Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 May 1996

Vol. 464 No. 8

Harbours Bill, 1995: From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1.

Section 11: In page 14, line 12, "exclusive" deleted.

During the Committee Stage debate in the Seanad Senators Lee and Norris expressed reservations about section 11 (4) (b) which empowers a port company to appropriate any part of its harbour to the exclusive use of any person for the purpose of any trade or profession in consideration of such charges as the company considers reasonable. In particular, the word "exclusive" was strongly objected to. I indicated I would be prepared to delete the word "exclusive" from the section and an amendment in this regard was approved by the Seanad. I recommend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2.

Section 13: In page 16, lines 9 to 15 deleted, and the following substituted:

"(7) (a) A company may require—

(i) where the condition specified in paragraph (a) (i) or (b) of subsection (8) is satisfied, the owner or master of a ship,

or

(ii) where the condition specified in paragraph (a) (ii) of subsection (8) is satisfied, the agent for a ship,

being in either case a ship the navigation of which or the fact of its carrying goods or passengers or of any other circumstances referred to in subsection (1) that involve the ship will result, or results, in harbour charges being imposed by the company (whether on one or more than one occasion), to give to the company a bond, or such other type of security as the company specifies, for the payment of those charges.

(b) The amount of the bond or other security that a company may require to be given under this subsection (other than in relation to harbour charges imposed in respect of a ship referred to in subsection (8) (b) shall not exceed 25 per cent of—

(i) if the company has imposed harbour charges on the owner, master or agent concerned (`the person concerned') in each of two or more years prior to the making of the requirement, the average of the amount of harbour charges imposed by it on that person in such a year,

(ii) if the company has imposed harbour charges on the person concerned in only one such year, the amount of harbour charges imposed by it on that person in that year,

(iii) in any other case, the amount of harbour charges the company estimates it will impose on the person concerned in the period of 12 months commencing on the making of the requirement.

(8) The conditions referred to in subsection (7) are—

(a) that, before the making of the requirement referred to in that subsection—

(i) the owner or master concerned has failed to pay harbour charges imposed by the company or, on two or more occasions, has paid harbour charges imposed by the company to the company after the latest date stipulated by it for their payment,

or

(ii) in the case of the agent concerned, he or she has failed to pay moneys to the company which he or she has received from a person on account of harbour charges imposed on that person by the company or, on two or more occasions, has paid moneys so received by him or her to the company after the latest date stipulated by it for the payment of the harbour charges concerned,

(b) that—

(i) the ship concerned has not entered the company's harbour on any previous occasion and the company does not regard it as likely that it will enter its harbour again in the period of 12 months commencing on the entry concerned, and

(ii) the owner or master of the said ship has not retained an agent to act on his or her behalf for the purpose of paying any harbour charges that may be imposed by the company in the circumstances concerned.".

The Irish Ships Agents' Association objected to section 13 (7) of the Bill, as amended by the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy. The association was of the view that the bonding provision, as provided for in section 13 (7), contravened the law of agency, and that the provision might also be contrary to EU competition law rules. Advice received by me from the Attorney General's office was to the effect that there was no valid legal basis to the objections raised by the association. Notwithstanding this, I undertook to reconsider the matter with a view to ensuring equity in relation to the provision — for example that ship owners, masters and agents are treated in the same manner — and limiting the bonding provision to cases where difficulties are being encountered.

The amendments I proposed were agreed to by the Seanad. The amendments, new subsections (7) and (8) provide that where there is an unsatisfactory record, for example where outstanding harbour dues are in arrears or where default in payment occurs, a company may require the owner or master of or the agent for a ship to give a bond or such other type of security as the company specifies to the company for the payment of those charges.

The amendments also provide that the bond or security, as the case may be, that may be sought by a port company shall not exceed 25 per cent of the annual harbour charges imposed by a company on the owner or master of a ship or the agent for a ship — subsection (7) (b) (i) and (ii).

The amendments also provide that in the case of a ship calling "once-off" to a port not operating through an agent and where there is no record, a company may seek such security from the owner or master of the ship in question in relation to the payment of harbour dues as it deems necessary. I confirm that the majority of agents — in excess of 90 per cent — pay their principle's charges in full and on time, and the amendment as now proposed will not penalise or place any burdens on them for so long as they continue to pay in full and on time. The amendments protect the port companies in relation to late payments and defaulters.

I also emphasise, in case there is any doubt on the matter, that the new subsections (7) and (8) do not make ships' agents liable for their principle's charges. These subsections provide — and I would draw particular attention to subsection (8) (a) (ii) — that where the owner or master has paid harbour charges to the agent and where the agent is late in handing these over to the port company or defaults in paying them over, and only in such circumstances, the port company may seek a bond or security from the agent concerned. The majority of ship's agents will not be affected by the new provisions. The amendments are acceptable to the Irish Ship Agents Association. I commend them to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

In terms of this section, we have moved a long way since we started discussing this Bill. The Minister listened attentively to the debate in Committee and in the Seanad. The original fears of the ship agents have been addressed and the requirement in the draft legislation has been virtually removed. The amendment deals primarily with defaulters whose numbers are quite low. Where there is a history of good management and paying on time the subsections will not have a detrimental effect. The House is, therefore, in a position to accept and welcome the changes now proposed.

