Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important legislation. This Bill is necessary, as the Minister has identified, to ensure that our port companies are allowed to develop in a commercial manner, recognising the strategic importance of our ports to an island nation such as ours. The Bill is also necessary to give effect to certain aspects of Government policy set out in the ports policy statement launched in January 2005. It complements the original ethos given to the ten port companies by the Harbours Act of 1996 and deals with the objectives of that Bill in the following manner.

The Harbours Act of 1996 provides for port companies to have regard to any relevant Government policy or guidelines on the acquisition of land. It is considered appropriate, in the interests of consistency and best practice, that this provision should apply only to the disposal of land by such companies. It is clear that the provision for the transfer of functions from the Minister for Transport to An Bord Pleanála, in the context of the compulsory acquisition of land by port companies, is important. It is necessary that a statutory agency like An Bord Pleanála is seen as somewhat more independent than assigning it to the political head of a Department, and for that reason I welcome that decision.

There was much discussion by a number of speakers on the provisions in the Bill which set forth to alter the provisions of the membership of the boards. It is welcome that the size of the boards will be reduced from 12 to eight. Those of us on this side of the House are regularly lectured by the Members on the opposite side about the necessity to control the size of Government, control public spending, increase efficiencies and reduce the unnecessary burden of members of various boards. Some refer to important State boards as quangos, a term I reject, in regard to much of the good work done by State agencies. It is important that we identify areas where savings can be made. In a modern environment it is important that we bring efficiencies to such entities as the boards of these harbours, put in place a rationalised approach and deal with unnecessary duplication where that occurs. It is important to have all the relevant stakeholders involved in decision making and setting out the corporate policy of the various boards but there is not a necessity to have unnecessary duplication of representation. For that reason it is sensible to reduce the size of the board to eight as it will be more efficient.

We are all members of various committees in our constituencies and of working or policy groups and committees of this House and it is often the case that the larger the committee the greater the talking shop it becomes. I am a great believer in the notion of efficiency and brevity, keeping the board to a workable size and ensuring it has the broadest level of representation, while at the same time not overburdening the running of the company. For that reason, this provision is a sensible one.

The Minister's decision in regard to dealing with the local authority component is sensible. In earlier conversations and in other legislation that has come before this House there was an effort to exclude people from various State boards simply because they were members of local authorities. That would be a retrograde step were it to be allowed to continue. I recall objecting strenuously to a number of items of legislation coming before the Seanad where I served prior to entering this House.

There are some very talented people seeking public office at local authority level who have a great deal of knowledge, understanding and ability which they can bring to boards such as the harbour boards and for that reason it is important they would not be excluded by statute. The Minister has indicated that it is his desire to appoint a county councillor representative on the various boards and that an individual will not be excluded simply because he or she is a member of a local authority. That is welcome.

There is no necessity to have more than one county councillor represented on the boards. A councillor will bring a unique insight to the board from a local authority perspective but there is no necessity to have it on territorial grounds. I speak with some knowledge of the Shannon Foynes board.

There are and have been some fine members of local authorities who have represented the overall local authority structure on those boards extremely well but the same insight will be brought by more than one representative if the Minister so wishes. The same applies to worker-directors. That is not to take from the outstanding input we have had from worker-directors and county councillors but there is a level of duplication in having more than one. Their unique insight and understanding of the workings of the port, particularly from a worker-director's perspective, is brought to the table but having two, three, four or five representatives is unnecessary duplication and may not be conducive to the smooth working of an efficient and appropriately sized board. For that reason the proposals as set out are the most appropriate.

There are also important provisions for a clear legislative basis to underpin investment by port companies outside their current harbour limits. Deputy Broughan rightly identified Dublin Port's investment in Malaysia. I am familiar with a number of executives of that company and I have spoken to them in the past about their vision for Dublin Port. The move the company has made is a particularly bold one. It is the right move and we are making the right connections in that area of the world by linking with Malaysia. I just wish that more port companies had taken the same aggressive approach to development and a much broader view than merely being seen as managers of a facility. For that reason Mr. Connellon, as the chief executive of the company, and people like Mr. Kevin O'Driscoll and others, together with the current chairman, and, indeed, the previous chairman, Mr. Burke, played an active role in broadening the base and, obviously, increasing the capacity of Dublin Port to continue to evolve and develop for many decades to come.

Such a strategic approach is perhaps lacking in some of the other State agencies. There has been almost a comfort zone in some State agencies on the basis that they were just managers there to respect Government policy rather than to take the bull by the horns or to take the ball and drive forward. That commercial ethos, as recognised by those executives in Dublin Port, is something I want to see emanate from the others. That is not to suggest that the other port companies have not made good efforts in their own regard. They certainly have, but we need to ensure that it is expedited.

The board representation is vitally important. There has been a suggestion by Deputies on the other side of the House that the Government would use the opportunity to stuff the board with members of parties on this side of the House. If one goes through many of the State boards, one will see little, if any, of that approach. People are appointed for their ability, understanding, knowledge and capacity to discharge the duties as set out in legislation governing the various companies. Many give freely of their time. The remuneration these people receive for membership of State boards is small by comparison to the time they put it. These are people from various backgrounds who give substantially of their time for the greater benefit of the State. They receive little remuneration and, obviously, it is costly in terms of loss of input into their own companies or lives. Often they receive a level of criticism from the media because of the work they do. That is somewhat regrettable but, nonetheless, there are people prepared to take on the task.

Members on all sides will be aware that it is often difficult now to get people to serve on State boards because of what they see as the level of nuisance associated with it, and that there is no real gain or benefit to them. However, they then obviously attract unhelpful press from time to time for which they do not see the benefit.

See this speech in context