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

Indeed. I would be very happy to get into it at the appropriate point again. With respect to harbour masters, I will begin by outlining where I agree with the two Senators and, conversely, where I disagree with them. I agree on the points regarding the expertise and knowledge that harbour masters have. I have seen this when I visited many ports and in meeting the boards of ports. I completely disagree with the Senators on the description offered, perhaps flippantly, in describing the boards of ports as "landlubbers". They are anything but that. Engaging with the boards of port companies in the way that I have, I know it may be true to say that some members may not have the maritime experience that the chief executive or other directors might have. The reason for that is the broader set of skills relating to financial or governance matters that boards of directors must have. We must have a broad set of skills and experiences represented on the board. I stated when I met the board of the Drogheda port last Monday that the collective experience on the board has a deep appreciation of all the maritime issues that a port might be facing and all the trading and operational matters that are relevant to the future of the port.

The Senators made the point about the importance of harbour masters and I have stated that I agree with that point. The key point on the amendment is that there is nothing in the Bill changing the current status of harbour masters and their relationship with the board. We are not changing that at all. The role that harbour masters currently have vis-à-visthe board of directors is unchanged in any way with the passage of this Bill. Notably, section 37 of the 1996 Act, which requires every company to employ a harbour master, and section 17 of the Act, which allows for their attendance at board meetings, is unchanged by the passage of this Bill.

I would have been open to accepting the amendment if anything in the Bill changed the current relationship between harbour masters and boards. If any change was proposed or could happen in this Bill, there would be a case for looking at the amendment. I accept that the participation of harbour masters in board meetings is very valuable. When I met boards of port companies, in many cases the harbour masters were there and took part in our discussions. There is nothing in this Bill that changes the relationship about which the Senator is concerned, and that is the reason I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

The current relationship between harbour masters and boards works well and appears to be successful in allowing our ports to trade successfully. As a result and because the relationship is underpinned by current law, which is in no way changed by the passage of this Bill, I accept the strong and positive intention behind the amendment but it would not improve the operation of our ports. It is for these reasons that I do not propose to accept the amendment.