The broadening of the defaulting section to include ship owners and others as well as agents is also welcome because it was originally felt the finger was being pointed at ship agents and it was the Department's view that it would be possible for the harbour authority to deal directly with ship owners to the exclusion of ship agents who do a very good job and have a long history of promoting developments in this field. For those reasons we can accept the amendments and thank the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore not only for this provision but for a number of other provisions.

In terms of giving a commercial mandate to harbour authorities, we are a little anxious at the delay in bringing the amendments from the Seanad so that we can complete this legislation and arrange to have the Bill enacted. Given the purposeful efforts enshrined in the Bill and the significant expenditure which will be devoted to improving facilities, I do not know why there should be a delay in bringing the provisions to the House. It looks as if we have lost some time. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons.

Mr. Gilmore

We have not lost time. In addition to the enactment of the legislation, there is much preparatory work to be undertaken in advance of the establishment of the harbour companies. It included a major study of the financial position of the various ports with particular reference to their pension position. That has now been completed and work is in hand to address the pension problems in the respective ports. In addition, work has also to be done to establish articles of association for the various companies and put a value on the assets of the companies with a view to establishing the value and level of share capital. That work is under way. A working group has been established with the Irish Port Authorities Association which has been engaged for a couple of months on the preparatory work necessary to establish the companies, and we are working towards an incorporation date for the companies of 1 January 1997.

Mr. M. Smith

Regarding the pensions study, does the Minister envisage any obligation on the State in the short term to financially support those companies that hitherto have been unable to make provision for pension rights for their workers, and some of whom have argued that they made an investment in expanding port facilities as distinct from making provision in this vital area? What amounts are involved? Will the Minister be in a position later this year to inform the House of the position in this regard?

Mr. Gilmore

I do not envisage the State being required in the immediate term to take on any financial obligation for the pension schemes in the various port companies. The port companies will be responsible for the establishment of pension funds and pension schemes for their employees. It has been made clear to the harbour boards that they have to exercise that responsibility. On Report Stage in the Dáil we introduced an amendment which, as a last resort, provides a guarantee in the event of any of the port companies not meeting their obligations to their employees so that, at the end of the day, the pensions of pensioners and employees will be protected. In the meantime we have made it clear to the port companies that the obligation is on them to meet the financial liabilities. I do not have specific information on the estimated liability of port companies for the pensions of their pensioners and employees with me, but I will be happy to make it available to Deputy Smith, and to the House, at a later stage.

Mr. M. Smith

Since these liabilities are extraordinarily high in the case of two or three port authorities, if taxpayers are not to incur some liability, will that not necessitate the disposal of major assets? Is any such proposal in train? To what extent has the Minister been involved in directing harbour boards to engage in discussions on this proposition?

Mr. Gilmore

The consultants' report is being assessed by my Department and the port companies. The position varies from port to port on the extent of its liability and obligation to provide for pension schemes for its employees. However, I would expect that the rapidly growing trade of a number of port companies would be sufficient to enable them to generate the requisite income to provide for their pension schemes. In the case of some port companies such provision has already begun; various means have already been devised whereby funds are being built up.

We shall have to take it on a port by port and case by case basis. We are working closely with the port companies to ensure that they meet their obligations in full.

Mr. M. Smith

While not wanting to blow this matter out of proportion, in the transition from harbour boards to harbour authorities, the interests of employees will be crucial so that that transition can be effected as amicably as possible. I am anxious to receive as much continuous information from the Minister as he can provide in regard to these developments. While acknowledging that there are different options available to the harbour boards and new port companies, in terms of their trading position, assets and so on, it is vital that such matters be conducted openly, ensuring that appropriate provision is made for their employees. Hopefully that transition can be done without having to resort to the precautionary provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

The position of employees and pensioners is absolutely assured, the Bill providing a guarantee that, should anything go wrong, their pensions will be paid. However, I reiterate that responsibility for the establishment of the pension funds rests with the companies concerned. I will be quite happy to provide such detailed information as I can when requested by Members, or to brief Deputies Michael Smith and Molloy continuously.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I note that Seanad amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and suggest that, with the agreement of the House, they be discussed together.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:

Section 13: In page 16, line 24, after "harbour charges", "of an amount that, having regard to all the circumstances, is fair and equitable" inserted.

The purpose of these amendments is to enshrine a mechanism in the Bill whereby the local lights dispute between New Ross Harbour Commissioners and Waterford Harbour Commissioners can be dealt with to the satisfaction of both parties.

I should like to outline briefly the background to this issue. Ships bound for New Ross Harbour must pass through part of Waterford Harbour. At present such vessels are charged light dues at the same rate as ships proceeding to Waterford. New Ross Harbour Commissioners claim that the charges imposed are not related to the cost of providing the lights and, in their view, are excessive, rendering New Ross port uncompetitive. On the other hand, Waterford Harbour Commissioners state that the lights which New Rossbound ships avail of are sea lights and buoys and, consequently, are very expensive to install and maintain. Efforts to put in place an administrative arrangement to deal with this issue were unsuccessful.

In the course of the debate in the Seanad I said I supported the principle that the user or shipper should pay for services and facilities provided. I also indicated my support for the New Ross view that charges of this nature should be fair and equitable and that there should be full transparency in relation to them.

