Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

This Bill deals mainly with certain amendments to the Harbours Act 1996. As Minister for the Marine at that time, I had the pleasure of introducing that legislation. Although I welcome some of these amendments as progress because time moves on there are some points in this legislation to which I object strenuously. I refer in particular to the abolition of local authority representation by way of having directors on the board. There is neither sense nor meaning to this. The Government is attempting to reduce the number of directors from 12 to eight. That is being achieved by repealing the provision whereby local authorities nominate three of the directors on each board. It is also stating that staff representation is to be confined to one, irrespective of the number of staff. With the greatest respect to staff, to have no public representation on a board, where in most areas a harbour is very much part and parcel of the local authority area, is absurd. The harbour is a gateway to many activities within the local authority's jurisdiction. It does not make sense to allow staff to be represented but with no provision on the board for the local authority.

It is also proposed to discontinue the representation of the main user of the ports. Again, no reason seems to be given for this. In my constituency, Dún Laoghaire, for example, one of the principal sources of income is the ferry service. It is important, in my opinion, that the main ferry provider should have some say in what is going to happen within the harbour, so that this does not interfere with the business of bringing people in and out of this country. We are getting rid of that representation.

When I was setting up these boards, as Minister of State with responsibility for the marine, I came under enormous pressure from various organisations and groups to have automatic representation, which I resisted. However, when it came to the local authority and the user, I saw sense in giving some degree of automatic representation in those instances. I appeal to the Government to reconsider its plan to reduce the number of directors from 12 to eight. It might consider reducing the number to ten, perhaps, leaving provision for some degree of local authority representation, and I would be prepared to accept that. However, to automatically delete these representatives without giving any reason in any documentation I have seen, just does not make sense.

As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe was speaking about Bantry, I was mindful that Dún Laoghaire Harbour is a great example of what we were trying to achieve in 1996, namely, to let the major ports operate on a commercial basis, and that has been very successful. We need to have people on these boards who look at the issues in a commercial way and are not open to influence from any vested interest groups, which would be to the detriment of the profitability of the whole set-up. Dún Laoghaire is a good example of what has been achieved. In those days we also set up the marina there. Rather than give over part of the harbour to any private individual, a State-run marina was set up through the harbour company, and that has been tremendously successful, so that now the marina in Dún Laoghaire is the largest in the whole country. It proves that where there is a State company, properly managed, with a board that is representative of all the good things necessary for running a company on a commercial basis, there will be a success story. Simply because the shareholder happens to be the State does not necessarily mean that it cannot be run on a commercial basis. It has been proven that such a model can be successful.

It is vitally important to have a board comprising directors that know what they are talking about and who link in to the activities of a local authority. One cannot really discriminate between Dún Laoghaire Harbour and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown local authority. In fact most people believe the local authority is responsible for various features in the harbour, particularly given the massive recreational facility. Dún Laoghaire is unique in that respect, as regards, say, walking the piers, sailing or whatever. Therefore the local authority is naturally involved in some respects in ensuring that access to the harbour is maintained and so on. For these reasons I believe it is important to have some local authority representation. There is no better person for this role than the elected member who will represent his or her local authority on a board. I understand the Minister for State, Deputy John Curran, is not directly responsible for this legislation, but I would appeal to him to ask whoever is responsible to reconsider this point.

Another aspect of the legislation begins to worry me, namely, the Department poking its nose into the business of running a commercial State company. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain, in his reply, why section 10, which is an amendment to section 8 of the original Bill, provides for the port companies to annually furnish to the Minister information regarding the number of employees employed or expected to be employed over the course of the next accounting year. Why in God's name do we need a provision in legislation with a board, which is supposed to be run on a commercial basis, a chief executive and a chairman? The chairman I had, originally, in Dún Laoghaire was Mr. Philip Lynch, one of Ireland's leading business people, who gave up his time voluntarily to serve. Why, in God's name, do we want to start requiring a board to advise the Minister, in the event of it employing more than 30 people? What will the Minister do about it, or what is the reason for it?

It frightens me to see such interference creeping in, given that a State company is run by a board of directors, each of whom knows what he or she is doing and what has to be achieved - with a chief executive appointed to run the company on a commercial basis and make a profit. Whether there are 31 or 29 employees should not be the business of a Minister in a Department which is not directly responsible for the day to day running of the company. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain why this is necessary, because once we start down this road there will be all types of further interference.

On those two issues, I appeal, not on a party political basis but for the proper running of State companies as regards the control of our important harbours and ports. If something is working we should leave it, and not interfere with any entity that is working perfectly well, without very good reason. I do not know why the Government wants to change the numbers on a board from 12 to eight, when crucially this is to interfere with the representation of local authorities, which in most cases, are indirectly involved with the running of the day to day affairs in harbours or ports. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's reply.

See this speech in context