John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

On behalf of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, I thank Deputies for the comprehensive manner in which they have contributed to the debate on this important Bill. In particular, I will relay the points made by Deputy Barrett on the make-up of the board to the Minister. I listened to what he said and notes of it have been taken.

We all acknowledge the importance of our commercial ports in facilitating our past and future economic growth. All sides have also acknowledged that the Bill contains some important provisions which will aid the development of the sector in the years ahead.

I would like to address some of the specific issues raised by Deputies during the course of the debate. Deputies O'Dowd and Broughan referred to the connectivity of our ports to the overall transport network. The integration of the commercial ports into overall transport policy was a key aim of the ports policy statement. In a repeat of a previous exercise in 2005, the Department of Transport contacted all ports in 2008 and requested they identify priorities to help inform departmental consideration of future transport projects. The overall integration of all aspects of our transport network is a cornerstone of the Department of Transport's statement of strategy.

In reference to the views expressed by a number of Deputies regarding the proposals in section 11 to remove the statutory representation of local authority members, the Minister for Transport has acknowledged that this proposal may be seen by some as an unwelcome break from established tradition. However, I refer to the overriding purpose of this Bill, which is to enhance the commercial ethos of the port companies. The port companies are the only bodies within the State commercial sector that retain this provision, which itself is a remnant of their previous existence as quasi-local authorities in the guise of harbour boards. There is clearly a need to bring the port companies into line with other commercial bodies and to reform the board structure by removing this restrictive provision as regards board membership.

Deputy O'Dowd raised a question as to the rationale behind the provisions contained in section 6 of the Bill relating to the disposal of land by port companies. I can assure the Deputy that this provision is merely intended to bring the legislation into line with current Department of Finance guidelines. It corrects a drafting imperfection in the existing Act. The Deputy also referred to the issues within some port companies regarding their pension liabilities. In cases where there are such issues, the port companies are in communication with the Pensions Board regarding the timeframe for rectifying any deficits they may have in their pension funds. This is in line with the recently enacted Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008. Deputy O'Dowd raised a valid point regarding the valuation of a company's assets in the context of the falling values experienced across the economy in the last 18 months or so. The Minister's opinion is that the inclusion of the €200 million figure in section 9 would alleviate any concerns the Deputy may have with regard to this matter and ensure that our ports are not constrained in relation to their borrowing requirements.

Deputy Broughan commented on the length of time taken from the publication of the Government's ports policy statement in 2005 to the publication of the Bill in July 2008. Arising out of the recommendations of the ports policy statement, the Department of Transport initiated a national seaport capacity study to evaluate capacity needs and proposed projects. This very important and valuable piece of work was commenced in late 2005 and concluded in mid-2006. I am sure all sides of the House would acknowledge the importance of awaiting its conclusions before commencing any legislative drafting process. Following on from the publication of the capacity report in 2006, a widespread period of consultation followed, which allowed all relevant stakeholders to put forward ideas and suggestions. This period of consultation also enabled the Department of Transport time to take account of emerging needs in the sector, such as the proposed development at Bremore . It is clear that in the case of this Bill, there were clear processes in play which helped shape the evolution of the legislation.

With regard to Deputy Broughan's comments on the standardisation of employee directors on boards, the Minister does not disagree with his assertion that employee directors have made an "overwhelmingly positive contribution to boards". One must remember that in terms of direct employee numbers, the port companies are some of the smallest employers in the State sector and that already seven of the ten ports have one employee director out of a total of 12 directors. In terms of the overall reduction in board numbers from 12 to eight proposed in section 8, standardising the number of employee directors at one per port company will ensure that the contribution they have made in the past will continue to be convincingly made in the future.

With regard to the appointment of the chief executive officer to the board, I would highlight the fact that such appointments are standard practice both within the State commercial sector and the private sector. It is not considered that such appointments represent any conflict of interest. On the contrary, they are in line with standard corporate governance practice.