The amendments provide that such charges shall be fair and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. The amendments also provide that, if the first-mentioned harbour considers that the charges so raised on ships proceeding to it are not fair and equitable and in the absence of agreement on these matters with the company raising the charges, if so required by either company, the matter shall be determined by an independent arbitrator nominated by the Minister.

These amendments fully meet the demands of New Ross Harbour Commissioners. Details were outlined to Waterford Harbour Commissioners who raised no objections.

I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

I listened attentively to what the Minister of State said and I had an opportunity to hear at first hand from both Waterford and New Ross Harbour Commissioners. From the outset I considered the wisest course was to ensure that this problem would be resolved between them. On the basis of any information I could glean, the historic experience between the two authorities would demonstrate that the charges appeared to be quite reasonable as far as Waterford Harbour Commissioners were concerned.

We are anxious that there should not be any local or regional difficulties incapable of resolution. Over a fairly long period we have had considerable opportunity to test the waters in regard to what might be feasible in this respect. I agree with the Minister that the "user charges" is the right direction in which to move, that they should be fair and equitable and that there be put in place a mechanism whereby, if any difficulties arise which cannot be resolved, a mediator or arbitrator can be appointed to resolve them. However, I hope we shall never have to resort to such measures. It is important that both these new port companies continue to operate effectively and co-operatively.

I have no difficulty with the amendments before us. I am glad that there is, if not full agreement, acceptance that we have gone as far as we possibly can to meet the demands of both parties.

Mr. Molloy

I thank the Minister of State for his approach to this matter. The fact that there are not any Members from Waterford or Wexford present probably is indicative that this proposal is acceptable locally. I do not think either Deputy Michael Smith or I would wants to ruffle the waters. I express my appreciation of the Minister's approach to resolving the difficulty in that region. The proposal contained in his amendments is a very reasonable one and acceptable to my party.

Mr. Bell

Members of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy, of which I am chairman, had a very long discussion on this subject. I am very pleased that agreement has been reached by the parties involved and congratulate the Minister on its resolution

Mr. Gilmore

I thank Members for their congratulatory comments. Like them, I hope that the difficulties between the two port authorities concerned can be resolved sufficiently. In the event of their being unable to do so, we have simply provided an arbitration mechanism which can be activated.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:

Section 13: In page 16, between lines 26 and 27, the following inserted:

"(9) If the company established pursuant to section 7 in respect of the first-mentioned harbour in subsection (8) considers that the amount of any harbour charges referred to in the proviso to the said subsection that have been imposed is not, having regard to all the circumstances, fair and equitable, it may request the company which imposed the charges to cancel the imposition of the said charges and impose harbour charges of another amount or, as appropriate, re-imburse the payer of the said charges a portion of the said charges, and, if the said company fails or refuses to comply with such a request, either company may refer the matter to a person nominated by the Minister for his of her determination and the determination of that person in the matter shall be final.".

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:

Section 15: In page 19, subsection (2), line 28, "that" deleted, and "than" substituted.

This is a technical amendment correcting a typographical error, changing the word "that" to "then".

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:

Section 17: In page 21, between lines 34 and 35, the following inserted:

"(5) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a harbour master may attend formal meetings of directors of the company by whom he or she is employed and may, if the directors, in their discretion, permit him or her to do so, take part in the deliberations by those directors of any matter arising at such a meeting.

(b) The directors of a company may, where they are of the opinion that the attendance by the harbour master at a particular meeting aforesaid or at a part of such a meeting would not be in the best interests of the proper and orderly conduct by them of business at that meeting or the administration of the company's affairs generally, require the harbour master not to exercise his or her right to attend that meeting or a specified part of that meeting and the harbour master shall comply with such a requirement.

(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring on a harbour master a right to cast a vote in respect of any matter arising at a meeting aforesaid.".

Following publication of the Harbours Bill, 1995, harbour masters sought to have the Bill amended to give them a statutory right to attend board meetings and to take part in discussions. Deputies will recall that this matter was debated at length in this House. Opposition amendments in this regard were not accepted by me on Committee Stage and on Report Stage because they would have given the harbour master a statutory right to attend board meetings and to attend all discussions and, in effect, would have given the harbour master the status of the director, except the right to vote. The amendments would have given the harbour master extraordinary status and rights over and above all other servants of the board. I also pointed out that harbour masters do not have a statutory right to attend board meetings under the Harbours Act, 1946, the existing legislative framework. In practice, they do in general attend and I could see no reason that practice should or would be discontinued.

During the Seanad debate on the Bill it became clear that the mood of the House was threefold. First, there was a wish to highlight and upgrade the responsibilities which are placed on the board in respect of safety of navigation. Second, and related to the first, was the wish that a stronger duty be placed on the board to consult the harbour master. Third, the board should be required to call in the harbour master to attend its meetings in so far as this was necessary to get his or her views on safety of navigation and related issues. I agreed that those were reasonable objectives and I undertook to find a statutory formula to incorpprate them in the Bill. I did this and the amendment I subsequently introduced was accepted by the Seanad.

Amendment No. 6 clearly establishes the principle that the harbour master has the general right to attend board meetings. In other words, the normal position will be that the harbour master may attend at his discretion. This will be solely in an observer and-or advisory capacity and he or she may only intervene when requested by the board. However, there may be occasions where particularly sensitive issues may come up for discussion, such as the assessment of performance of senior staff including the harbour master. In such circumstances the board must, as an exception to the normal practice, have the right to discuss these matters in the absence of the harbour master. The amendment provides for this possibility in subsection (b).

