Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 10, line 35, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

When the Minister was in the House the other day, he advised me that he had consulted wisely and widely on the Bill. Senator Barrett had originally asked him to change the wording of section 13(3)(a) by replacing "may" with "shall". Amendment No. 3 proposes the deletion of paragraphs (b) and (c), which would no longer be required.

As the Minister did, I have taken the time to consult on this. I have consulted a number of harbour masters around the country. They are not happy that they are being excluded from the board. Depending on the board, in some cases the word "may" has been interpreted as meaning that they can attend all board meetings, save those board meetings that discuss their terms and conditions of employment, pay, etc. However, it is totally unacceptable to have a harbour board - or, as Senator Barrett put it, a group of landlubbers - meeting in a room while the mariner sits outside the door with his cap in his hand waiting to be called in. In one case in Foynes, the harbour master could have saved the State €2 million. The Minister will recall that in Foynes the chief executive officer advised the port authority - his board - that he needed a vessel on standby as a pilot.The board agreed and the boat in question was his own boat. This boat was leased to the authority, costing €51,667.50 in the first year, and the payments went on and on. It ended in the chief executive officer being suspended from office. Ultimately, the case went to the courts and the State footed a bill of €2 million, comprising severance for the chief executive, his legal costs and the State's legal costs. Had the harbour master been at that meeting, he would have been able to tell the board the port already had a second pilot ship and did not need a third one.

We cannot have a situation where the harbour master, the person who is statutorily charged and has statutory duties similar only to those found in the Attorney General, firemen and other such important offices, is excluded from the decision-making process that takes place in every harbour around the country. There are harbour masters watching this debate today and they are deeply concerned. Some of the harbour masters we have in this country are strong personalities who would ensure they attended every single meeting of the board. Others, who may not be so strong in the future or who are appointed by some chief executive officer, may in some way feel subservient and that they cannot exercise their right to attend.

If the Minister is not going to accept the amendment, will he place on the record of the House the same assurances placed on the record of the House by Deputy Eamon Gilmore when he brought the 1996 Act in? They were that under this section of the Act, "may" means they can attend every board meeting, save those meetings that deal with their salary and conditions of employment. It is unthinkable that a harbour board would meet without having the expert advice of the chief mariner of the location. It is totally unacceptable not to have "shall" in the section but if the Minister is not going to accept that, will he at least give the assurance that the harbour master can attend all meetings, save those that deal with his terms and conditions of employment?