indicated.
I would not agree that the port authority should have the power. Perhaps it is not fully appreciated that in so far as a public transport service is required there is power to require Córas Iompair Éireann to provide it. We are talking now about normal circumstances, when there is no difficulty about vehicles, buses or anything else and new services can be conceived. In such circumstances, if a public transport service is required in the dock area and Córas Iompair Éireann do not provide it as an ordinary development of their own business they can be required to do it. If there is a desire to have a special arrangement with them for the provision of vehicles in which the employees of the board would travel free of charge, that can also be entered into. I do not say we would sanction it now but that is merely because of temporary difficulties created by the scarcity of vehicles and equipment. But in normal circumstances that could be arranged. There might, of course, be a problem in getting the assent of the Gárda Síochána to the operation of a public transport service in the dock area on grounds of safety but that matter could be considered if and when such services became practicable. Certainly, the Guards would, I am sure, insist upon certain rather rigid rules to ensure that there would be no undue risk to passengers in these services travelling through dock areas. However, I suggest that the proper way of ensuring that such a service is provided is by using the public transport companies and there is adequate power to ensure that if they do not provide that service as an extension of their business, they can be required to do it. In so far as the port and docks board may desire to provide special facilities for their own employees then they are empowered to do it. So that this section is not really necessary except it is desired for some special reason that this service, if provided at all, should be provided by the Port and Docks Board. I do not think it should be provided by the board. I think it can be provided much more efficiently and much more satisfactorily by the public transport company.
Am I clear that if in certain circumstances a port authority did decide to have a transport service, if they desired to give free service to their employees, they would have the power to do so?
Yes, they have the power to do so. I want to make it clear that at the present time I, exercising emergency controls, would not approve of new transport facilities that did not exist previously until existing facilities are brought up to normal.
We are speaking of normal services.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 46 stand part of the Bill."
Might I draw the attention of the Minister to the point that in Section 46 power is given to issue licences to the owners of vehicles? I think that the committee of the corporation dealing with these amendments made representations to the Minister on the question of the ferry service which it operates on the docks and expressed the desire that the Minister might incorporate in the Bill machinery by which the ferry boat system would be transferred to the port authority. I would be glad to know if the Minister has considered that point and if he would provide the necessary machinery for the transfer of that ferry boat system. I want to be fair to the Minister and to say that it is not exactly taking over a concern that is paying tremendous dividends.
I am not clear why it should be considered that the provision of a ferry service connecting two city thoroughfares should be the function of a harbour board. I think the framers of the original charter were right in giving that power to the Dublin Corporation. It seems to me to be the normal function of the corporation.
Certainly, I have not been convinced that it is good policy to transfer the service or the power to run that service from the corporation to the harbour board. It is, however, such a trivial matter, that if the corporation feel keen about it I would be prepared to meet them. Ordinarily, I would say it is more a function for the corporation than for the harbour board.
The point is that the necessity for the ferry service is due to the surroundings, namely, the docks. All the people operating there are in the dock area and under the jurisdiction at least of the port authority. Therefore, it would appear to me to be correctly related to the port authority.
It might be more convenient to have it operated by the port authority, but the provision of a service of that kind in any city is, I think, the responsibility of the city authority. However, this particular service is not so important that we need argue about it. If the corporation feel strongly about it, I would be prepared to provide some section to enable the corporation to get rid of it.
It is a tremendously important service from the point of view of the business people.
What I meant was that the best administrative arrangement can be adopted, whatever principle may be involved.
The harbour authority may feel more comfortable in handling a boat than the corporation.
My feeling is that it is important for the citizens that there should be a service in the absence of a bridge and, because of its importance to the citizens, it is the responsibility of the city authority to see that it is provided. It is not important to the harbour authority. It may be for the time being, or incidentally, but I can conceive circumstances in which the harbour authorities would stop the service because it is of no interest to them.
I take it they will get a guarantee from the harbour authorities that they will continue the service?
Until the transporter bridge is built.
I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan. I should like to point out to the Minister that this service is not a very profitable one, in fact, it is run at a loss. Now that the corporation has lost the anchorage and the various other ancient rights which it had got, it is rather hard to take the assets from the corporation and leave them the ferry, which is a complete liability. Now that the corporation will have very little rights and, I think, still less duties in the port area, I think it would be an act of justice to remove the running of the ferry from the corporation, always provided that it will be kept running.
That is precisely the point. Whereas I think the city authority could be required to provide a facility of that kind for the citizens, the port board could at some stage say that it is not of interest to the management of the port.
That would be disastrous. I could not sponsor that.
However, I will look into the matter.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 47.
I move amendment No. 94:—
In line 8, to add after the word "structures" the words "and any equipment, appliances, machinery and conveniences suitable therefor".
This amendment is made on the representation of the Dublin Port and Docks Board who feared that the provisions in the section as originally drafted were not sufficiently wide to cover all their warehouse activities.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 48.
I move amendment No. 95:—
In sub-section (1), line 13, to add after the word "vessels" the words "and may make any such appropriation either gratuitously or in consideration of the payment to them of such charges as they consider reasonable".
This amendment is also made on the representation of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The Parliamentary draftsman thought that such appropriations would be made under lease, but the board's representatives explained that sheds, etc., were not the subject of a lease and the draftsman decided that an amendment was necessary to ensure that the harbour authority might charge for space, in addition to charging for the facilities provided.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95a:—
In sub-section (2), page 26, line 20, to delete the word "request", and substitute the words "request and the circumstances of the appropriation,".
The Dublin Port and Docks Board also called attention to the fact that some appropriations made by the board were made to companies in part consideration of these companies having given to the board, free of charge, land for the widening of quays, and the amendment requires the Minister to take into consideration the circumstances of the appropriation in connection with any request to have it terminated.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 49.
I move amendment No. 96:—
Before Section 49 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act it shall be lawful for the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners to purchase, take, use, or otherwise interfere with the quay, wharf or lands in occupation of the Dundalk and Newry Steam Packet Company, Limited, and known as the Dundalk Steam Packet Quay, with or without the consent of the said company, provided however that where the said company is aggrieved thereby it may appeal to the Minister who may order that such interference shall cease or alternately make arrangements for the compensation of the company.
(2) The Dundalk and Newry Steam Packet Company shall not sell or dispose of the said steam packet quay, wharf or lands to any person or corporation other than the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners without the consent of the said commissioners.
I thought it well to introduce this amendment immediately before Section 49. Section 48 of the present Bill enables harbour authorities, if they so desire, to appropriate any part of their harbour, including any dock pier, etc. In the Dundalk Harbour and Port Act, 1925, Section 32 gave to the B. and I. Company the right solely to occupy the berth known as the Dundalk and Newry Steampacket berth and quay, with a provision attached to it that they could not sell or dispose of these premises without first acquainting the Dundalk Harbour Board and giving the harbour board the option of purchasing these quays and premises, if they so desire. The harbour board is very much interested in the trade of the port in so far as it has been carried on by the Dundalk and Newry Steampacket Company, which is really at the moment the B. and I. Company. Notwithstanding this section and its implications that they could not sell or dispose of the premises, some years ago they got round that by a simple transfer of shares. The harbour board feel that they should have the right to acquire these premises for various reasons, the principal reason being that, for some years past, the B. and I. Company, for reasons best known to themselves, have allowed, so far as they are concerned, the trade of the port to deteriorate to such an extent that at the moment it is negligible. I should like to be fair to the B. and I. Company and say that I can understand that there are very good reasons why the trade should become somewhat negligible, especially during the five or six years of the war, and also for the reason that, due to the same set of circumstances, the condition of the port was such that possibly it might be dangerous for vessels to berth at their former berth, owing to silting up as a result of steamers not coming into the port. The mainstay of the Port of Dundalk, to a greater or lesser extent, and of other ports on the eastern seaboard, is the import of coal. Of course, under present circumstances, that trade is practically gone. We hope to have it resumed somewhat in the near future. At the moment, with the exception of a few cargoes coming in to the G.N.R., it is extinct, so far as Dundalk is concerned.
We would like to have this power, not that we are going to exercise it for the mere sake of exercising it. We hope and trust that, now that the reason for trade being so bad, so far as the B. and I is concerned, in the last few years, is being removed, the trade will be of such a nature that they will be able to have at least a weekly sailing into the Port of Dundalk. As far as I understand, they have a sailing now into the sister Port of Drogheda. In fact, Drogheda was in much the same position. They had a certain grievance against the B. and I. also, but they have succeeded, I am glad to say, a little bit better than we in Dundalk. It is quite on the cards that they may send in a ship or two in the near future. At all events, the harbour board think that it is wise to have this power if, at some future date, they deem it expedient and in the best interests of the people of Dundalk and surrounding districts to acquire this quay and premises. Of course, there would be fair compensation, as we do not mean to confiscate the property of anyone. We hope that the position will not arise, but we would like to have the power.
