It has been more or less agreed between the numerous vocational bodies in the House that we should finish this Bill to-night if the Minister is prepared to handle one amendment which has been put in by Senator Sweetman.
Harbours Bill, 1945—Report and Final Stages.
I am prepared to do so.
I move the following amendment:—
In Section 38, in the new sub-section (inserted in the Seanad in Committee) after paragraph (a) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) the provisions in regard to cessation referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if, after the passing of this Act, the office in question is filled by the appointment thereto of a person (including a person ceasing to hold office under paragraph (a)) under the procedure provided for by Section 5 (1) of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926.
The wording of that amendment is not, in certain respects, as happy as it might be but the principle is, I think, very clear. Section 5 of the 1926 Act provides that, in certain circumstances, with the sanction of the Minister, the local authority may promote one of its officers whom they deem worthy of promotion rather than fill the appointment from outside.
I want to be perfectly certain that under this Bill that can be done in respect of these officers, bearing in mind particularly the provision in Section 5 of the 1926 Act by virtue of which the appointment must be made within three months from the termination of the original appointment.
The effect of the Minister's amendment is rather to make any appointment that has been made merely a temporary appointment. Therefore, I was in some degree on that aspect worried as to whether the fact that the previous holder of the office might be more than three months out of office at the time the Bill became law would prevent the Limerick harbour authority making an appointment by promotion. That is the reason why I have provided in this amendment that it is to include a person ceasing to hold office under paragraph (a). I am not quite happy about the situation as it exists at present. If it were not for that three months period, and if it were not for the fact that the Bill may not be law before the expiration of the period, then perhaps the amendment might not be necessary, but, in the circumstances, there is some doubt and I want that aspect of it cleared up.
In the discussion last week dealing with Section 38 of this Bill, I must confess that I took an interpretation out of the Minister's remarks which I do not think is in accordance with the facts. I took it that the Minister then stated—in fact, I was absolutely positive that he did state it—that he had introduced the section — not this amendment but the original section— into the Bill on representations from the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. That was certainly what I understood the Minister to say and I think it was also what other people understood the Minister to say. I understood also that was the way in which the Minister's statement was understood by certain representatives of newspapers circulating in Limerick. I want to give the Minister an opportunity of correcting that, because it is perfectly clear that the original section was not introduced into the Bill by the Minister on representations from the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. The first intimation that the Limerick Harbour Commissioners had was that contained in the letter the Minister wrote to them on the 16th February after the particular amendment had been put down. I do not know whether it had been taken in the Dáil on that date. Of course, it was here that the second amendment, which was consequent on the Minister's view of the first, was taken.
I want to make this point quite clear to the Minister in view of the fact that what the Limerick Harbour Commissioners had done was represented by him at the last meeting of this House as an attempt to "jump" the provisions of the Bill. Let me be perfectly clear that the present view of the commissioners as represented in correspondence and in a cutting which I have here from a Limerick paper containing a report of the meeting held on March 18th is that if the Limerick Harbour Commissioners are empowered to appoint by promotion an assistant, who has in fact been carrying the duties for the past two years, it will mean that instead of having to pay for administrative expenses a sum of £1,500 they will have to pay only about £1,000. I am taking the figures roughly; I am leaving out the odd money. The Limerick Harbour Commissioners' view was that the present traffic at the port did not warrant any expenditure higher than that at the present time. In order that they might impress that view on the Minister they have been making, as the Minister will admit, many efforts in the last month to see the Minister or to arrange for the Minister to receive a deputation from them. It seems quite clear that the Minister does not wish to see them. I do not know why and I am not going into the whys and the wherefores of that aspect of the situation at this hour of the night, but I do say quite clearly, and there can be no doubt whatever in my mind, that the Minister left the House last week under the impression that the Limerick Harbour Commissioners had asked him to insert the section that was inserted in the Bill before it came to this House. That is not in accordance with the facts and I think the Minister will agree that if that impression was left on the House it was not a correct impression.
I explained, when introducing this Bill, that the procedure adopted in relation to it included the circulation of the Bill, after it had received a Second Reading in the Dáil, to all the harbour authorities, with an invitation to them to examine it in detail and to submit their observations thereon. In the case of Limerick, because of the circumstances prevailing there, a special sub-section was inserted to maintain the position unchanged pending the retirement of the existing secretary. The principle on which the Bill was founded was the appointment of a manager at the larger ports. It was contemplated that, outside Dublin, the manager should also perform the duties of secretary.
