Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In terms of this amendment, the Leader's words summed it all up - the word "may" will suffice. The Department and the Minister have got it right. Senator Craughwell is painting a picture that the harbour master, who is employed through the board, at some stage might live in outer Mongolia or somewhere and is not available at certain times to come to a meeting. If the board, which is charged with running the harbour, needs the harbour master's expertise in the meeting, it may request the harbour master's presence, as the Leader pointed out. An example of such a procedure was that José Mourinho was until yesterday employed by the board of Chelsea Football Club. If it needed him to come to discuss team matters, that was it - he came to the meeting. The board has to make a decision. There may be a conflict of interest if the harbour master is a sitting member of the board. The Minister has got it right. It is not like the harbour master would live in outer Mongolia.

Also, Senator Barrett spoke, in relation to the CEO, about appointing landlubbers to run one. For most of these harbours, the elected members are all from around that area, so they should have a little bit of expertise on and knowledge of their local area. They would not be landlubbers. Many families may even have worked around the harbour areas at different stages. The word "may" suffices and the amendment should not be accepted.