The Port of Dundalk, like the neighbouring Port of Drogheda, had a very big trade some years ago. I remember that, at no far distant date, there were three regular sailings a week from Dundalk to Liverpool and vice versa, and through both ports there were exported very large numbers of cattle and very large quantities of agricultural produce in the form of eggs and poultry. Due to modern transport and to a change in the arrangements for marketing, and also to the holding of fairs, and beyond and above all, due to the Border being established, a great deal of that trade has gone in other directions, so much so that the sailings were reduced from three to one for years prior to the Great War, and during the last war, which has lasted for six years, they have practically ceased. We are in a position now in which a large thriving town like Dundalk, with a population of 16,000 or 17,000, and with a big hinterland, for which it catered in former years, has no weekly sailing at all at the moment, to import goods badly needed, and on the other hand to develop an export trade, which can be developed within a reasonable time.
We feel—at least, the members of the harbour board and the citizens of Dundalk, in general, feel—that for reasons best known to themselves, as they have alternative ports from which to run their ships, the B. and I. are not taking just that interest in the Port of Dundalk which they should take, and that it is a matter of little concern to them whether we are left without any sailing whatsoever. I think the Minister would be well advised to accept this amendment, which would give power to the harbour board to acquire the quay and premises, if they think it necessary to do so in the future. We hope it will not be necessary, as we hope the B. and I. will develop trade, now that the war is over, and now that there is no excuse for not doing so. We hope the trade will be to such an extent that there will be no reason to put this amendment, if accepted, into operation. We feel we should have the power, though we do not want to use it without paying fair compensation to the B. and I. for any loss they may sustain as a result of the acquisition of the quay and premises at present occupied by them.
Accordingly, I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. We think it will be in the best interests of the people and of the town of Dundalk and the surrounding districts. The Minister is aware that already, under the Dundalk Harbour and Port Act, the board acquired the quays of the various coal owners who, before that, owned those quays, and that all the berthage and quays in the docks under that Act were in the sole power and ownership of the Dundalk Harbour Board, with the exception of the Dundalk and Newry Steampacket quay. Now that there is no provision in this Bill to make the situation clear as to what the future may hold out, especially in regard to the Dundalk and Newry Steampacket quay, I thought it advisable to propose this amendment for insertion in the Bill.
I do not think this is really necessary, if I understand the Deputy's purpose rightly. Under Section 126, which provides for harbour works Orders, the Dundalk Board could apply for a harbour works Order, empowering them to acquire this steampacket quay compulsorily. If they got such an Order and did acquire the quay compulsorily, the compensation would be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. The Minister may authorise a harbour authority to acquire compulsorily any land in the vicinity of the harbour. If such an Order is made, this harbour authority will have power to acquire this quay compulsorily, subject to the payment of compensation. It, of course, would be their obligation under that agreement, to pay compensation, to be fixed by agreement, or in default to be determined by arbitration under the same Act.
Would there be much difficulty in obtaining that Order?
In any event, it seems to me to be the proper procedure to adopt. The Deputy left out one important fact in his account of the history of this quay. The Act of 1925 provided that the harbour board could not take over the steampacket quay without the consent in writing of the Dundalk and Newry Steampacket Company. It put that limitation on the powers of the harbour board. Neither could the shipping company sell the quay without offering it first to the harbour board.
The fact the Deputy left out was that, when the steampacket company transferred the quay to the B. and I, the harbour board were a party to the deed of conveyance, and they admitted in that deed of conveyance that they were given the option to purchase the quay and failed to exercise it. The new arrangement means that the harbour board stands in relation to the B. and I. in precisely the same position as it stood in relation to the Dundalk and Newry Steampacket Company, that is to say, the board cannot acquire the quay without the consent of the company, and the company cannot dispose of the quay without offering it first to the harbour board. That is the position as it stands at the moment. I do not think they could set that aside, as the harbour board were a party to the agreement, and failed to exercise their option when it was open to them to do so.
We want them there, if they can give the trade.
I take it that, at the moment, they would not want the quay, unless there was some other company prepared to use it, in which case it would seem reasonable to apply for a harbour works Order. That is the type of thing which this Bill is designed to facilitate, namely, the prevention of any people having exclusive rights to property in the vicinity of a harbour which they can hold to the detriment of other parties unreasonably. All the powers of this Bill are designed to ensure that everybody will have the same facilities in a harbour and anybody who gets an exclusive right can hold it only so long as it is reasonable to hold it. An aggrieved party can appeal to the Minister and, if there is reason in the complaint, the Minister can make an Order adjusting the situation.
At any time a harbour authority can get powers of compulsory acquisition over any land within the limits of the harbour and, if the circumstances appear to be such as to justify action by the Dundalk Harbour Board, they can apply for a harbour works Order involving such compulsory acquisition. Such an Order would be made in circumstances in which it was obvious that ownership by the British and Irish Steampacket Company was holding up the development of the port or depriving other people from availing of facilities to which they would be entitled.
Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary?
Notwithstanding any agreement. The provision of such an agreement would be taken into account by an arbitrator in assessing compensation, but he would have to do that under the terms of the agreement anyhow.
The reason I put down the amendment was to have an explanation from the Minister in regard to this whole matter. We were not quite sure of the position. The members of the harbour board were not quite sure whether they would have that power under the Bill. It is for that reason I put down the amendment. I might say that I am quite aware of the agreement that was reached at that period between the Dundalk and Newry Steam Packet Company and the B. and I. I do not want to enter into too many details, because it might weary the House.
This Order may never be asked for. It will all depend upon what use will be made of the quay, the berth and the premises by the B. and I. in time to come. I and the people I represent do not ask for the impossible. As I stated at a meeting of the chamber of commerce, shipping companies cannot run vessels for nothing, for the mere fun of running them, and it will be up to the traders in the district and to all concerned to help in every way possible to have these services restored and give the company all the trade they can deal with.
A suspicion arose in the minds of people there, and in Drogheda as well, that the B. and I. were trying to have all their trade carried through the Port of Dublin and other places, to the detriment of the smaller ports. We are merely fighting for our existence and we do not want to let that happen if it is possible to prevent it. I am glad the Minister has made the matter clear, that harbour boards throughout the country will have the power, by making application for a harbour works Order, to safeguard their rights. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
I should like the Minister to clarify the position with regard to existing premises which have been provided for the purpose of harbour accommodation. The people in my area have not been so unfortunate as Dundalk in that respect. When Deputy Coburn points out the losses that have been sustained through the change of administration here and the creation of industries, and when he mentions that the imports coming through ports and harbours in this country have in some cases ceased, I would like to mention that we have been largely compensated for those losses by the establishment of industries in different parts of the country. I say that those have compensated us in a large measure. We have our boot and shoe factories, our cement and clothing factories, and I suggest that these give much more employment than ever the harbour boards gave at any period in their history. I am quite satisfied about that.
There is a situation in Drogheda somewhat analogous to the position of the Dundalk Harbour Board. We were never so foolish as to part with any of our river frontage, but the Drogheda Steam Packet Company disposed of their interest in lairages. These lairages are away from the waterfront and they were sold to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. Subsequently they went to the London, Midland and Scottish Company and finally they came into the hands of the British and Irish Steam Packet Company. Those people are not utilising the lairages but they turned the key in the door and no one else can have them. We canvassed other shipping companies to give us an alternative service. Of course, the ring was pretty close, except in one direction, but the difficulty confronting us was that we had not lairages to offer to a new company that might come in if we could offer them such accommodation.
I think the Minister should give us power to enable us to decide whether a shipping company is properly utilising the lairages and other accommodation and, if not, we should have the right to acquire such accommodation from them and make it available to other shipping companies. We have not parted with our rights so far as shed accommodation is concerned. Our predecessors made sure to maintain that on a yearly lease and we can dispose of existing interests at six months' notice. But the position is different with regard to the lairages and I would like the Minister to say now whether we could assert our rights if we felt that the British and Irish Steam Packet Company was not prepared to utilise the existing accommodation and give us a proper service. I charge them with not giving us the service to which we are entitled. I charge the British and Irish Steam Packet Company with deliberately diverting the cattle traffic to the Port of Dublin rather than through its natural port. That is all I have to ask the Minister with regard to this matter. I would like him to clarify the position as to whether we have the right to purchase these things compulsorily.
I do not know if that matter arises under this section.
The Deputy could raise it under Section 59.
I thought it might be more appropriate to raise it on Deputy Coburn's amendment.
What the harbour authorities in Drogheda and Dundalk have in mind is the possibility of some shipping company acquiring facilities in their harbours and not using these facilities and merely holding them in order to prevent other shipping companies availing of them. I think I can assure the Deputy that there is adequate power in this Bill to see that that cannot be done, that the harbour authority can deal with that situation by using one or other of the sections in this Bill which relate to that matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 97:—
To add at the end of the section the following sub-sections:—
(5) A harbour authority shall, if so required by the Minister, provide and maintain, in such places and in such manner as the Minister directs, instruments, constructed according to specifications approved of by the Minister, for making meteorological measurements and observations.
(6) A harbour authority shall make such measurements and observations with instruments provided by them under sub-section (5) of this section and such additional meteorological observations as the Minister directs and shall furnish returns of the said measurements and observations in such form and manner and at such intervals as the Minister directs.
(7) A harbour authority shall, if so required by the Minister, provide, maintain and operate, in such place or places and in such manner as the Minister directs, equipment, constructed according to specifications approved or by the Minister, for the exhibition of gale warnings and other weather signals and notices and shall furnish returns relating to the exhibition of such signals and notices in such form and manner and at such intervals as the Minister directs.