This amendment strikes a fair balance between the view that a harbour master shall have an unrestricted right to attend all board meetings and the contrary view that such attendance should, in all circumstances, be subject to the total discretion of the board. I stress, however, that this qualification to the right of attendance would not allow a board to make a general decision to exclude the harbour master from all meetings or from particular parts of meetings. The board would have to address any proposal that the harbour master be excluded from a particular meeting or a particular part of a meeting by reference to the principles laid down in the Bill, having regard to the agenda items for discussion at that meeting and on a specific case by case basis. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

As the Minister knows, we fought a long and tedious battle for the right of the harbour master to attend board meetings. If I recall correctly, the Minister referred on Committee Stage in the Dáil, as he did today, to the fact that the 1946 Harbours Act did not make any such provision. There have been phenomenal changes in the activities of harbour boards since 1946. While the harbour master's responsibilities were quite extensive in the 1946 Act, the range keeps widening. His or her responsibilities are so great as regards safety and many other matters that the involvement of the harbour master at board meetings is to the advantage of the board. The amendment provides that he or she may be excluded from a board meeting if sensitive matters are being discussed. That is legitimate and correct. However, it is good to recognise in Statute the important role which the harbour master can play at these meetings. These provisions meet the requirements of the Seanad and the Dáil. I compliment the Minister on these changes which will be welcomed by everyone in the business.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister will recall that I pressed hard during the discussions in the Dáil and the Select Committee to grant a statutory right to the harbour masters to attend harbour meetings. The Minister will recall how stubborn he was in opposing the amendment which was supported by all Opposition speakers. The Minister has travelled a long road since that tedious discussion last summer. I am pleased he has finally recognised the wisdom of the arguments we made and that he tabled this amendment, of which I approve.

It is important to emphasise that by writing this into the Statute Book harbour masters have a statutory right to attend board meetings. That can only be withdrawn from them if the board members decide, for whatever reason, that they do not want them to attend particular parts of a meeting. I presume that decison will be taken by way of a motion or a majority at the meeting of the board and that it will not be the prerogative of the chairman. I ask the Minister to clarify that point.

The Minister opposed the granting of a statutory right, but he now agrees to it. It has limitations but it addresses the point I and Deputy Michael Smith made during our earlier discussions. Irrespective of the lack of a provision in the 1946 Act, it was a long-standing practice for harbour masters to attend meetings throughout the years. It was the intention of the parliamentary draftsman who drafted the original Bill to exclude the harbour master and to ensure that he could attend only if he was invited. He is now entitled to attend and he can only be stopped from doing so by way of special motion, which I accept. I welcome the amendment and the Minister's conversion on this issue as well.

Mr. Bell

I am pleased the Minister has found the right compromise. Deputy Molloy should remember there was all-party agreement that a formula should be found to give harbour masters the right to attend board meetings. I say that as a former chairman of a harbour authority. I accept that the Minister was sympathetic to the concept of allowing harbour masters to attend meetings. The majority of harbour authorities allowed harbour masters to attend and to participate in the discussions relevant to their functions.

This amendment will give a statutory right to harbour masters to attend meetings but, on occasions, they may be asked not to attend parts of meetings if a sensitive discussion is taking place on matters not related to their function and which might cause a problem for them and for the members of the Authority. This amendment is skilfully thought out. I am pleased the Minister found a formula, as he indicated he would, which is not only acceptable to him but to the harbour masters who are enthusiastic about their right to attend meetings.

Mr. Gilmore

I thank Members for their comments. The distance I have travelled on this—or as Deputy Molloy expressed it, the extent of the conversion — is not quite as dramatic as he claimed. If Members recall I expressed the view in Select Committee and on Report Stage that the status quo as it has applied under the 1946 Act did not seem to have posed a great difficulty in that for the most part harbour masters were enabled to attend meetings of harbour boards and did so. The image being created of a harbour master sitting outside the door of a reluctant harbour board that was refusing to allow him admission did not tally with the understanding I have of the way boards do their business. I did, however, have to address the amendment tabled in the Dáil and to reject it for the reasons I stated.

I do not think it was ever at issue whether the harbour master should attend harbour board meetings as a general rule and I think we were all agreed on that but the issue was whether it was necessary to have it enshrined in the legislation and the best way of doing so. Having reflected a great deal on it as a result of the debate in the Dáil and Seanad and taken further advice, I was quite pleased that I was able to introduce an amendment which was approved by the Seanad and which appears to have the approval of this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:

Section 29: In page 27, subsection (1) (a), line 36, after "on", "the" inserted.

This is a technical amendment correcting the omission of the word "the" in line 36 and will not affect the overall provision of the section.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:

Section 29: In page 27, subsection (1), line 40, after "a", "suitably qualified" inserted.