It was assumed in the case of Limerick, Waterford and perhaps even Cork, that the harbour revenues would not be sufficient nor would the duties be such as to require the services of a general manager and secretary. The Bill, therefore, proposed that the general manager should also be the secretary of the harbour board. Another special provision in the Bill relating to Limerick provided that the appointment of a general manager would be postponed until the existing secretary retired. No observations in that regard were conveyed by the Limerick Harbour Board nor were there any grounds given to justify the assumption that the situation in regard to the secretaryship for the Limerick Harbour Board would be changed before the Bill became law. It was in consequence of a Press report that I learned that the existing secretary had retired and that the harbour board were proposing to fill the appointment at once. It will be clear that the provisions of the Bill as they stood, with a new secretary who is a comparatively young man, would operate to prevent the appointment of a manager for Limerick Harbour for many years, so long as the new secretary held office. It was therefore decided to delete that provision from the Bill and to provide that any appointments made by a harbour authority since the introduction of the Bill and its Second Reading in the Dáil would be regarded as temporary. The need for a general provision arises out of the fact that the Cork Harbour Board was proceeding to fill, or at least to appoint persons to, vacancies that would arise next May.
In the case of Limerick, the harbour board has filled the position of secretary by the promotion of the assistant secretary. Under the provisions of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, the harbour authority will in future be able to fill an office of that kind by the promotion of a serving pensionable officer, with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The complication that arises in the case of Limerick is this: that the person now appointed has been appointed as secretary, and it is, I think, likely to be agreed by everybody that the situation in Limerick Harbour is such that the harbour revenues could not support, nor does the harbour business require, a separate secretary and manager.
The board does not think so either.
The position that will exist, therefore, after this Bill becomes law is that the appointment of secretary made by the harbour board will be regarded as temporary, and that the harbour board may then propose to fill the position of harbour manager by the appointment of a serving pensionable officer. I am assuming that this gentleman who has been appointed secretary held a pensionable post before that.
He was first assistant to the late secretary.
It will be understood that the Department of Industry and Commerce has not as much information in regard to the practice of harbour authorities as the Department of Local Government has of local authorities; but assuming that he was pensionable he would be eligible, with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for promotion as manager, or the position of manager-secretary, if the harbour authority so proposed, and if the Minister was prepared to agree. I want to make it clear that, so far as I am concerned, I know nothing at all about the individual concerned, about his qualifications or the period in which he has been in the service of the board. Before I could consider any such approach by the harbour authority I would need to have information on these points.
So far as the law is concerned, it is clear that the position may be filled by promotion within three months from the date of the passing of this Act, if the harbour authority so proposes and if the Minister so agrees. I think that is the point that Senator Sweetman wanted to get clear upon.
There is a further point that I want to get clear. I think that the Limerick Harbour Commissioners made it clear in their correspondence to the Minister that they did not consider that until such time as the revenues of the harbour showed an increase—with the return to normal trading conditions—that it was desirable to appoint a higher paid official. I have no reason to doubt the information that has been given to me, but it would appear that the person appointed secretary is already a pensionable officer and that it would be proper to appoint him on promotion. Assuming that that is correct, the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, I understand, feel that until the present trade in the port improves, it would not be desirable to appoint a general manager-cum-secretary, or a managerial secretary or a secretarial manager, because such an officer would have to be paid more substantial remuneration than that which the post of secretary carries. It appears also that the Minister has considered this from the angle of leaving the harbour authority in the position that when trade becomes normal it could then be determined that a position had arrived when it was desirable to appoint a manager-secretary: that when that happened it would be regarded as the date of the termination of the office to which Section 5 of the 1926 Act applies.
I think it is desirable that each of the major ports should have a manager. The salary to be paid the manager is a matter for the harbour authority. The Minister can specify the qualifications which the manager must have and the Local Appointments Commissioners can only recommend a person with these qualifications. Conceivably, the Minister might prescribe very high qualifications and the harbour board might fix a very small salary so that a situation might arise in which the Local Appointments Commissioners could get no one with the required qualifications to apply.
Much the same thing would arise if the Minister was considering a proposal by the harbour authority to promote an official. He would at least have to be satisfied that the official had the qualifications which he would prescribe if the appointment was being filled by the Local Appointments Commissioners. Assuming, however, that the assistant secretary in Limerick, who has now been made secretary, had the qualifications for manager then there would be no objection to the harbour authority making whatever arrangement it desired in the matter of salary. My main concern is to see that there is a manager there to exercise the powers given to the manager under this Bill, and that the person so appointed as manager has whatever qualifications may be prescribed. The position will be that when the Bill becomes law the harbour authority can propose to fill the position of manager by the promotion of an existing officer in accordance with the terms of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act of 1926. I would have to consider the position in relation to the qualifications required for the post. If I felt that the person proposed had the qualifications I could assent to the position being filled by promotion, but if I felt that I could not assent then the appointment would have to be made by the Local Appointments Commissioners. The harbour board will have the power to do that under the Act within three months from the date of its passing.