I mentioned in connection with other amendments that I was taking these three sub-sections out of an earlier section and putting them in here, where they appear to be more appropriate. It is really a drafting matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52.
I move amendment No. 98:—
In sub-section (4), after the word "approval" in line 15, to add the words "and shall not become operative unless and until it has been approved by the Minister, but upon being so approved every such by-law shall come into operation on the date specified on that behalf by the Minister and shall, as and from that date, have the force of law in the form in which it was approved".
It struck me that the sub-section stopped rather abruptly at the submission of the by-law to the Minister for his approval. There was no indication as to what would happen after that and I felt that it was necessary that the procedure should be included as a continuation of the sub-section.
Sub-section (5) (f) sets out that a by-law, if so approved, shall come into force forthwith. That is precisely what the Deputy has in mind. The draftsman thinks that is adequate. It will come into force at once.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 52 agreed to.
Sections 53 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 60.
Question proposed: "That Section 60 stand part of the Bill."
I want to give notice that I will introduce an amendment to this section on Report Stage to provide against the possibility of the owner of a wreck or other article transferring his ownership to a man without property in order to avoid liability for the cost of its removal.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 61 to 76, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 77.
Question proposed: "That Section 77 stand part of the Bill."
I want to give notice that on Report Stage I shall propose a redraft of this section to give power to load or discharge cargo to a harbour master.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 78 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 98a:—
Before Section 79 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) A harbour authority may make in respect of goods, being goods which they permit to remain on any quay or other place within the limits of their harbour after the expiration of the time for removal of the goods specified in the by-laws of the harbour authority, charges on the owner of the goods in accordance with such scale of charges as from time to time they may fix with the consent of the Minister.
(2) Where a harbour authority were, immediately before the passing of this Act, making charges authorised by law in respect of goods permitted by them to remain on any quay or other place within the limits of their harbour after the expiration of the time for removal of the goods specified in the by-laws of the harbour authority, such charges shall be regarded for the purposes of sub-section (1) of this section as having been duly fixed under that sub-section.
This is a redraft of Section 79. A harbour authority may make by-laws fixing the time during which goods may remain on the quay after landing or before shipment. The amended section enables a harbour authority to permit goods to remain longer than is allowed by the by-laws and to make a charge for so allowing them, in accordance with a scale of charges to be fixed with the consent of the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 79 deleted.
SECTION 80.
I move amendment No. 99:—
In sub-section (1), to delete all words from the words "A person" in line 24 to the words "shall state" in line 26, and substitute the words "Where aquafortis, oil of vitriol or any other goods of a hazardous quality are brought within the limits of a harbour, there shall be stated".
This is a drafting amendment suggested by the Dublin Port and Docks Board. It was considered that the wording in the original form was slightly ambiguous and instead of using the phrase "a person who brings" these dangerous commodities within a harbour limits, it was decided to put it in the impersonal way: "where these goods are brought within the limits of a harbour". I agree that it is an improvement and I have adopted the suggestion of the Dublin Port and Docks Board.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100:—
In sub-section (2), to delete all words from the words "If a person" in line 28, to the words "he shall" in line 30, and substitute the words "Where goods of a hazardous quality are brought within the limits of a harbour and the requirements of sub-section (1) of this section have not been complied with, the person who brought the goods within such limits and any person who caused or permitted them to be so brought shall each".
This makes the same change.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 80, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 81.
I move amendment No. 101:—
In sub-section (1), line 35, to insert before the words "of any article" the words", or any specified part of such limits,".
This is another drafting change suggested by the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The section as originally framed gave a harbour authority power to prohibit the bringing of certain articles within the limits of a harbour. It is proposed to extend that to prohibit the bringing of certain articles within any specified part of a harbour.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 102:—
In sub-section (2), lines 46 and 47, to delete the words "within the limits of the harbour".
This is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 81, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 82.
I move amendment No. 103:—
In sub-section (1), line 53, to insert before the word "ballast" the words ", or cause or allow to be put,".
This, also, is a drafting amendment, suggested by the Dublin Port and Docks Board and the Waterford Harbour Commissioners. It improves the drafting of the section, and, for that reason, I think we should adopt it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 82, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 83 to 85, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 86.
I move amendment No. 104:—
In sub-section (1), line 27, to insert before the word "about" the words "being or is".
This, also, is a drafting amendment, suggested by the Cork Harbour Commissioners, which appears to be necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 86, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 87 to 94, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 95.
I move amendment No. 105:—
Before Section 95, to insert a new section as follows:—
A harbour authority may, as respects any rates for the time being chargeable by them by reference to a fixed maximum, vary such rates either by increase or reduction within such maximum.
This was suggested by the Dublin Port and Docks Board. It empowers a harbour authority to vary rates within the maximum where the maximum rates are fixed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 106:—
In sub-section (3), line 39, to delete the words "or by air".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 107:—
In sub-section (4) to delete in line 52 the words "or air", and in line 55 the words "or by air".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 108:—
In sub-section (6), lines 13 and 14, to delete the words "unless the vessel makes any use of the facilities available in the other harbour" and substitute the following:—
"unless—
(a) the vessel makes any use of the facilities available in the other harbour, or
(b) the rates are chargeable by virtue of Section 89 of this Act and were being charged immediately before the passing of this Act in respect of vessels so passing through such limits, or
(c) it is specifically provided by a harbour rates order that the rates are rates chargeable in respect of vessels so passing through such limits."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 95, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 94, a harbour authority now has power to vary rates within certain limits?
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 96 to 99, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 100.
I move amendment No. 109:—
In sub-section (1), line 3, to insert after the word "shall" the words ", subject to the provisions of this Act".
This is a drafting amendment to cover the application of the provisions of Section 94 relating to the remission and compounding of rates.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 110:—
To add at the end of the section the following sub-section:—
(3) Whenever rates are chargeable by a harbour authority by virtue of Section 89 of this Act, the rates shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as chargeable under a harbour rates order in force in respect of the harbour of the harbour authority.
This amendment ensures that maximum rates continued under Section 89 and which are not fixed by a harbour rates order but by some earlier Act shall be subject to the provisions of the section.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 100, as amended, agreed to.
Section 101 agreed to.
SECTION 102.
I move amendment No. 111:—
In paragraph (c), line 29, after the words "or rendered" to add the words "or shall attach to the goods themselves".
I move this amendment in connection with services, rates or work done by a harbour authority. I think that a great deal is done by the Dublin port, and I presume by other class A harbours. On certain occasions it might be very difficult to collect money from an individual, with the result that the goods might be held by the harbour authority. The amendment is moved with the object of giving the harbour authority the right to recoup itself from the goods in default of payment.
I think a provision of this kind would be very dangerous. In any event it would be very difficult to draft a form of words to meet it. The suggestion would appear to be that where a harbour authority, in order to preserve perishable goods does some service in relation to the goods without the knowledge of the owner, it can not only charge the owner the cost, but it can attach that charge to the goods. I think it would be unwise to adopt that provision which could, apart from the difficulty of drafting a sub-section to achieve that precise purpose, be a rather dangerous sort of precedent to establish. I do not think that harbour authorities have, in fact, experienced difficulty in securing payment of such services from an owner where the services resulted in the preservation of the goods. The Dublin Port and Docks Board has not this power under any of the existing Acts, and I do not think it is a power it should have.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 102 agreed to.
SECTION 103.
I move amendment No. 112:—
In sub-section (3), line 52, to insert before the words "harbour authority" the words "harbour of the".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 103, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 104.
I move amendment No. 113:—
In sub-section (2), line 25, to insert before the word "procure" the words "if so required by the harbour authority".
This is a modification of the provisions of the section suggested by the Dublin Port and Docks Board.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 104, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 105.
I move amendment No. 114:—
In sub-section (1), to delete all words from the words "goods are" in line 37 to the words "of the goods" in line 41 and substitute the words "a person ships, tranships or unships goods within the limits of the harbour of a harbour authority, he".
This amendment is consequential on the change in the definition of the word "owner" in Section 2.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 115:—
In sub-section (2), lines 3 and 4, to delete the words "owner of the goods or the person for the time being in charge of the goods (as the case may be)" and substitute the words "person shipping, transhipping or unshipping (as the case may be) the goods".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 105, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 106, 107, 108 and 109 agreed to.
SECTION 110.
I move amendment No. 116:
In sub-section (1), lines 14 and 15, to delete the words "other vessel within such limits belonging to the person in default and distrain any goods found thereon belonging to such person" and substitute the words "vessel or other place within such limits and distrain any other goods found therein belonging to the person in default".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 110, as amended, agreed to.
Section 111 agreed to.
SECTION 112.
I move amendment No. 117:
In sub-section (1), lines 31 and 32, to delete the words "pensions and gratuities, where payable, to officers and servants" and substitute the words "any pensions and gratuities payable by the harbour authority".