During the Seanad debate I indicated that I was happy to accept Senator Tom Fitzgerald's suggestion that this section be amended to provide that performance audits be carried out by a suitably qualified person and that there should be a time limit for the carrying out of the audits. Approprimately drafted amendments were agreed to. The amendments provide that they shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of the appointment of the suitably qualified person to perform the audit. It is only reasonable that such a period should be allowed for performance audits at the bigger ports such as Cork and Dublin. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

It would be taken for granted that any harbour board worth its salt would appoint a suitably qualified person without having it specified. If the position were other than that there would be a loss of confidence in the ability of those authorities to do more difficult jobs than this one. It is always good to have time limits but I am not sure of the appropriate time limit. Obviously in smaller companies, shorter periods would be fine but in larger companies a longer period would be required. Time limits are important but clearly there has to be flexibility to exercise discretion as it is most important that the report point out the deficiencies and problems and be prepared on the basis of improving future performance.

Mr. Molloy

Section 29 requiring these public bodies to undertake a performance audit is a very welcome addition to legislation of this kind. Amendment No. 9 places a time limit on the provision of that report. If the amendments are accepted section 29 will read:

(1) The Minister may at the end of—

(a) the period of 3 years beginning on commencement of this section, and

(b) each subsequent period of 3 years beginning on expiration of the last previous period,

appoint a suitably qualified person to carry out an examination as to the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the performance by a company or companies of its or their function and to report in writing to the Minister the results of the examination, such an examination and a report shall be completed by the said person within the period of 6 months from the date of his or her appointment.

I am a little disturbed by the use of the word "may" in this context. Will the Minister say whether it is a requirement of the legislation that all the harbour companies will undertake a performance audit report at the end of three years after the legislation comes into operation? Is it the intention that this clause will be exercised in the case of each harbour company in existence? I would not like to see the provision being written into the Bill, but not intended for use, except in extraneous circumstances. I would certainly be happier to see the word "shall" rather than "may" but I did not table an amendment along those lines. This is not the strongest wording but it is the Minister's intention. Presumably his successors will take heed. Performance audits are something I welcome.

Mr. Bell

This is a welcome addition to the Bill. Will the Minister elaborate on the following point? Until now it has been difficult for workers employed in the docks or workers employed directly by harbour authorities to secure information concerning the financial activities of the port even though they would be partly responsible for the profits that might accrue to the harbour. With this Bill allowing for the election of a worker director will the provisions for a professional performance audit and the new arrangements for the appointment of harbour authorities mean the annual financial report of each harbour authority be made available to the Members of this House, the public and, in particular, to the workers and those engaged in the operation of the docks? I would appreciate information on that.

Mr. Gilmore

I thank Deputy Molloy for welcoming this new provision whereby companies will be required to carry out performance audits. That is just one of a number of new provisions in this legislation, the other major one is the requirement that the chairperson of the company report to the Minister separately from the normal annual report. New arrangements are being provided in this legislation for reporting and the accountability of these companies.

The companies will be required to carry out the performance audits. We are currently working with the various harbour boards and Irish Port Authorities Association on preparations for the establishment of these companies, including the preparation of the articles of association. I am looking at the possibility of including in the articles of association the requirement that the performance audits be carried out.

The question raised by Deputy Bell relates to information available to workers in the various ports. For the first time they will be entitled to directly elect their own representatives to the boards of the harbour companies and like every other director will have available to them the information presented to the board. When the harbour companies are established under companies law they will be required to carry out the normal duties to their accounts and present their reports which will be made available in the same way as the reports of other semi-State companies are made available.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:

Section 29: In page 27, line 43, after "examination", ", such an examination and a report shall be completed by the said person within the period of 6 months from the date of his or her appointment" inserted.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:

Section 30: in page 28, lines 46 to 48 deleted, and the following substituted;

"(6) the Minister shall appoint three members of a prescribed local authority or local authorities (each of whom has been nominated for the purposes of this subsection in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority or local authorities) to be each a director of a company.".

The Harbours Bill, as published, provided that the Minister shall appoint three persons nominated in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority to be each a director of a company. Deputies will recall that, during the Second and Committee Stage debates on the provision, I indicated that while the Bill was not specific on the matter I envisaged that the local authority directors would be selected from among the elected members.

On Committee Stage in the Seanad I advised Senators I had no objection to amending section 30 (6) to provide that the local authority directors shall be elected members of a local authority or local authorities. I pointed out however that, in the case of the Galway port company for example, it may be decided that of the three directors to be appointed, two should be nominated by Galway Corporation and one by Galway County Council. Similarly careful consideration will have to be given to the question of the appointment of local authority directors to the board of the Shannon Estuary ports company where at present five separate local authorities have representation on the board of Limerick harbour commissioners.

This amendment provides that the three local authority directors shall be elected members and the amendment also gives the necessary flexibility in the appointment of local authority directors to the boards of such companies as Cork, Galway and the Shannon Estuary ports company. I would remind Deputies that once the legislation is enacted regulations prescribing the nominating local authorities and the manner in which directors are to be selected will be made by the Minister for the Marine, following consultation with the Minister for the Environment. Such regulations will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, either House having the power to annul them within the next 21 sitting days. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

During the debate on Committee Stage I asked the Minister if it was envisaged that the directors would be appointed from the membership of the local authority and he gave a cast iron guarantee that would be the position. I did not have any great fears after that. Nevertheless, enshrining it specifically in legislation leaves one in no doubt as to the position. I fail to understand how the membership of a local authority, where they are in the majority, would propose other than what is provided for here. However, in the unlikely event that the members of local authorities would be so gracious as to overlook their own membership and appoint somebody from the executive instead of an elected member, the Minister of State is making sure that the elected members are those from whom directors shall be appointed. It adds to what was an already acceptable position and I have no objection to it.