In view of what the Minister has said I think it is clear that the amendment is not necessary, and would add nothing to the present position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Final Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I think it is unfortunate that the Minister did not pay sufficient attention to the workers employed at the ports. Very little protection is given in any part of the Bill to those people. There was an amendment down to make it compulsory on a harbour authority to do away with casual labour, a thing that has been abolished in other countries. Its abolition has resulted in a general improvement among workers and in the income of employers. To that extent, it has brought about a considerable benefit to the port authority. As the Bill stands, it leaves the matter, so to speak, in the air. If the employers can agree with the workers, then it is all right, but if they cannot agree there is no obligation on any authority to compel the registration of dock labourers. The Minister has considerable influence in all these matters, and if he would exert his influence to bring about decasualisation in the Port of Dublin, through registration, he would be conferring a great benefit on dock workers generally. There is already good machinery provided in this Bill, and if registration is established other things are bound to ensue.
There was a motion down with regard to a free ferry service for dock labourers, a thing that is quite within the bounds of possibility. Dockers are known and registered and would have the right to a free ferry service. At present, the ferry service is not supplied by the harbour authority but rather by the Dublin Corporation. I do not know whether that is a good thing or not. I think the service should be provided by the harbour authority.
It would be for the general good of the community if registration was brought about here. It is not a new thing. We have an example of it across the Channel. They are operating a model system there. I hope that the Minister will soon be working in the same direction. I rose principally for the purpose of asking him to do his utmost to bring about registration in the Port of Dublin, and in that way improve the efficiency of the port.
I had occasion, during the passage of the Bill, to refer to the absence of safeguards for dock labourers. At present there is practically no safeguard for them against injury or death. Any person can come along and be a stevedore, and can undertake the discharge of ships. He can pay whatever wages he likes and get away with it. He can use unsuitable gear which is a danger to the physical health of the people employed. These are things which would automatically disappear if there was registration in the Port of Dublin. A lot of the grievances that exist there are due entirely to this matter of casual labour. I hope sincerely that the Minister will make this measure an even better one than it is by taking steps to ensure the registration of dock labourers.
I have listened with great surprise to Senator Foran. On looking over the amendments, I find that of the 52 that were put down there was only one in the name of Senator Foran. May I suggest to the House that his speech would have a much better ring about it if he had endeavoured to improve the Bill by way of an amendment on the lines that he has suggested than by criticising at this stage? He referred to the question of a ferry service. That was discussed on the Bill, but, apparently, the Senator was not in the House for it. I seem to recollect that Senator Foran was not here to move the only amendment that appeared in his name at the time that it came up for discussion.
On a point of explanation——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator cannot make a second speech.
It is only fair, I think, to Senator Foran to say that the one amendment he had on the Order Paper related to this very question of the registration of dock workers. I inserted Section 61 in the Bill to empower a harbour authority to take steps in relation to the registration of dock workers or to facilitate the elimination of casual employment at docks. I did so with some considerable hesitation, because I am doubtful if it is a function which a harbour authority should undertake. Nevertheless, I put the section in the Bill and allowed it to remain, although I had, in the meantime, taken steps to initiate discussions in Dublin between the trade unions and the employers' organisations with a view to the inauguration of a registration scheme here. These discussions have already gone a considerable distance, and I hope that they will result in a suitable scheme. I think that the parties concerned were informed of my willingness to propose to the Government the enactment of special legislation, if required, similar in purpose to a Bill recently passed in the British House of Commons, to facilitate the undertaking of such a scheme. I am hopeful that so far as Dublin is concerned such a scheme of registration and decasualisation will be put into operation, and that will set a headline for other ports. I think it is well to leave this section in the Bill because, even though it is better that registration and decasualisation should be the result of agreement between the employers and the labour unions, in the case of small ports it may be that the harbour authority would alone be able to deal with the matter, if there is a desire to do it and if there is a general feeling of co-operation amongst the parties concerned. The problem of decasualisation resulting from a scheme of registration will, of course, give rise to difficulties in any case. In fact, it has been revealed that the number of dockers in Dublin listed for registration is far greater than we had expected, and, of course, a great deal of heart-burnings and argument will probably arise before the list is reduced to reasonable size, but I hope that this will be done and that here in Dublin, at any rate, we shall have a system of registration and decasualisation.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 21st March, 1946.