With regard to the Bremore project and the potential impacts it may have on surrounding communities, I remind Deputy Broughan that the development of these proposals are at an early stage. The entire project will be subject to the normal planning process of any large scale development and that process will afford all potentially affected stakeholders an opportunity to make a submission on the matter. Deputy Broughan also referred to the issue of amalgamation of port companies. One of the key aims of the ports policy statement is to encourage competition between port companies. The Harbours Act 2000 does provide for amalgamation of port companies but there are no proposals under consideration at present. Merger proposals are considered on a case by case basis in light of prevailing circumstances.

Another element of the ports policy statement was that of regulation of the ports. The position today remains as that outlined in the statement, namely that there is no proposal for a regulator to be appointed having regard to the structure of the sector, including the high degree of competition and the substantial level of private sector investment in ports.

The Minister for Transport agrees with Deputy Broughan's reference to the importance of Dublin Port in the context of both the national and regional economy. It was in the light of this importance that the national development plan provided for a comprehensive study on its future role and I am pleased to say that the work of this study is almost complete. The work undertaken by this study and the work proposed to be undertaken by the Dublin Bay task force are quite separate yet inextricably linked. The Dublin Bay task force, established by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, in July 2008, will look at the bay as a whole and examine a range of issues. The focused work of the Department's study will feed into and inform any eventual outcomes of the work of the task force.

My colleague, Deputy Dooley, referred to the important regional role and potential of Shannon Foynes Port Company. The Shannon Estuary is a major natural resource and the Minister is fully supportive of the exploitation of its potential on the basis of commercially viable proposals.

Deputy Broughan raised the difficulties faced by Shannon Foynes Port Company in recent years. As the Deputy is aware, the company commissioned an internal audit report of process and procedure and the board are committed to implementing its recommendations. In September 2008, the Minister for Transport appointed a new chairperson and five other directors to the board of the company. It is the board of the company, in the first instance, which is responsible for corporate governance. However, his Department continues to closely monitor the company's business in accordance with normal corporate governance practice.

Deputy Broughan also raised the unique position of Rosslare Harbour. As he is aware, Rosslare is not one of the ten State commercial port companies and its legislative standing is a rather complex one dating back to the 19th century. Currently, CIE is the de facto owner of the company charged with maintaining the harbour, along with Stena Line. I can confirm that there is no specific legislation under development at present, but this will be kept under review.

While the Minister respects Deputy Sheehan's impassioned contribution in respect of section 18, I remind the House that the proposal contained within the Bill is not in itself a transfer of Bantry Bay Harbour to Port of Cork Company control. This matter was also raised by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. It is an enabling provision only, which merely adds to the suite of options currently available in respect of the harbour. The amendment made to the section during its passage through the Seanad will ensure that all local and regional stakeholders will have a platform to have their voices heard prior to any decision being made in respect of a transfer of responsibility to the Port of Cork Company.

With regard to section 17 and Deputy Doyle's comments regarding Arklow Harbour, the rationale for the proposal was outlined quite clearly in the Minister's introductory speech on the Bill. However, I would highlight the fact that the section does not in itself transfer the harbour to local authority control. The option to create a private company in respect of the harbour will remain, under section 87 of the 1996 Act.

The insertion of the term "Minister for Transport" in place of "the Minister" in relation to the Irish Maritime Development Office, contained in section 20, is merely an administrative exercise to reflect the fact that responsibility for the office rests with the Minister for Transport rather than the Minister responsible for the Marine Institute itself.

The Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008 is important legislation in terms of equipping our commercial port companies with the legislative tools required to continue their development and evolution as full commercial companies. The Bill has been subject to an extensive consultation process stretching back a number of years, with important contributions from the various stakeholders within the sector. That consultation process helped to shape the development of the Government's port policy statement of 2005 and the Bill.

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. The Minister looks forward to continuing the discussion on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context