Mr. Molloy

It was hoped the Minister would make known his intention in regard to the number of members to be nominated by each local authority, where more than one local authority will be the nominating body for membership of the new harbour companies. It seems the Minister does not intend to make that information available to the House because he has indicated that he intends having consultations with the Minister for the Environment, prior to making any announcement. One would have assumed the Minister had ample time to consult the Minister for the Environment prior to now, and that, on the final Stages of this Bill, he would outline his intention to the House.

There is keen awareness of an interest in his decision about who the nominating bodies will be and the number that each of the nominating bodies will be able to nominate where there is more than one local authority claiming some attachment to the business of the port and which traditionally had its members nominated to the harbour commissioners. What is the Minister's intention in this regard? He was asked this question on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil and in the Seanad. It was also discussed by the special committee. We have had no indication from the Minister as to what he proposes to do.

I note the Minister of State mentioned the possibility of two nominations, one from Galway Corporation and one from Galway County Council, but he did not say that was what he proposed to do. I do not know why it is taking so long to make this decision or announcement. It is the only aspect of this new development that has not yet been clarified. I assume from what he has just said that he will not inform us now either. It is nearly 12 months since we first debated this in this House.

Can the Minister give me some information about the "prescribed manner" referred to in the amendment? The amendment states:

The Minister shall appoint three members of a prescribed local authority or local authorities (each of whom has been nominated for the purposes of this subsection in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority or local authorities).".

The Minister will have access to information on the "prescribed manner".

Mr. Bell

Both on Committee and Report Stages a lengthy discussion took place on this issue. My harbour authority in Drogheda, and indeed the harbour authority in Dundalk, has multiple local authority representation. Drogheda has Meath County Council on one side, Louth County Council on the other and Drogheda Corporation in the middle. Traditionally, the method of nomination provided that each local authority was represented. I am glad the Minister is taking this on board. It is best done by regulation, rather than by inserting the formula for representation directly into the Bill.

The regulations should be flexible enough to provide for agreement between local authorities on the basis of political representation because many harbour boards, particularly my own, have been dominated by one or other political grouping over the years.

If two parties control the local authority after the AGM, it simply means that a grouping of parties can take, and does take, the total representation of the local authority on the harbour authority. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that this has been the traditional way. It can occur that virtually all the local authority representatives on a harbour authority come from one particular grouping. To date, if that occurred in three local authorities, it would mean that the virtual control of the harbour authority was vested in the hands of elected representatives from that one political party or grouping, whatever that grouping might be. This formula will ensure that the Minister can make the regulations in consultation with the Minister for the Environment in, I hope, a flexible way which will allow for the fair representation of local authority representatives which will reflect, at least as far as possible, the representative strengths of the local authority area and will not be dominated by any one party or group. I ask the Minister to keep that in mind when he drafts the regulations under this section.

Mr. M. Smith

Deputy Molloy is concerned about a circumstance where there is more than one local authority involved. In the mid-west, I would be concerned about where there are more than three involved and I would like naturally to hear how Solomon will deal with that problem. We might glean a little of what the Minister has in mind for the prescription of the regulations.

Mr. Gilmore

Deputy Michael Smith is correct. He and other Members accepted the assurance I gave in the course of the debate that the——

Mr. Molloy

They are more suspicious of the Minister in the Seanad.

Mr. Gilmore

I think they are more sensitive, perhaps, to the views of the members of the local authorities in the Seanad than we are.

Mr. Molloy

They are masters.

Mr. M. Smith

God help anybody who is going for the Seanad.

Mr. Gilmore

They insisted it be written down in black and white and so it has been.

On the question of what local authorities are going to be represented and in what number of the various harbour companies, the Bill provides that that will be decided following consultation with the Minister for the Environment. I suppose it is probably fair to say that, in respect of some of the harbour authorities, the local authorities concerned tend to suggest themselves.

There is a particular problem in relation to some of the harbour companies. In the case of the Shannon Estuary, five local authorities were represented on the board of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. The Shannon Estuary port company touches on the boundaries of several local authorities, which would obviously have an interest in the port. The same situation arises in Waterford. While Waterford port is associated with Waterford City, a part of the new Waterford port at Belview is located in County Kilkenny.

All of those considerations must be taken into account. I have not yet made a decision as to the local authorities concerned and the numbers of representatives from each local authority. I extended an invitation to Members of these Houses to express some views on the matter but, while some individual Members have taken up that invitation, the number who have done so is small. The invitation is open. If there is a view as to which local authorities should be represented on which port companies. I am certainly open to hear views on that matter.

The major issues which arise are as follows. Where a port is located in a town or city, should the local authority of that town or city have two out of the three positions and the attendant county in that area have the remaining one? Where the harbour involves a number of local authorities, should the representation be spread evenly among those local authorities? Two matters must be prescribed: first, which local authorities will appoint members to which boards; and second, the manner in which the appointments are to be made. I have not finalised these regulations but my intention is to follow the well established norm in the local authority system for the appointment of members to various bodies and boards, in other words, the use of the grouping system. That would probably get over the difficulty to which Deputy Bell referred. If a particular political group has a majority of one on a local authority, the practice which had existed prior to the introduction of the grouping arrangement whereby the winner takes all would be avoided. The grouping system would provide for a more even and fairer distribution of positions on that port authority.

