Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will outline how this could work in the future. In primary legislation one does not leave the detail to be worked out somewhere else. When one looks to introduce concepts or prescribe how matters should be dealt it in primary legislation, one has to detail how something such as this could work. I have been clear on the issue of engagement with different ports and their future governance models. This is enabling legislation which lays out the models under which this could work. Some matters are left for decision by the boards of ports if they remain as independent units, while others are left for the decision of the Minister, to which I referred earlier in the Dáil. What I am about to say about how it will work in ports such as Dún Laoghaire applies to all ports of regional significance and does not refer purely to Dún Laoghaire Port because I have a decision to make on it and there is a process that will get me to that point. However, the current structures of companies in ports of regional significance may no longer be appropriate. It is time to acknowledge that some of them need to move into a mode where there will be complete integration with the local authorities within the areas they are located. On the other hand, for ports that have commercial businesses and that must meet particular needs or demands, it may well be the case that the current corporate structure needs to be retained. However, it will need to be retained inside a broader model involving local government within which the port is located.

I refer to the role of elected members and how it could work, depending on the decision made on a port. The legislation outlines three ways in which the CEO of the local authority or the CEO of the port will engage with the members of the local authority. Under section 23, there is a requirement that the chairperson and the CEO of the transferred company appear before them, as is the case in other areas of local government where local authority members through strategic policy committees can extend an invitation to stakeholders to appear before them to give testimony and then be quizzed by them. Section 22 provides that the proposed chairperson of a transferred company must appear before the elected members prior to his or her formal appointment. An Oireachtas committee such as this has the power to summon the chairpersons of independent semi-State bodies and a similar power is being vested in local authority members in the case of chairpersons of transferred companies. Under section 19, the annual audited accounts of these companies will be laid before the elected members. Oireachtas committees have the power to require the attendance of a chairperson or a CEO. I can well imagine a scenario where when the accounts of a port are laid before the local authority, the elected members will invite the port's officeholders to appear before them to answer questions. These changes amount to a significant strengthening of the powers of local authorities vis-à-visports located within their jurisdiction.

There is one matter I wish to flag. All of this might require a port company to make information available at that time that could be commercially sensitive. All of their affairs will have to be made public, not only to the local authority but also to members of the general public. In discharging its business a company could, for example, be going through a tendering or procurement process and there might be commercially sensitive matters which it could determine should not be in the public domain. Sections 19, 22 and 23 all deal with how we can strengthen the powers of elected members and seek to give them greater powers of oversight and inquiry to quiz port officeholders about matters of interest to communities that elect local authority members. It is for these reasons that the Bill, as drafted, significantly strengthens the powers of local members compared to where we are now. It is for that reason and others I outlined earlier in our engagement that I am not in a position to accept the Deputy's amendment.