As the section stood the revenue of a harbour could be used for, amongst other purposes, the payment of pensions and gratuities to officers and servants of a harbour board. The Cork Harbour Commissioners pointed out that they are authorised under the Cork Harbour Act of 1903 to grant allowances to widows and children in certain categories, and that the wording of this section, as it stood, would appear to deprive them of their power. Consequently, I am proposing to change the wording so as to authorise the use of the harbour revenues for the payment of any pensions or gratuities payable by the harbour authority. This change will also meet representations which were made by the Dublin Port and Docks Board to pay pensions and gratuities to widows and families under their Act of 1902.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment appeared in the name of Deputy M. O'Sullivan:—
In sub-section (1), after the word "servants", but within the brackets in line 32, to insert the words "or to the widow or family of a deceased officer or servant".
I am not moving this amendment, as the Minister's last amendment fits in with what I wanted to secure. I would like, however, to have an assurance from the Minister that, as the Dublin Port Board were enabled under their own Act of 1902 to pay these allowances and gratuities, it will still stand in so far as these gratuities and allowances are concerned. I mention that because the power of the board to do so is likely to be repealed under Section 177. The Minister, if he refers to the Schedule which covers the Act of 1902, will see that it seeks to repeal that Act.
It is certainly intended that it should stand. If there is any doubt about the matter, I will have it examined.
Amendment No. 118 not moved.
The following amendment appeared in the name of Deputy P. Browne:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a harbour authority may expend out of revenue for small capital charges in any year a sum not exceeding £100.
I should like to say, for the information of the Deputy who put the amendment down, and of the River Moy Commissioners, that the Minister can, under Section 112, give a continuing authority to the harbour board to expend harbour revenues for capital purposes within certain limits. That is precisely the point which the River Moy Commissioners were anxious to have made.
The Minister is referring to amendment No. 119?
Yes. The Minister has power under the Bill to give continuing authority to a harbour board to spend money out of revenue for capital purposes within certain limits and without his prior sanction. I think it would be unwise to mention a specific amount, but where the finances of the board justify it the authority can be given and that is precisely the point which the River Moy Commissioners were anxious about.
Amendment No. 119 not moved.
Section 112, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 113, 114 and 115, agreed to.
SECTION 116.
I move amendment No. 119a:—
Before Section 116 to insert a new section as follows:—
Any stock issued or mortgage made by a harbour authority mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act (including any stock issued or mortgage made by such harbour authority before the passing of this Act) shall be deemed to be included amongst the securities in which trustees may invest trust funds under the powers of Section 1 of the Trustees Act, 1893.
This new section will provide that stocks issued or mortgages made by the four first class harbours, whether before or after the passing of the Act, will be trustee securities.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 116 agreed to.
SECTION 117.
I move amendment No. 119b:—
In sub-section (2), page 49, line 30, to insert after the word "fund" the words "(other than a sinking fund)".
When the Bill was being framed it was thought that a certain situation existing in Cork would require giving the Minister power to sanction the abolition of sinking funds. It is clearly an undesirable power for the Minister to have, and on consideration it was decided to meet the Cork situation otherwise, and to delete these words which would authorise the Minister to sanction the abolition of sinking funds. It is clearly undesirable that that power should exist, and the particular problem of the Cork Harbour's irredeemable stock can be dealt with and is being dealt with otherwise.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 117, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 118.
Question proposed: "That Section 118 stand part of the Bill."
I will produce an amendment to Section 118 on Report Stage, to provide that regulations made under the section will apply only to future mortgages, and that regulations governing existing mortgages will not be disturbed, notwithstanding the repeal of the Commissioners Clauses Act of 1847.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 119.
Question proposed: "That Section 119 stand part of the Bill."
I think it is necessary also to have an amendment to Section 119, and I give notice that I will move an amendment on Report Stage to provide that regulations made under the section will apply only to stock issued after the passing of the Act.
Question agreed to.
Sections 120-124, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 125.
Question proposed: "That Section 125 stand part of the Bill."
I may mention that it would be necessary here to introduce an amendment providing for the relief of local rating authorities in certain circumstances. I will have an amendment dealing with that matter for Report Stage.
The section as it stands enables a harbour board to raise a loan. That may take six months. In some cases it may be a matter of carrying out urgent repairs and the period of six months involved may mean that the original loan asked for may be entirely inadequate. I appeal to the Minister to have a shorter period, say, three months.
I do not know if the Deputy understands. This does not relate to the expenditure of harbour revenue; it relates to the giving of assistance from a public body.
A small harbour board may be in the position of requiring funds. First, it will have to put in a notice of motion to the county council. The county council may pass it and send it on to the Minister for Local Government who may hold it up, under this Bill, for six months. As I pointed out, at the end of that period the harbour board may have to look for an extra grant owing to the wastage caused by the unnecessary delay. I suggest that three months should be sufficient for all parties.
The procedure is that if the harbour board applies to the local authority for assistance, and the local authority passes a resolution deciding to give that assistance at the expense of the ratepayers to the harbour board, it must publish that resolution and then wait at least 60 days before confirming that decision by another resolution. The intention is that any of the ratepayers who may object to the local authority using their money for this purpose will have ample opportunity of making their objection known and, therefore, the local authority must make its decision in two stages: a resolution deciding to give the assistance, publication of the resolution and a confirming resolution not earlier than 60 days, that is, two months later. If it confirms its resolution after 60 days then, subject to the consent of the Minister for Local Government, the assistance is given.
I should say that a harbour authority which got itself into the position that it could not carry out essential works out of its revenue and had to get assistance from the local authority of the area should be expected to look six months ahead.
But many of the harbour boards during the past six years have had no funds. The Minister is aware of that.
I know that, and the county council did not give you much help either.
The county council have granted a loan, or a mortgage, but the Minister is still undecided as to whether he will approve the county council's action or not, but where the Minister does approve, six months is unduly long.
I do not know where the Deputy gets six months. It is not in the section. That is the outside limit.
It is the outside limit, but at present the procedure is to publish the fact that a motion is going to be moved. The council must give 15 days' notice and at the following county council meeting it will be discussed. There will be six weeks' notice already given to the ratepayers, and anyone who may object can do so. The representatives of the ratepayers are there and, if they decide by a majority, then it is entirely a matter for the Minister for Local Government to approve of their decision or not. It is not the same as a public inquiry.
I do not see where the question of urgency comes in. We are dealing here with a larger type of harbour works, where a loan has to be raised to carry out a scheme, on the preparation of which engineers, architects and other experts have to be employed.
I take it that all that would be arranged before they look for the loan. I am more concerned with the small harbours that are trying to exist at the present time.
I suggest they would not have it all arranged before looking for a loan. It would be bad business to employ engineers to prepare schemes without knowing whether or not they have money to pay for it. It seems to me that the first step of a harbour authority where assistance from a local authority was required would be to go to the authority and say: "How much are you prepared to back if we spend £50,000 or £100,000 on the harbour?"
I remember the case of the Galway Harbour scheme, which took a long time and a great deal of negotiation between the harbour authority and the various local authorities, the Galway Corporation, the Galway County Council, the Mayo County Council, the Roscommon County Council, before they could get a scheme of financing their development. Eventually, they got assistance from the Galway Corporation and the Galway County Council only, and their development scheme had to be based on the amount they could afford to raise, knowing what the local authorities were prepared to guarantee and what the harbour revenue would support. Then they determined on the amount of the loan they were going to float. That seems to me to be a procedure which permits of time being available to enable the local authority to make up its mind, knowing all the facts, whether it is prepared to enter into very definite commitments on behalf of the ratepayers or not.
My experience is that the local authority will always demand to know what it is going to cost. They are not going to take a layman's opinion, so that they must have engineers in advance to give the approximate cost of the repairs to enable the members to put down a motion to raise £1,000 or £2,000, as the case may be.
It may be much more. The Deputy is thinking of a small loan such as the Wicklow Harbour might require to meet a purely emergency problem. What is involved in this is something like the Galway harbour undertaking, involving an expenditure of £250,000 and a charge of 1/- in the £ on the rates in Galway City. In such a case the Deputy will agree that the ratepayers should be given ample notice of what was intended, and the opportunity of voicing any objection they saw.
What are the elected representatives for if not to represent the ratepayers?
This is where a public board is going to do something more than administer a local area. It is giving financial help to a harbour authority.
You will not find any of the public representatives over anxious to grant loans, but, where you have a council unanimously agreed, I say six months is too long in a case of emergency, because the original amount might be increased by a couple of hundred pounds or more.
The Deputy is dealing with the case of an emergency. There is at present some system under which a harbour authority, which has exhausted its resources, can get a Government grant on condition that the local authority puts up a similar amount. That is not to meet development work such as is contemplated here, but the cost of essential maintenance.
There is one injustice which appears to me to be evident in this section. I understand that a number of local authorities can join in guaranteeing a loan. But, suppose that two local authorities are benefiting by some work and one of them agrees to guarantee and the other refuses; there would seem to be an injustice there, inasmuch as one would be bearing the entire responsibility, whereas the other, which would be also getting the benefit, would be avoiding all cost. I can see a danger of disputes between one county and another and the danger of long delays arising from that. I was wondering if the Minister could find some way of getting over that difficulty by a joint meeting of the county councils concerned.
Except by taking power to impose a charge on the local authority, which I think is not desirable. So far as local harbours are concerned, local authorities must show enterprise in regard to them.
