Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

This important debate has national and local implications for harbour authorities and boards. While I support some important elements of the Bill, I do not support others that are at serious variance with the current period. We are about to elect people to local bodies to effect the changes and policies wanted and needed by their communities. At the heart of the Bill is an anti-democratic principle, in that it will replace three publicly appointed local government representatives with an individual nominated by the Minister of the day. This is a serious error, given that we are discussing local democracy and people's expression of the opinions of their communities and businesses. Local authorities bring together development plans and the forces of development in an economic balance, but that knowledge is to be removed from harbour authorities except where the Minister or his successors appoint someone. This is a core issue.

I have met a number of local government members and the General Council of County Councils, which represents all parties. The collective wisdom of the elected local representatives is such that they should be able to retain their memberships on the boards in the same manner as has been the case to date, that is, they nominate their own members. Louth and Meath county councils and the Drogheda borough council appoint people to the Drogheda Harbour board. This has an advantage and I am sure that it is the case in other counties. Where there are adjoining local authorities, yet the Minister only selects one of the three bodies in question to be represented, problems will arise. For example, will the representative have the combined wisdom of the local authorities concerned? Clearly not.

Will the Minister reconsider the matter and, on Committee Stage, table amendments to retain the elected local representatives on the harbour authorities as they currently exist? It would help the Bill, in that all government concerns communities and their members' involvement. As elected Members, we collectively represent the country. On harbour authorities, people would represent their local communities.

I agree with much of the Bill's contents. For example, harbour authorities have changed over the years. I fully support and subscribe to the principle of dynamic, modern, efficient and effective harbour authorities. An authority must be business-like and as competitive as possible. I support the question of commercial freedom and competition between ports. I also support new management structures and maximising private sector involvement in our ports. Over the years, the Minister has consulted widely on this legislation and many important players in the public and private sectors have commented on it.

I accept the principle as it relates to the Drogheda Port Company, which is an important part of the Bill if we are to facilitate the proposal to build a new port at Bremore. I am happy to support it. The Attorney General has advised that there are not sufficient principles and policies in the 1996 Act to allow such an alteration of the harbour limits. Therefore, an amendment is considered necessary. The Bill will facilitate the modern and dynamic development of Drogheda Port at a new location at Bremore. I welcome that it will also facilitate the Drogheda Harbour authority's commercial activities and excellent plans, to which everyone looks forward.

The question of ancillary movements in connection with the new port at Bremore arises. On several occasions I have made a point to the Minister regarding the new Drogheda Port's connectivity with the Leinster outer orbital route to facilitate the movement of products into the market. The current road network, the M1, is chock-a-block, particularly early in the mornings, as the Minister knows. After nearing the airport, one can be sitting in one's car for up to an hour before entering or getting around the city. While I welcome the changes made to the M50, a proper distribution network from the new port at Bremore will require the construction of the Leinster outer orbital route as soon as possible. It does not form part of the national development plan or Government proposals, but it should do. If the new port at Bremore is efficient, there will be a greater amount of traffic on the current road network. Therefore, the port will be less efficient without the essential road network.

While my next questions are more pertinent to Committee Stage, I will put them on the record now. The Minister's briefing document refers to how the Harbours Act provides for port companies to have regard to any relevant Government policy or guidelines on the acquisition of land.

It states, "It is considered appropriate in the interests of consistency and best practice that this provision should apply also to the disposal of land by such companies". Have issues arisen in respect of port companies not having due regard for Government policy or guidelines regarding the disposal of land? Are some authorities disposing of land improperly or not according to the wishes of the authorities as such in contravention of Government policies or guidelines, as that would be a highly significant issue? The fact this matter is placed first in the list of the Bill's objectives means this point must be of some significance. In his response or on Committee Stage, the Minister should have regard to this matter.

I note the commentary on the Department's website includes comments on the pension funds of some port companies. While I wish to make a carefully constructed point in this regard, it relates specifically to three port companies that do not have the same pension funding arrangements as do other ports. The Minister should explain the implications and what this means because this also is a significant comment. Are adequate pension arrangements in place in those authorities and if not, will the Bill regularise the position?

Another issue that arises concerns the proposal to allow port companies to borrow money and to invest, which I greatly welcome. The Minister mentioned a limit of €200 million or of 50% of the value of a company's fixed assets, subject to the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. I refer to the present economic climate and value of properties as obviously the economy was in a completely different mode when this provision was drafted. The value of the fixed assets of port authorities that wish to borrow money may be significantly less at present and consequently, they may not be able to borrow as much. What implications, if any, will this have for the operation of port authorities?

I wish to ask a second question on an intriguing issue. This legislation will allow port companies to invest outside the State and it is fine if a company wishes to do so. In his reply or on Committee Stage, the Minister should tease out the reason this provision is necessary and what implications, if any, it might have in the future. I do not have a problem with the Minister empowering the port authorities to borrow the money themselves, which means such investment will come out of the public purse. However, given the history of the present economic crisis and because of the mismanagement of resources by banks and other financial institutions, how will the Minister ensure that any investment made will be based on the value of the fixed assets? In addition, what criteria, if any, will apply to borrowing for the purposes of investing outside the State? In other words, will due diligence be performed on their activities and how will the Minister make them accountable? While I appreciate the purpose of this Bill is to make the port companies more independent and more commercially inclined, how will the Minister ensure that such investment is done wisely and well? The key point is that without interfering too much with any such investment decision and given the alacrity with which such decisions must be made at times, the Minister must ensure there is a balance between the business plan and the realities on the ground.

I agree with the Minister regarding the transfer of functions from the Minister for Transport to An Bord Pleanála in the context of the compulsory acquisition of lands by port authorities and do not have a problem with that. Ultimately, the net point reverts to the directors of the company and I refer to the excision of local authority members from these bodies with the exception of the Minister's appointee. I ask the Minister to reflect on this issue.

I have read the Seanad debate, in which this issue was much discussed. On full examination of the issue, I do not discern a reason local authority members should not remain as members of the board. One of the arguments made by the Minister in favour of removing them pertained to a reduction in time for port staff and a reduction in administration costs arising from a decrease in the number of board members to be serviced. This would be of minor benefit and I cannot imagine that sending out four additional notices to board members would constitute a significant financial imposition on anyone.

The removal of public involvement of public representatives in harbour authorities by this legislation will have a significant and adverse impact on planning in the area and on the information the board will have when it makes a decision. There is an informal accountability at present in respect of public representatives nominated by county or borough councils. While they are not obliged to account for what they say or do or how they vote on such bodies, what requirement is the Minister placing on the new boards of harbour authorities to ensure full and proper consultation in respect of local authority development plans?

I wish to ask the Minister a question on the Bill itself to which he may respond at the appropriate time. I refer to the proposed changes to the limits of Drogheda Port Company. The Minister or one of his departmental officials should identify the reason for this. I do not have a problem with changing the limits as the harbour board must be dynamic, practical and business-like. I understood the prime purpose of the Bill in respect of County Louth was to change the location of the port. However, the Bill also extends its present limits "along the Baltray Road to the village of Baltray, from there ... to Duff's Farm". It encompasses a significant area in County Louth and goes from thence in the direction of County Meath, "to the southern limits of the townland of Bettystown" including "the high water mark of the eastern shore of the townland of Mornington" and so on. What is happening in this regard? I acknowledge this is a local issue. This involves significant communities in County Meath, as I am sure the Minister is aware because he was the Deputy for that area. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Kirk, and I now represent it.

See this speech in context