Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This Bill came about as a review of the ports policy which began in 2010 and led to the national ports policy 2013.As Senator O'Sullivan stated, many people underestimate and do not realise the importance of our ports to the country. The Competition Authority estimates that our ports handle approximately 84% of the volume of all merchandise and trade and 62% in terms of value. As an island nation, our ports are critical to our ability to trade throughout the world.

The purpose of this Bill is to allow for the transfer by ministerial order of control of the five ports of regional significance, Drogheda, Dún Laoghaire, Galway, New Ross and Wicklow to local authority-led government structures. Some people will cringe when they hear that. I am aware Senator Barrett has reservations in this regard. However, I note, as did Senator Reilly, that an important consideration in the model is to ensure the appropriate balance between the commercial freedom of the company and democratic oversight. This is a key element of the Bill. It is important that the commercial entity be allowed to exercise freedom also and that there is democratic oversight.

As someone whose grandfather was a sea captain who plied his trade on a three-masted schooner from Waterford to Wales and as a person who worked in the Port of Waterford for over 20 years, I have a love of ports and port activity in Ireland and worldwide. To answer Senator Barrett's question as to why the Port of Waterford thrived since it moved to Belview, there are a number of reasons for this. Having witnessed the storm damage of recent days, I recall that storm damage once brought down the main crane in the Port of Waterford. There was also had the demise of the major customer on which the port was probably over dependent, namely, Bell Lines. These were the main reasons for the lack of growth of the port.

I am happy to say that under the new board and management, things are improving significantly. There is no reason this should not be the case. It is a port with a load-on, load-off facility and where trains can go right in under the gantries. In respect of trains however, CIE abdicated its responsibility in regard to rail transport and just did not want to know about the port 20 years ago. I do not know if the situation is any different now. It has not been competitive in its rates. At that time the Port of Waterford was served by three or four trains from Dublin at weekends. Trains also came from Belfast, from Ballina - with freight from the Asahi plant - and from all over the country. Now such traffic is negligible, mainly because CIE was uncompetitive and abandoned it. That is why we see so much heavy goods traffic on our roads. This must be rethought in the context of a transport policy for the country.

I agree with Senator O'Sullivan and I abhor the blanket exclusion of councillors because, over the years, I have known many good councillors who were excellent members of port companies or harbour commissions. Now that these ports are coming under the local authority umbrella, councillors should be included on the boards. What is the reason for excluding them? There can be no conflicts of interest in that regard.

In the context of local authorities, section 23 of the Bill requires that the chairperson and chief executive of the transferred company can appear before the elected council, if invited, to account for the administration of the company. I am of the view that we should not include the words "if invited" and that these individuals should come in each year to report to the relevant local authority. If the local authority is taking over the port, why should there not be an annual report from the chief executive of the port authority? We need to reconsider the use of the phrase "if invited" in the context of our discussion on the later Stages of this Bill. It should be a requirement that they report to the council. If we are giving control to the local authorities, why not give them the power to question the report. If councillors are being excluded totally from the boards, surely they should have the facility to question the chairman and chief executive of these ports each year. There is no point in excluding the councillors totally.

In general, I welcome the Bill which has come about as a result of the review of port policy. It is a step in the right direction, but we will need to monitor the model on a regular basis to see how well it works. I am sure we will have many teething problems before these companies are set up under the local authorities. I welcome the Bill but I have reservations in regard to the total exclusion of councillors. If they are to be excluded from these bodies, then the local authorities' oversight and that of the chairmen and chief executives should be extended to those members each year.