I agree that compulsion would be undesirable, but would it not be possible for two county councils to meet jointly to consider the matter?
In the case of the Galway Harbour development, which is the only one I can remember where this procedure was followed, the Galway authority thought that they could make a good case for financial help from Roscommon and Mayo on the ground that the Galway harbour served a wider area than Galway City and County and that improvement of the facilities in the harbour would benefit Roscommon and Mayo. They did not succeed in persuading the county councils of Roscommon and Mayo that the benefit would be of such dimensions that the ratepayers of these areas should guarantee a portion of the loan or meet any of the interest charges. There was a great deal of negotiation and argument before they accepted that situation and proceeded with the development scheme with help given by Galway County and City only.
There is no necessity for the six months' delay.
The Deputy is thinking of emergency expenditure to prevent deterioration of harbour works in present circumstances where the harbour revenue is not sufficient. That does not arise here, and is being dealt with under the Emergency Powers Act.
Surely Deputy Everett must be aware that any improvement carried out in a harbour will have to be a long-term policy, so that the question of six months does not arise. No scheme for the development of a harbour could be completed in six months. It would take six months to prepare the plans and specifications. No maritime county in this country will object to maintaining and improving its harbours. I have no doubt that any application which comes before a county council will be met pretty readily. I suggested some time ago that the Meath County Council should make some contribution in connection with the Boyne. I think the Minister should do something about that Deputy Giles opposed that at the Meath County Council; yet he tabled an amendment to this Bill asking for representation.
We hear a good deal about taxation without representation. If Deputy Giles thinks that he can get representation without taxation, he is putting the boot on the wrong foot. I am sure the Minister will not give representation unless people are prepared to bear their share of taxation. I think Deputy Everett is trying to cross bridges before he meets them.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 125 agreed to.
SECTION 126.
I move amendment No. 120:—
In sub-section (1), page 53, line 2, to insert before the words "or remove" the word "extended".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 121:—
In sub-section (3) to insert "or (d)" after "paragraph (c)" in lines 26 and 29 and to insert in line 39 before the words "the Order" the words "where the Order is under the said paragraph (c) or under sub-section (2) of this section consequent on a harbour works Order made under the said paragraph (c),".
Under the section as drafted, the Minister could, on his own initiative, make a harbour works Order transferring to a harbour authority a specified port or pier. Application would require to be made by the harbour authority and, under Section 130, the harbour authority would also be required to pay a fee. It is possible that a harbour authority might be willing to take over some small port or pier provided they were not required to pay a fee or do it on their own initiative, and this amendment is intended to deal with that possibility, where the harbour authority will be willing to do it if they are asked, provided they do not have to pay a fee or make application. In other circumstances, the thing could not be done at all unless the harbour authority applied and agreed to pay the fee.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 126, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 127.
I move amendment No. 122:
In sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraphs:
(b) transfers to a local authority the harbour of a harbour authority, or
(c) transfers to a local authority a part of the harbour of a harbour authority, being a part as respects which the Minister is of opinion, and so states in the Order, that, by reason of its extent, it ought not to be transferred without the sanction of the Oireachtas, or
(d) transfers to a harbour authority a specified port or pier, or
This amendment could be described as the reverse of the previous amendment. The Cork Harbour Commissioners suggested that a small part of a harbour might be transferred to a local authority and that it would seem unnecessary that the Order giving effect to such transfer would require to be confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas. I propose to change the wording of clause (c) so as to give a certain amount of discretion to the Minister; in other words, to enable him to authorise the transfer to a local authority of a small part of a harbour without the necessity for introducing confirming legislation, where he is of opinion that, owing to its extent, confirming legislation is not required.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 123:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), line 28, to insert before the words "harbour authority" the words "harbour of a".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 124:—
In sub-section (2), line 58, to delete the word "introduce" and substitute the words "cause to be introduced".
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 125:—
To delete sub-sections (5) and (6).
This is a drafting amendment also.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 127, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 128 to 133, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 134.
I move amendment No. 126:—
In sub-section (2), line 19, to insert after the words "harbour authority" the words "in respect of the carrying out of any constructional or building work whether pursuant to a harbour works order or otherwise or in respect of dredging."
The Dublin Port and Docks Board represented that this section, as drafted, would give rise to practical difficulties of a serious character and the purpose of the amendment is to limit contracts which must be made under seal to those in respect of building and constructional work and dredging.
In connection with their activities in the warehousing department, the same situation may arise.
It is because of the difficulties anticipated in respect of contracts affecting the warehousing department that this amendment is being made. This limits the making of construction contracts under seal to building, construction and dredging. I think it meets the point of the Dublin Port and Docks Board completely.
Mr. Dockrell
Does that clear the point in connection with warehouses?
Amendment agreed to.
Section 134, as amended, agreed to.
Section 135 agreed to.
SECTION 136.
Mr. O'Sullivan
I move amendment No. 127:—
Before Section 136, but in Part IX, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sub-section of this section, a person shall be disqualified for being elected or chosen or appointed or being a member of a harbour authority if he is concerned by himself or his partner in any bargain or contract entered into with such harbour authority, or participates by himself or his partner in the profit of any such bargain or contract.
(2) A person shall not be disqualified for being elected or chosen or appointed or being a member of a harbour authority by reason merely of being concerned by himself or his partner—
(a) in the sale or lease of any land to such harbour authority, or
(b) in any contract with such harbour authority for the supply from land of which he is owner or occupier of stone, gravel or other similar materials, or
(c) in any newspaper in which any advertisement relating to the affairs of such harbour authority is inserted, or
(d) in any contract with such harbour authority as a shareholder in any joint stock company.
(3) The provisions of this section shall apply and have effect in relation to any committee appointed by a harbour authority in the same manner and to the same extent as if such committee were, in fact, the harbour authority.
(4) If any person acts, when disqualified, as a member of a harbour authority or on a committee of such authority in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £20 in respect of each contravention of this section without prejudice to the disqualification as aforesaid.
This clause is taken, with some slight modifications, from the Application of Enactments Order, 1899, relating to local government. The Minister, of course, is aware that these restrictions lapsed under the County Management Act, 1940, apparently the view being taken that, since local authorities had no longer the same control over contracts, these restrictions were not necessary. Here, of course, in the case of the harbour authority, the position is the reverse of what is now obtaining so far as local authorities are concerned.
While not very much tying myself to the actual wording of this particular amendment, I introduce it mainly as a question of general principle, to ensure that certain standards of conduct shall apply to the individual members who constitute the board. I am not tied to the wording, but seek an expression of opinion on the desirability of introducing a section of this character.
I considered the advisability of having a section of that type in the Bill when it was being framed, but I came to the conclusion that it would have the effect of practically excluding shipping interests from membership of a harbour board. It seems to me almost certain that shipping members must have contracts and other business arrangements with the harbour authority and it is precisely because they have these business arrangements and contracts with the harbour authorities that they are given special representation upon harbour boards. Whatever may be the general grounds for a section of this kind, I think that in relation to harbour boards it is impracticable.
The Deputy may suggest — and I thought of the idea — excluding the elected members from its scope; but, as I mentioned earlier, it is not intended that shipping interests should be only elected representatives. We have the local authority nomination, the chamber of commerce nomination and the Minister's nomination. In fact, any of these bodies would certainly appoint some persons associated with shipping on a harbour board, if they thought such interests required additional representation. I thought it would be undesirable to exclude from harbour boards persons who had got these shipping interests merely because their shipping inevitably brought them into a situation in which they had contracts and business arrangements with the harbour authorities. In fact, in some of the smaller harbours, the only people who take a really live interest are the people who have contacts with the harbour.
Mr. O'Sullivan
The question of shipping members did occur to me, and obviously I had no desire to exclude them, but I offset any anticipated objection in that way by the fact that the representatives of shipping companies are really the general managers, who have no share in the profits of the company.
They may be only fishing interests, having contact with the board.
Mr. O'Sullivan
I will not press the amendment.
I have gone into this question and have decided it would be better to leave it out, because of the uncertainty as to the consequences.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 136 and 137 agreed to.
SECTION 138.
I move amendment No. 128:—
In sub-section (1), line 43, to insert before the word "substituting" the words ", if he so thinks proper,".
I made some reference to this amendment earlier. It will empower the Minister, when he is deleting the mention of a chamber of commerce, to substitute another chamber of commerce or other body at his discretion.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 138, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 139 to 142, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 143.
I move amendment No. 129:—
In sub-section (1), lines 21 and 22, to delete the words "on a contributory basis".
This amendment removes the requirement that pension schemes for Class A harbours must be on a contributory basis. Some of the pension schemes are not contributory and, by this change, it is left open as to whether the pensions schemes should be contributory or otherwise.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 130:—
In sub-section (2), line 27, to insert before the words "and prepare" the words "(defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the harbour authority think proper)".