Mr. M. Smith

The grouping system would be acceptable and quite satisfactory in the circumstances where a local authority was nominating more than one member to the new company, but that will not be the position, in my view, in quite a number of local authorities. It seems the Minister is skirting around this issue and I do not blame Members of the House for not coming up with proposals when the Minister responsible is not indicating his view on this matter.

Is there the possibility that some alternating arrangements can be made? While I accept it would dilute the impact of the elected members on the company, it would be more satisfactory from a democratic point of view because some local authorities, who will not have the opportunity to participate in or elect a director to the company, will be alienated in a number of cases. We must face up to that dilemma. While I accept the grouping system is fine, it will not solve the problem in a number of cases, particularly in the mid-west. Has the Minister given any consideration to the question of alternating membership?

Mr. Bell

I would not disagree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Michael Smith, but in the three local authorities straddling the Drogheda Harbour Authority area, the grouping in one is Labour and Fianna Fáil, in another it is Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, and in the third it is Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. There is probably a balance of some sort. A rota system would be the fairest one in that case but I do not think it would give continuity to the new companies as there would be too many changes within the term of office and this would not be good.

The Minister's reference would be acceptable to the majority of political parties and would give an opportunity to the smaller party representatives and, indeed, independent representatives to have some chance of nominating members. Such a system has been proven with regard to nominations to vocational education committees, health boards and other subsidiary bodies. I am particularly pleased that the Minister intends adopting that formula.

Mr. Molloy

I may have missed something the Minister said, but I earlier asked the Minister to give the House details of the manner in which the nominations would be made, the prescribed manner laid down in the amendment. Where can we obtain details of that prescribed manner?

Mr. Kavanagh

I have been a member of a harbour board for many years. I was nominated by the old transport union on one occasion to represent dock workers in my local area. I was also nominated by Wicklow Urban Council and Wicklow County Council on different occasions.

Mr. M. Smith

Therefore any system would suit the Deputy.

Mr. Kavanagh

I have been successful under any of the systems, as has been the case in most elections. When I was Minister for the Environment I was pleased to introduce a quota system, particularly for nominations to health boards and other boards to enable all those concerned to have an equal opportunity to be nominated. I appreciate that a quota system will not work in cases where there is only one board position and that a vote must be held. Such nominations are not always as a result of a vote. After elections or annual meetings board positions on various bodies and subsidies must be filled. Some local authority members prefer to be nominated to one board rather than another. Some of us may consider that we should have sought nomination to harbour boards, but positions must also be filled on health boards, vocational education committee boards and tourism boards. Civilised local authorities will try to agree nominations to various boards without confrontation and give everybody concerned an equal opportunity in terms of who will be chairman or vicechairman in cases where a rotation system operates. It is something like the European idea of the De Hont system where so may points are allotted for number of board representations held.

A quota system will not work well in cases where there is only one position and there is one nomination from an urban council and two from a county council. In such cases it is up to each local authority to nominate members, as they do for other subsidiary boards. If that system does not work, the Minister should have a fallback position whereby a quota system will operate where two positions must be filled. He would need to be greater than Solomon to decide on a nomination for one position in an urban area where there are two local authorities looking after the same harbour, as has been the case traditionally in Wicklow and Arklow. Perhaps we do not have all the wisdom in regard to this matter. Before the structure of the harbour boards is changed to the new one proposed, we should ascertain from them what they consider is fair and reasonable.

On one occasion a person who was not a member of the local council was nominated to the harbour board. He was an outstanding person and we all thought he should be a member of the harbour board. It is possible not to confine harbour board positions to members of local authorities.

Mr. Gilmore

I have not yet made a final decision as to the make-up of the local authority membership on harbour boards and the local authorities from which they will be drawn. One of the options to which I have given some thought is that suggested by Deputy Smith, the possibility of a system of alternation. However, I foresee some difficulties arising with that relating to continuity and balancing the interests between one local authority and another.

Deputy Molloy asked about the prescribed manner in which nominations will be undertaken. It can be consulted in the regulations when they are made. They will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and will be available in that way.

Somebody said that we are probably skirting around this matter. The issues involved are not mysterious. In the case of port authorities, such as Arklow, Wicklow, Dundalk, Drogheda and Galway where there is an immediate urban authority and a county council, the main issue is deciding the mix as between the urban and county council membership of the harbour board. The mix I have heard mentioned most in these discussions is the option of nominating two members from the urban authority and one from the county council. I have mentioned that a number of times during this debate and I have not heard a great deal of opposition.

The position is more complex in the case of a port authority such as Shannon. I appreciate the reluctance of members from the counties concerned in regard to this matter. The Shannon Estuary stretches across parts of counties Clare and Limerick, Limerick city, counties Kerry and Tipperary north and local authorities in those areas have representation on the board of Limerick Harbour Commissioners. It will be more difficult to reach a decision on nominations to such harbour boards.

Mr. Kavanagh

If the Minister decides to appoint one member from a county council to a harbour board, he should ensure that member comes from the electoral area which surrounds the harbour authority area. In the past members from authorities in west Wicklow were nominated to the Wicklow Harbour Board. That area includes Blessington and the lakes, but people who have a direct interest in their local area and have been elected by people from urban and county areas close to the harbour should be nominated to the harbour board.

