Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The very fair question was raised as to why I was giving them the ability to invite people as opposed to compelling or requiring them to do so. The answer is I have great faith in the ability of members of local authorities to exercise that power. We are going to be in a situation where a local authority will be able to quiz the chairman of the board of a port or harbour. If I am conferring that power on it, which represents a very significant change in its relationship with a port, is it not enough for me to confer it without requiring it to exercise it? I would expect local authorities to exercise the power far more regularly than once a year.

On the different situations that could develop, an aspect that perhaps was not touched on enough on Second Stage - it can be dealt with at a later point; Senators understandably and correctly focused on the steps we were taking towards democratic accountability through the auspices of the local authority - was the great benefit to be gained in proper planning and the integration of a port into the local authority unit and community in which it was located. I look at the issue raised by Senator Hildegarde Naughton and other colleagues about the port in Galway and pose the question as to whether it would be a more effective use of resources and a better way of handling the future of the port to recognise its needs and look at how it could be integrated into the overall development of the city and county through the local authority. It appears obvious that local authorities in integrating harbours and ports into the decisions they will make will provide opportunities for joined-up government and the integrated planning about which many of us speak in other areas of economic and public life.

On democratic accountability, I suggest to Senators that the wins and benefits being offered to all members of local authorities in terms of their ability to exercise their democratic mandate comprehensively outweigh any concern they might have about individual members losing their ability to raise matters with a board. I contend that given the strengthened powers local authority assemblies will have, it makes it even more inappropriate for somebody to be on a board of a body that will now be accountable to the body to which he or she was elected - the local authority.

Senator Ned O'Sullivan asked about what could happen in the case of hidden debts. This is the very reason there will be a due diligence process in which the local authorities and the harbour and port companies will participate in order that these matters can be identified and dealt with before a transfer takes place. Senator Pat O'Neill has made the point that this is a continuation of port policy. I listened to what Senator Terry Brennan said to me. He said I should "make haste slowly." I respectfully make the point that this is the continuation of a policy published in 2013 and that we are moving at a deliberate pace rather than being hasty.

Senator Pat O'Neill's main substantive point was about the potential privatisation of ports. The Bill makes it very clear that the ability to dispose of a share extends only to a maximum figure of 49%. There are two contingencies in this respect which I might explore further with Members on Committee Stage. As things stand, with the potential exception of two developments taking place that would require ministerial consent, 51% of the company must remain in public ownership. This is consistent with what I have said about airports also, that assets such as this, subject to a Government changing its mind - any future Government will have this ability - should remain in majority State ownership. Due to the development for which we have provided, they will be able to be maintained in State ownership and have the ability to raise funding through the issuing of equity.That is laid out in some detail in the sections, on which we will go into detail on Committee Stage.

In response to the point Senator Sean D. Barrett put to me, as he can appreciate - we can go into the matter in more detail later - the sections of the Competition Authority's report, in particular on Dublin Port, deal with competition within it. In fairness, the Senator did acknowledge this. The Bill is focused primarily on ports of regional significance, as opposed to competition within a port of national significance, namely, Dublin Port. I have written to the Competition Authority and believe my letter is on my Department's website. We can use it as we get into the Bill in more detail as it passes through the House. I agree that there is a need for more competition within national ports. An existing challenge is to recognise legal ownership and existing rights. I wish to see competition increased.

Senator Sean D. Barrett also made a point about how we could maintain commercial focus. Both he and Senator Gerard P. Craughwell inquired as to whether local authorities really had the reputation for efficiency that others alleged they had. My own honest analysis in dealing with this matter is that we will see a greater impetus for regional development from local authorities in dealing with ports of regional significance. In terms of how the commercial focus and ethos will be maintained, in the method of complete dissolution commercial responsibility for ports and the commercial consequences will sit directly with the local authorities, which of itself will create the impetus for at least the maintenance of a commercial ethos. On those ports that we will transfer as a corporate entity, a company, the board of directors will still be in place and they they will continue to generate and drive the commercial ethos. When I visit ports, as I do on a regular basis, I am confident that there is definitely a commercial ethos and I do not think the Bill contains anything that will change the position.

Senator Máiría Cahill welcomed the oversight function within the Bill, which is an important development, as it it something we seek to address. I think I have addressed most of the issues raised by Senator Kathryn Reilly. She made a point about the role of the local authority chief executive vis-à-visthe role of local authority members. The Bill makes reference to both. It is fair to say though that because the structure of local government and the functions of the executive and members are not my responsibility – they are the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly – I have integrated the governance structures of the ports, depending on how they are integrated into the existing ways in which local authorities are organised, but I still contend strongly that the change will result in significantly more powers for local authority members than is the case.

I have touched on some of the points raised by Senator Maurice Cummins on the role of members. I look forward to debating the issue further in due course.

In response to Senators Gerard P. Craughwell and Hildegarde Naughton, I will handle both of their contributions together because each of them spoke about the future of Galway Port. I emphasise one point very strongly to each of them and thank them for raising the issue in the Seanad. Each of them mentioned trans-European transport network, TEN-T, funding and its importance. The definition of how ports can access TEN-T funding is completely independent of the Bill. We have ports that are integrated into local authorities the length and breadth of Europe that can access TEN-T funding. The challenge is that TEN-T funding is determined by the European Union which has a requirement "that ports have to handle 0.1% of total European Union freight or passenger numbers". Regardless of the designation I offer ports, that is the criterion they must meet. As is the case with any criterion, what the Commission has done is used an historical base in looking at the performance of various ports in meeting the criteria. One point I must emphasise to each of the Senators is that the ability to access TEN-T funding is not affected by the designation of ports in the Bill. One either accesses TEN-T funding or one does not and it is determined by the European Commission. At times, my Department and I offer support to ports all over the country to help them to do this.

The decision I announced in the Dáil earlier – as the Acting Chairman is ringing a bell behind me I will conclude promptly – on the 18 month period before the Minister of the day will sign the commencement order, was made to give space to allow all matters relating to due diligence and transfer to be addressed. On the planning process, that is a matter completely independent of me as Minister. I absolutely respect the role of An Bord Pleanála in making decisions on this matter, as it will, and also that it will take whatever amount of time it needs to make a decision. It is a matter for it to decide and it will make the decision independently of me.

I heard what Senator Terry Brennan said about Louth County Council. He put a point to me about what would happen with a trading deficit and the answer is that it depends primarily on how the company would be transferred. If it is transferred through the shareholding transfer method, in other words, it is an existing company, and maintains its existence as a company, it will still be a matter for the board of directors of the company. If the port is completely integrated into or amalgamated with the local authority, it will be a matter for the local authority.

On the question of dredging, a need in all ports - I should have referred to the matter when responding to Senator Pat O’Neill - Government policy is that we cannot and do not make funding available to meet the infrastructural needs of ports or harbours. It is a matter for them. It is for the local authority to fund the future dredging of any port, as is the case at present.

I have covered nearly all of the issues Senators put to me. I thank them for their broad support for the Bill and look forward to having the opportunity to work with the House to, I hope, allow its passage.