There was some doubt as to whether this sub-section as it stood would allow the harbour authorities to submit separate schemes for similar categories of employees appointed on different dates. Officers of the Dublin Port and Docks Board have no statutory right to pension, if appointed subsequent to 1940. The employees of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, other than the officers appointed prior to 1940, who have statutory rights have, however, been granted pensions on a liberal scale, including provision for widows and dependents, under the permissive provisions of the Dublin Port and Docks Act, 1902. This amendment removes the doubts to which I refer.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 131:—
In sub-section (3), lines 32 and 33, to delete the words "on a contributory basis".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 132:—
In sub-section (3), line 34, to insert before the word "of" where that word occurs secondly the words "(defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the harbour authority think proper)".
This is similar to the preceding one.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 133:—
To delete sub-section (9) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(9) A superannuation scheme shall contain provisions under which any officer or member of the established staff of the harbour authority concerned to whom the scheme is applicable and who was in the service of such harbour authority immediately before the coming into operation of the scheme may opt within a specified period either to accept the provisions of the scheme or to retain (either on his own behalf or, where appropriate, both on his own behalf and on behalf of his widow (should he die), his children or other members of his family) the benefit of all such provisions relating to superannuation and other like allowances as have theretofore been applicable in relation to him.
This amendment arises from representations made by the Officers' Association of the Dublin Ports and Docks Board, who pointed out that officers who entered the service of the board since the passing of the Act of 1940 would be placed at a disadvantage, as they have no statutory right to pensions and would have no option but to enter the new scheme. They also fear they would lose the privilege of widows' gratuities, which the board paid under the 1902 Act. In this amendment, they are given the right to the option.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 not moved.
Section 143, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 144.
Mr. O'Sullivan
I move amendment No. 136:—
Before Section 144 in page 60 to insert the following new section:—
Without prejudice to the powers in relation to the payment of superannuation which may be conferred on the Dublin Port and Docks Board (in this section called the "board") by the operation of any superannuation scheme sanctioned by the Minister under sub-section (4) of Section 143 of this Act, it is hereby enacted that the board shall continue to enjoy and exercise all the rights and privileges which, before the passing of this Act, the board might lawfully have exercised under Section 34 of the Dublin Port and Docks Act, 1902, and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 177 of this Act the said Section 34 shall accordingly continue to have full force and effect.
I would like to bring to the Minister's notice the point I made on an earlier section regarding the damaging effect of Section 177 in the repeal of the Act of 1902, so as to ensure there will be no vitiating effects that might upset the cover given in connection with the privileges the staffs have.
I will have that point looked into.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 144 to 147 agreed to.
SECTION 148.
I move amendment No. 137:—
In page 60, to insert the words "or servant" before the words "of the", in line 51, and before the words "executing or" in line 54.
This amendment is made at the request of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, who pointed out that a navigating master may have at times to deputise for the harbour master, but is not himself an officer.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 148, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 149.
I move amendment No. 138:—
In sub-section (2), to insert in line 6, before the word "provide", the words ", without prejudice to the inclusion therein of any other provisions", and to delete in lines 10 and 11 the words "the Minister thinks reasonable," and substitute the words ", in default of agreement, may be fixed by an arbitrator,".
The first part of this amendment is a drafting change which is regarded as a necessary improvement. With regard to the second part of the amendment, the Dublin Port and Docks Board represent that the compensation to be paid to a dispossessed tenant should be fixed by arbitration, and it indicates that the great majority of the board's leases contain provisions permitting resumption and providing for compensation fixed by an arbitrator.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 149, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158 agreed to.
SECTION 159.
I move amendment No. 139:—
To delete sub-section (7).
The deletion of this sub-section is suggested by the Parliamentary draftsman, who came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary as there are no private residences affected by the section.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 159, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 160, 161 and 162 agreed to.
SECTION 163.
Question proposed: "That Section 163 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister say what particular heinousness attaches to offences under Section 26 that would warrant a period of ten years? Section 26 says that "if a person knowingly acts as a member of a harbour authority when disqualified from being such a member he shall be guilty of an offence... and shall be liable... to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds". Section 163 would prevent him from taking an appointment on a harbour authority for ten years, even though his chamber of commerce or local authority might think he was a most desirable person for the position.
The section points out that a harbour authority shall not appoint to an office of profit or employ a person who has been disqualified for acting as a member of a harbour board, for ten years. I think that is reasonable enough. What is the Deputy's objection to it?
It seems to me an extraordinary thing. A person acting in that capacity, when disqualified from being a member may not, in individual circumstances, be guilty of such an extraordinarily great crime at all. At the highest point of criminality the person could not be fined more than £20, and if the harbour authorities are the type of responsible persons that the Minister makes us feel they will be —with strong Ministerial and local authority representation — and if they desire to appoint a particular person, even though he was guilty of an offence a few years before that under Section 26, it does seem almost inventing difficulties to have a provision in the Act that a person has to spend ten years after his conviction before he can get employment under a harbour board. He may be particularly qualified, and the fact that he has particular qualifications might have been the motive that would urge them to act against the law as indicated in Section 26.
That is a bit far-fetched. The main reason for the section is because it is in the local government legislation, and we are endeavouring in all these matters to try to keep this law in accordance with the local government established practice. I cannot conceive any reason why we should differentiate in this matter between the harbour boards and the local authorities. Whatever law applies to one should apply to the other, it seems to me.
Surely the Minister is selecting a shocking period in the history of local government when he starts to get the Department of Industry and Commerce to imitate the other Department?
It was the Local Government Act of 1925 that we copied on this occasion.
The period of ten years does seem too long.
The only reason I dislike changing it is that I think it is desirable in all these matters of detail that the legislation with which the members of harbour boards will probably be familiar should apply.
I suggest it would be better to amend the 1925 Local Government Act.
Perhaps it would.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 164.
On behalf of Deputy Browne, I move amendment No. 140:—
In sub-section (1), lines 27 and 28, to delete the words "or would be likely to result in a deficiency or loss in or to such funds".
I am not quite clear as to the reason for this amendment.
It does not seem to be quite clear what the idea of the section is. The section sets out:
(1) Whenever a proposal made at a meeting of a harbour authority would cause an illegal payment to be made out of the funds of the harbour authority or would be likely to result in a deficiency or loss in or to such funds, it shall be the duty of the secretary (or, where he is not present, of the officer of the harbour authority present on behalf of the secretary) to make objection to the proposal and to state the grounds of the objection."
The section does not say what will happen the secretary if he failed in his duty, and I think we ought to know.
Is it not a protection for the secretary, who may be a paid official of the board, to say "I am required by Section 164 to point out that what you are doing is illegal, or may burst the board"?
Would the Minister make it read: "or would in his opinion be likely to result"?
I will consider that, but I take it that is implied in it. It could not be anything else.
I would like the Minister to consider it; it might very easily happen that it would not be quite apparent to the secretary that a proposal would result in a loss and, while he might be as anxious to be as careful as he possibly could, the likelihood might only disclose itself a short time afterwards. I suggest, if it is meant to be that it is the secretary's opinion is to prevail, then the secretary ought to be safeguarded by changing the phraseology.
I will look into the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 141:—
In sub-section (1), lines 29 and 30, to delete the words "the secretary (or, where he is not present, of the officer of the harbour authority present on behalf of the secretary)" and substitute the words "(as the case may be) the General Manager or the secretary (or, where such manager or secretary is not present, of the officer of the harbour authority present on his behalf)".
This is consequential on the change in the title "the General Manager or the secretary".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 164, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 165.
I move amendment No. 142:—
To delete in line 44 the words "the secretary" and substitute the words "to the General Manager or the secretary (as the case may be)" and to add after the word "authority" in line 46 the words "at such principal office".
This is also consequential on the change of the title "the General Manager or the secretary".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 165, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 166.
I move amendment No. 143:—
In lines 49 and 50 to delete the words "the secretary" and substitute the words "by the General Manager or the secretary (as the case may be)".
This is also consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 166, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 167 and 168 agreed to.
SECTION 169.
I move amendment No. 144:—
In sub-section (1) (a) to delete subparagraphs (i) and (ii) in lines 38 to 49, inclusive, and substitute therefor the words:—
"the said powers and the duties, powers and obligations of any constables or other officers duly appointed by the harbour authority in exercise of the said powers shall continue in like manner as before the passing of this Act".
The Minister will recall that on Second Reading I drew attention to the position of the quay police. I understand, as a matter of fact, that he has since then received representations from the port authority that the existing arrangements might with advantage be allowed to stand. The work being carried on there is of a rather specialised character, calling for continuous supervision, and providing, as a result of that supervision, a link up with the officers of the board in the matter of reporting any untoward incidents that might occur in the discharge of their duties. The change proposed to be made will not give service of the same character because it would not be possible in the ordinary routine of the Gárda Síochána.
There is the added reason that the staff in the Port of Dublin — a comparatively large staff — are young, and if they were to be discharged now, despite any compensation paid to them, it would mean unemployment and hardship. On the merits of the case and on the representations of the port authority itself, whose experience in the matter counts for something, the request is being made that the existing arrangement in the Port of Dublin might be allowed to stand and I suggest the Minister might accept the amendment.
This section does not require the Minister for Justice to make an Order bringing to an end the powers of a harbour authority to maintain harbour police. It empowers him to do so, and that was the recommendation of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal. They recommended that that power of harbour boards should cease, and that the policing of all ports and harbours should be undertaken by the Gárda Síochána. What we are proposing here is that the power will cease forthwith in the case of harbours where it has not been exercised, but where it has been exercised in Dublin, Galway, Sligo and Westport, the power will continue unless and until the Minister for Justice makes an Order.
