Seanad debates

Wednesday, 28 January 2009

Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Marc MacSharryMarc MacSharry (Fianna Fail)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to make some points. I pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Denis O'Donovan, because in my time in the House I have never seen anyone or any group of people apply the same level of scrutiny and constructive suggestion to legislation, and he is to be greatly commended on that.

I thank the Minister of State for initiating this Bill in the House. It sits well for this House and I would like to see other legislation being brought here.

I do not see any national benefit in what is being proposed for Bantry. As Senator Jim Walsh said, there is a need for competition and to develop our ports and the import-export business from those. I support his contention and that of many Members who have spoken on Second Stage that this issue requires a reappraisal. It seems to be driven from ivory towers, for want of a better expression, and be determined largely by officialdom as a body as opposed to any individuals. This is regrettable because the best decisions are those emanating from the ground up rather than being dictatorial in nature. I know Senator O'Donovan has issues with some of the consultation that has taken place. I refer to the KPMG report but in many such reports, the brief given at the outset is to consolidate. Those compiling the report are asked to come back with a plan which consolidates, for example, subsuming Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. What would the report have said had the brief been to come back with an economic plan for the best way to develop Bantry to support coastal communities, create more competition around the country and develop business?

Senator McCarthy referred to board representation and the number of local authority members sitting on boards. This Bill proposes to limit numbers as opposed to prohibiting the representation on boards by local authority members. I join Senator McCarthy in saying there has been an erosion of the democratic process. It has become the practice, to use a phrase used by officialdom and civil servants, to exclude local authority members from boards, harbour commissioners and so on. This is fundamentally mistaken. This obsessive pursuit of a level of political correctness has been defined by the media and other interests and has not been informed by and is not in the best interests of public representation. Whether a local authority member is from any party or none, he or she is the chosen representative of the people, has been democratically selected and is best placed to be representative of the public rather than a sectional interest. It would be an erosion of democracy as a whole were we to continue along these lines.

I know this is possibly an issue specifically for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, and his Department but there has been a shift led by the Civil Service towards the exclusion of democratic representatives, a case of not giving power to elected representatives under any circumstances. This is a fundamentally wrong position. I am a great believer in democracy and the democratically elected people are the ones who should have the power to do these things. While I welcome the fact this legislation is not a case of excluding councillors completely, as has become the practice in other areas, and while I am glad they are still included to some degree, they should not be limited. We should enhance the public's voice.

I commend in particular Senator O'Donovan's constructive analysis and assertions on this Bill. I ask that the Minister of State look favourably upon numerous requests to have a reappraisal of this legislation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.