Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

If at the beginning of Committee Stage, I did not say what I have said in Dáil, let me now say that the broad thrust of the legislation represents progress. Let us not be at odds with one another because it is a welcome development that these harbours will come under the remit of local authorities. That is a step in the right direction. There is no question about that.

However, I think the Minister should be open to listening to genuine contributions in trying to achieve that end so that it really works. Those of us on the Left, are sometimes accused of being the naysayers, the people who are against proposals, but I wish to put a positive proposal to him. It could potentially unleash great creative energy to make these harbours - and I can speak largely for Dún Laoghaire - something great. My remarks are made in a positive spirit. We need to go the whole way in moving from a structure that is no longer appropriate, and in some cases has failed. Whether the structure was appropriate in the past is a matter that we can debate, but in the case of the Dún Laoghaire, the people are not happy with it and everything that happens in that harbour is controversial because the people do not have a say.

I accept the Bill is moving things forward, but we should think about how we could move it fully forward. I understand there are two different options. I fully understand that the Bill sets out the options and at this stage is not prescriptive in terms of which option should be taken up because the Minister is absolutely correct to say that the option which is best applied to Drogheda, Dundalk, Wicklow or other ports may be different and it is up to the people in those areas to make their voices heard and to engage with him and hopefully come to an agreement. What I am arguing is that in the case of Dún Laoghaire, the overwhelming view is that we need the harbour to be an integrated part of the local authority and that we need to further strengthen public involvement in it by involving the stakeholders and the public. I think that is very much in the spirit of the legislation but is elaborating on it in a way that can really make it work. If we get just a nominal change, and I accept that it is more than a nominal change as now these people will have to come in front of the elected councillors, which is a good thing, I think we should go further than that.

We can bring the banks before the finance committee, but we still do not get a lot of light as to what is going on in many cases. The fact that a person has to come before a local authority and answer some questions is better than them not coming in, but it is not the same as the elected members actually having a say over these things. It is not the same as the elected members having a body, a forum or whatever one calls it - I would call it a stakeholders' group - that they consult about the issues so that all the expertise and knowledge and so on of the community, the users and the stakeholders is inputted to allow the elected councillors to make the best decisions. Then obviously they should delegate that power to managers in the local authority. To me that seems the best way.

If we do not do that, we will end up with an informal stakeholders' group that is hand picked by others. Everybody needs to consult. The Minister has to consult others. I do not claim to be an expert on certain things on which I have to take a stance and make decisions. What do I do? If I am dealing with an education Bill I start to ring teachers and others and ask them what they think about these issues. That is what we do. That is the reason for the committee structure. I believe we need that type of forum to assist the councillors in getting the full and rounded view and that the councillors should have more extensive powers to make decisions and then delegate responsibility to the management, rather than the management dictating to them.