As the Bill was originally framed, there was a provision which required a harbour authority to pay to the Minister for Justice the cost of policing a harbour area. That provision has been deleted, and, in view of its deletion, I think the Deputy may assume that the Minister for Justice will not be too anxious to make this Order in the case of Dublin, where the policing of the harbour area would involve a substantial addition to the personnel and to the cost of the Gárda Síochána. Different circumstances may prevail in Westport and Sligo, as the Deputy will appreciate. If an Order is made, there is, of course, provision for compensation for the harbour police who may be disemployed in consequence, and one can conceive circumstances in which the Minister for Justice may be glad to get some of them into the Gárda Síochána because of their specialised training in this work, but that is a matter which the Minister for Justice would have to consider. I do not know whether the regulations governing recruitment for the Gárda Síochána would require amendment before that could be done, but I think it desirable that we should adopt the recommendation of the tribunal and have this power to bring to an end the right of a harbour board to maintain its own police.
I certainly think we should end the power where it has not been exercised, and, in places like Dublin and other areas where it has been exercised, we should have power to bring it to an end where the Minister for Justice considers that the wisest course to adopt. The Deputy may be quite certain that the Minister will not make an Order under the section without full consultation with the harbour authorities concerned.
The Minister has given no indication of what the basis of compensation might be.
That is left completely wide, and I think it better that way. The provision is that when an Order is made the Minister shall make such provision providing for the payment by the harbour authority of compensation to the constables and officers whose services may be dispensed with under the Order and who have not reached the normal age of retirement. It is wiser to leave the provision as wide as that, rather than to attempt now to frame general provisions.
The Minister will appreciate that the wording of the section would be a cause of extreme anxiety to the people concerned, if and when the matter arises.
I will look into that point. If I were one of the persons concerned, I would rather have a wide provision of that kind in the legislation rather than one which attempted to define in pounds, shillings and pence the exact amount I was entitled to get.
But we did have a clear schedule of payments in the Transport Bill.
The circumstances there were such that it was desirable to have that, I think. However, it could be done, but I should not like to load up the Bill with all the elaborate provisions which appeared in the Transport Bill. In the case of Westport, I suppose the police force consists of one man.
I am not concerned with Westport.
An arrangement could easily be made in his case which would be equitable in the circumstances, but, if one were to consider Dublin, one would require a different basis for and a different system of compensation from what would be required where there was only one individual concerned.
By whom will the compensation be payable — by the harbour authorities?
By the harbour authorities.
Surely if the Minister for Justice brings about the position in which payment of compensation becomes necessary——
Remember that the original suggestion was that not merely should a harbour authority compensate its own constables but it should pay the State for the service it was about to get in the future in the policing of the harbour. We are letting them off the obligation of paying for that service, and it will now be an economy for a harbour authority to get the Gárda Síochána in, provided they can do the work properly. I can assure the Deputy that there is no anxiety to proceed rapidly in the matter.
It is nevertheless a matter of anxiety for those concerned.
I think I can say to the Deputy that Dublin will be the last to be affected.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 145:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(2) Where an Order is made under sub-section (1) of this section in relation to a harbour authority, the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by Order provide for compensation (to be paid or borne by such harbour authority) for the constables or their officers whose services will be dispensed with in consequence of the first-mentioned Order and who have not reached the normal age of retirement.
I have already referred to this amendment. It deletes the provision requiring harbour authorities to pay for the services of the Gárda Síochána.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 169, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan. The Port Board and I would be very sorry to see the existing arrangement in Dublin interfered with, and I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that it will not be lightly interfered with. The new provision under which the board is let off the obligation to pay might, from the financial point of view, appeal to the board, but I think the whole position with regard to the harbour police is very hard on the men concerned. They will have this hanging over them for the rest of their existence, or at least until they retire. Surely the Minister had sufficient power to issue an Order of that kind without setting it out in this Bill?
No. All harbour authorities had this right to maintain a private police force. There was a time when people other than harbour authorities had the power, but it is only harbour authorities which have it now, and, unless we legislate in some way, they will continue to have that power and can exercise it without reference to the Government.
The Minister referred to the report of the tribunal. In my opinion, the tribunal gave no very valid reasons for wishing to see the harbour police force done away with. They recommended it, but they gave no basis for that recommendation.
It is the general experience in all port areas in this country and elsewhere that divided control of police activities has led to inefficiency in the suppression of crime, and particularly of thieving in ports.
From a purely bureaucratic point of view, it might appear undesirable to have undivided control. There is the point, however, that the whole work in connection with the ports tends to become specialised. The hours at which the police are there is known to the harbour authorities. I think you would get more divided control over the board's property if you had an outside body such as the Gárda Síochána.
The board at any time would be entitled to maintain watchmen over its property for the detection of pilfering and so on. That is when you talk about harbour police responsibility. In all other cases it has been found desirable to establish a specialised section of the police force so that they could become familiar with the geography of the harbour. Where the persons concerned are members of the national force their authority extends outside the harbour area even though they may be specially experienced in the problems arising therein. Harbour police have, of course, a very limited authority. I think that, in fact, a large part of the harbour area has to be controlled by the Gárda Síochána.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 146:—
Before Section 170 to insert a new section as follows:—
The docks adjoining the harbour of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and known as the Grand Canal docks and the Royal Canal docks shall be deemed to be within the limits of that harbour for the purposes of Sections 88, 104, 105 and 110 of this Act.
The Dublin Port and Docks Act gave the Dublin Port and Docks Board power to levy and collect rates on goods at the Grand Canal docks and the Royal Canal docks which were adjacent to but apparently outside the portal harbour limits. This new section is necessary to continue the powers of the harbour board.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 170 agreed to.
SECTION 171.
Question proposed: "That Section 171 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I want to say that the Minister under it may by Order declare that on and from a specified day the dues commonly known as city dues chargeable at Dublin harbour shall cease to be charged. These city dues bring in a revenue of about £2,000 a year to the corporation. Am I to understand that this valuable revenue to the corporation is going to be swept aside, and will the Minister say what protection he proposes to give to the corporation in respect of it?
I can say that the matter will be discussed with all the parties concerned. The Minister is given power under the Order to prescribe the compensation to be paid. I can promise the Deputy that I will endeavour to get the widest possible measure of agreement before making the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 172 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 146a:—
Before Section 173, to insert a new section as follows:—
Where the amount in a sinking fund maintained by the Cork Harbour Commissioners in relation to any mortgages and stock made or issued by them before the passing of this Act equals or exceeds the amount remaining due in respect of the mortgages together with the nominal value of so much of the stock as remains outstanding, any obligation of the commissioners to make further contributions to the sinking fund shall cease.
The Cork Harbour Acts, which empower the harbour commissioners to borrow money from time to time, require them to pay 1 per cent. on the aggregate sums borrowed into a sinking fund for the purpose of paying off the loans while any part of the sums borrowed remain outstanding. The harbour commissioners have borrowed £419,000. An interpretation of the Acts requires them to pay £4,192 annually into the sinking fund while any of the loans remain unpaid. The commissioners will eventually reach the position that the redeemable stock issued by them and the money borrowed by them on mortgages will be cleared off. They have still outstanding £6,320 worth of irredeemable stock, and they will continue to pay 1 per cent. On the aggregate sums borrowed into a sinking fund while that irredeemable stock is outstanding, according to their interpretation of the Acts. They ask, therefore, that provision should be made in the Bill to enable them to discontinue payments into the sinking fund after having cleared off all other sums borrowed. The amount of the sinking fund would be the equivalent of the nominal value of the irredeemable stock outstanding. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 173.
I move amendment No. 147:—
To delete all words from the words "upon the passing of this Act" in line 43 to the end of the section, and substitute the following:—
such part shall, by virtue of this section—
(a) in case the local authority had, before the 1st day of January, 1946, properly granted any lease or other interest in respect of such part for a term remaining unexpired at the passing of this Act— be transferred to and vested in the State upon the expiration of such term, and
(b) in any other case—be transferred to and vested in the State upon the passing of this Act.
This amendment arises out of representations made by the Waterford Corporation which, it appears, has leased certain jetties at £310 per annum. Under the existing provisions of the Bill that revenue would be diverted to the State. Under the amendment the corporation will continue to collect the rents on the leases already given until they expire.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 148:—
To add at the end of the section the following new sub-section:—
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as limiting or in any manner affecting the exercise of the right of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the City of Dublin to the ownership and revenues of property on any reclaimed land (including land which before reclamation formed part of the bed of the river) adjoining the River Liffey which they might have exercised before the passing of the Act.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that the property of the corporation will not become vested in the State in the way that the section says. Certain valuable properties along the quays have been in the possession of the corporation for a long number of years. I would like to remind the Minister that, on the North Quays, a valuable strip of property will be falling in a comparatively short period to the corporation. As the section stands, would it mean that the value of that property would accrue to the State subsequently rather than to the corporation? The object of the amendment is to ensure that it does not.
I will have the matter examined, but at present I am advised that the section would not apply to land that was reclaimed prior to the passing of the Act. I think that meets the Deputy's point. I had the section examined and was advised that the amendment was not necessary.
So that the position of the corporation is not prejudiced?
Will the Minister say whether, when the State takes over the interest of a local authority in any river it also takes over the liabilities of the local authority?
I presume so, if there are any liabilities.
In regard to the Vartry River, which flows into Wicklow Harbour, the Dublin Corporation have certain liabilities in connection with the inflow of the river to prevent silting in the harbour.
We are not interested in the bed of the river here. It is only where the local authority has any interest within the limits of a harbour in the bed of any river that the question would arise. The Dublin Port and Docks Board do not agree that the corporation have any interest in the bed of the river Liffey. But where the local authority did reclaim part of the bed of the river and created a valuable property before the passing of this Act, it is not affected by the section.
Mr. M.A. Dockrell
It is the bed and the bed alone of the river, not such reclaimed portion.
The position, I think, here was that the local authority was liable to compensate the Wicklow Harbour Board in respect of silting caused by that river, because the Dublin Corporation had interfered with the flow of the river at Roundwood, the Vartry reservoir, which caused silting in the harbour.
Does the Vartry flow through Wicklow harbour?
The Vartry river carries some of the outflow water works at Roundwood, and this leads to silting in Wicklow harbour. The Dublin Corporation had to compensate the Wicklow harbour.
They would still have to do it. I do not see that that is affected by the section. I take it that was under some enactment which authorised the construction of the Roundwood reservoir?
That enactment will not be affected here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 173, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I want to ask the Minister a question. May we take it that the bed of the reservoir is now vested, as it was previously, with the harbour board and that the State has no further interest. Is that so?
No. The Waterford Harbour Board are not getting their way in that respect.
I know they are very keen on that particular point. They hold that it should not be the State but it should be the Harbour Board, as it was.
I would not agree with that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 174.
I move amendment No. 148a:—
To delete paragraph (b).
In view of the revision of the provisions in relation to the electors of elected members this provision is redundant.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 149:—
To add to the section the following sub-section:—
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect an indenture made on the 19th day of January, 1878, between Ian Trant Hamilton of Abbotstown in the County of Dublin, Esquire, M.P., of the first part, James Alexander Hamilton of Number 56 Fitzwilliam Square in the City of Dublin, Esquire, of the second part, and the Dublin Port and Docks Board of the other part, and the said indenture shall have the like force and effect after the passing of this Act as it had before such passing.
This amendment is made on the representations of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. It was not thought that this liability would be affected by the Bill but the amendment puts the matter beyond doubt.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 174, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 175 and 176 agreed to.
Amendment No. 150 not moved.
Sections 177 and 178 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 151 not moved.
I move amendment No. 152:—
In the second column of Part 1, opposite the mention of the Cork Harbour Commissioners, to insert immediately below the words "The Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Cork" the words "The council of the urban district of Cobh.".
I referred to this amendment in the course of the discussion upon Section 7. This is the amendment which, in fact, provides for representation of the Cork Harbour Board through a nominee of the Cobh Urban Council.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 not moved.
I move amendment No. 155, in the name of Deputy O'Neill:—
In Part II and before the reference to "Dingle Harbour Commissioners" in page 71 to insert the following references:—
Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners — The Council of the County of Cork. The Town Commissioners of Bantry. Berehaven Harbour Commissioners — The Council of the County of Cork.
Amendment No. 155 and amendment No. 155a seek to get some recognition for the harbour running from Bantry to Berehaven, the harbour of Bantry Bay, and it has been suggested that the Minister might extend the scope of the Bill to cover both places. It has been suggested, and it seems to me a reasonable proposal, that the Minister should agree to have the local authority, being the county council and the town commissioners in the case of Bantry, and in the case of Berehaven, the county council and the local development association, which would be the local chamber of commerce in Castletownbere, the representatives of the business community in the place, as the harbour authority. I should like to get from the Minister whether there is any hope that he would favourably entertain the proposals, partially or wholly, and whether in the event of his not being able to do it now, he would, having regard to the general authority that is afforded him in the measure, be in a position to give the matter further consideration later. If that were the case I would not unduly obtrude myself on the Minister now, but I should like to get some word of recognition for an area that I regard as very important, as there is a good deal of surprise that some provision is not being made for it in this measure.
I do not know what the Deputy means by "making some provision". If we include these two harbours in this Bill it means that we will have to create an authority for the harbours and put upon that authority the obligation to appoint a secretary, a harbour-master and a collector of rates and to maintain an office, out of no revenue, as far as I know.
There is a harbour master in both places already.
Certainly. The general scheme is that we should have these four main harbours with authorities constituted as proposed here, a number of secondary harbours with authorities constituted as proposed here, and other harbours managed by the county councils where the harbour revenue is so small that it could not support a harbour board and the administrative apparatus which a harbour board should have. The view of the Harbour Tribunal was that they should be managed by the county councils. If at any time their trade develops to the point at which they could claim to be included in the list of Class II harbours, there is provision in the Bill under which they can be so elevated and an Order made giving the harbour board the authority which any harbour board under this Bill will have. But at present there is, as far as I know, only negligible revenue from the use of these harbours and certainly revenue altogether insufficient to meet the expenses which would fall upon the harbour authority of these harbours if constituted. Therefore, the management of them for the time being rests upon the county council. If they develop, then, on application at any time, they can be elevated.
I think the Minister has met my desire for information on the matter and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 155a not moved.
I move amendment No. 156:—
In the third column of Part II, opposite the mention of the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners, to insert the words "Dundalk Chamber of Commerce (Incorporated)."
This includes Dundalk Chamber of Commerce, in the Schedule, as requested by some Deputies.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 157 not moved.
I move amendment No. 158:—
In the third column of Part II, opposite the mention of the River Moy Commissioners, to insert the words "Ballina Chamber of Commerce."
This includes the Ballina Chamber of Commerce in the Schedule.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 159:—
In the second column of Part II, opposite the mention of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners, to insert immediately below the words "The council of the county of Wexford" the words "The council of the county of Kilkenny."
I referred to this already in the course of the discussion on Section 7. It provides for an altered constitution of the New Ross Harbour Board to provide representation for Kilkenny County Council.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 160:—
In the third column of Part II, opposite the mention of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners, to insert the words "New Ross Chamber of Commerce."
That includes New Ross Chamber of Commerce.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 161:—
In the third column of Part II, opposite the mention of the Westport Port and Harbour Commissioners, to insert the words "Westport Chamber of Commerce."
That includes Westport Chamber of Commerce.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 162:—
In the third column of Part II, opposite the mention of Wexford Harbour Commissioners to insert the words "Wexford Chamber of Commerce".
That includes Wexford Chamber of Commerce.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
163. In paragraph 1, page 72, line 7, to delete the words "therein" and substitute the words "within the limits thereof". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
164. In paragraph 3, page 72, lines 10 and 11, to delete the words "or near the harbour" and substitute the words "the limits of the harbour or the vicinity of such limits". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
165. In paragraph 5, page 72, line 17, to delete the word "in" and substitute the words "within the limits of". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
166. In paragraph 11, page 72, line 39, to delete the word "in" and substitute the words "within the limits of". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
167. In paragraph 12, page 72, line 43, to insert before the word "harbour" the words "limits of the". — (Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
168. In paragraph 19, page 73, line 29, to delete the word "in" where that word occurs secondly and substitute the words "within the limits of". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
169. In paragraph 20, line 31, to delete the word "in" and substitute the words "within the limits of". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
170. In paragraph 22, page 73, line 40, to delete the word "therein" and substitute the words "within the limits thereof". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
171. In paragraph 25, page 73, line 48, to insert before the word "the" where that word occurs secondly the words "within the limits of". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
172. In paragraph 27, page 74, line 2, to delete the word "in" and substitute the words "within the limits of". —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
I move amendment No. 173:—
To delete paragraph 28, page 74, and substitute the following paragraph:—
28. For specifying the time during which goods may remain upon any quays or other places within the limits of the harbour and providing for the removal or disposal of goods which are not removed therefrom after the expiration of such time.
Although this is a drafting amendment, it is not of as simple a character as the others. It provides that by-laws may be made in respect of any goods placed upon quays or other places, whether awaiting shipment or not, or whether they are after being landed or not.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 174:—
In paragraph 29, page 74, line 9, to delete the word "in" and substitute the words "within the limits of".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 175:—
Before paragraph 35, page 74, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
35. For prohibiting improper interference with any machinery or equipment provided by the harbour authority.
The Dublin Port and Docks Board think that the Sections 66 and 67 should be extended to include interference with any machinery or equipment provided by a harbour authority, such as cranes, etc. It is considered that provision might be made very properly in their by-laws for this.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 176:—
At the end of paragraph 39, in page 74, to insert the words "or in any specified place within such limits".
This amendment also is being made at the request of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and it authorises the harbour authority to make by-laws prohibiting smoking in any specified place within the harbour limits, as well as in a vessel.
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
I want to mention that on the Report Stage I will move an amendment to the Second Schedule at the request of the Dublin Port and Docks Board giving power to make by-laws relating to petrol.
Third Schedule, Fourth Schedule, and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, February 13th.