Mr. Molloy

The Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debated this issue on 26 July. The Minister said that local authorities will nominate members and the nominated members will then be appointed by the Minister for the Marine. The number nominated from the various local authorities will be decided by the Minister for the Marine following consultation with the Minister for the Environment. Nine or ten months have passed since that matter was discussed, yet in May 1996 the Minister cannot inform the House of his intentions regarding representation of local authority members in the new harbour companies. It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us in May 1996 that he will consult with the Minister for the Environment. The Minister for the Environment and the Minister's party are in Government and they have had ample opportunity during the past nine or ten months to have had all the consultations necessary to resolve this matter and to have informed the House of the Minister's intentions regarding representations from the nominated local authorities before the Bill is passed by Dáil Éireann. This raises many questions.

Many people have asked me not only about this issue but about the delay in finalising the Bill. They have asked what has been holding up the Harbours Bill. Why has it taken so long to finalise the Bill? There is no explanation as to why it has taken so long to pass this Bill. The select committee dealt with it fairly expeditiously. We had long discussions under various sections, but we skipped through them fairly quickly. There was a recess in August but the committee, of which Deputy Bell is chairman, resumed in September. What consultations must take place which the Minister could not have had during the past nine or ten months or longer since the Bill was first published and passed by Cabinet? He must have had some idea about what he would do.

The delay in making a decision on this matter has made people suspicious. The Minister is not prepared to state his intentions in the Dáil because he knows they will have repercussions; he wants to deal with the matter surreptitiously by way of regulation when the Bill is on the Statute Book and cannot be altered.

Where is the openness, transparency and accountability in this? This Minister had nine or ten months to deal with the simple issue of representation by local authorities on the new harbour companies, yet he still has not made up his mind on the matter. What is he doing? I know from experience that the Minister is effective, efficient and competent and, unlike many of his colleagues, he has been willing to listen to arguments by Opposition parties. He stands out as a shining light among Ministers who have brought legislation before the House. He is willing to be open, accountable and transparent on other issues and I would like to know the mystery about this issue.

Members of local authorities, who gave excellent service on the old harbour boards since the introduction of the 1946 Act, are in a vacuum and will have to await some kind of diktat following the enactment of the Bill. The Minister has not been prepared at any stage during the debate to outline the intentions of the Government or the Minister for the Marine on the issue. His statement that he will have consultations — he made the same statement last July — raises suspicions. This is not in keeping with his track record for doing business and I appeal to him to give a reasonable explanation for his delay in making a decision on this matter. Is it the case that his proposals on representation will not be palatable and will cause problems among local authorities? In other words, local authorities can fire all the shots they want after the Bill is enacted but it will not be possible to change it. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke and to let the Minister deal with the matter by way of regulations. We will have an opportunity to discuss the regulations and express our displeasure about those proposals with which we do not agree but the Government has a majority and we will not be able to do anything about them. We might agree with some or all the proposals and I would like to know why the Minister is reluctant to be open, transparent and accountable on this issue, which he said is not a mystery.

Mr. Gilmore

There is no mystery about this issue. The composition of the local authority representation will be decided in the final analysis by the Minister for the Marine, following consultations with the Minister for the Environment.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister told us that a year ago.

Mr. Gilmore

No decision has yet been made and that is why I am not able to state the position.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister cannot make up his mind on this issue. Have any consultations taken place to date?

Mr. Gilmore

I attempted to have consultations with the Deputy.

Mr. Molloy

I am not the Minister.

Mr. Gilmore

If the Deputy had continued to read from the report of the select committee, from which he read selectively he would find that on 26 July I specifically invited him to make recommendations on what we should do about the Galway port company.

Mr. Molloy

What is the Minister's proposal? He is being given the powers but does not want to exercise them.

Mr. Gilmore

I will repeat the question: would it be acceptable to Deputy Molloy if the representation on the Galway port company constituted two members of Galway Corporation and one member of Galway County Council?

Mr. Molloy

If the Minister wishes to resign I will do his job.

Mr. Gilmore

On 26 July last I asked the Deputy to express an opinion on the Galway port company and I am still waiting for a reply. It should not be difficult for him to express an opinion on the new Galway port company.

Mr. Molloy

Why is the Minister skirting around the issue?

Mr. Gilmore

I am not skirting around the issue, I am asking a direct question about the Galway port company. Would it be acceptable to the Deputy if the representation constituted two members of Galway Corporation and one member of Galway County Council? I would like an answer because this principle will apply to most of the other ports. Lest the Deputy accuses me of being coy about the direction of my thinking, that is it. A decision has not yet been made on the matter but this is the formula which should be used in the case of, for example, Galway, where two local authorities are involved. The Deputy said I had nine or ten months to deal with the issue but I have been waiting for a reply from him for nine or ten months about the Galway port authority. I am now giving him an opportunity to state if the representation on the Galway port authority should include two representatives from Galway Corporation and one representative from Galway County Council.

Mr. Molloy

Obviously I have come to the wrong conclusions about the Minister as I thought he had courage and the ability to make decisions and explain the reasons behind them.

Mr. Gilmore

I asked the Deputy to express an opinion.

Mr. Molloy

I asked a simple question about the way the locally elected members would be nominated to all the harbour companies. I did not come in here to speak for Galway Corporation and I have no problem in accepting the formula put forward by the Minister if that is the one he wished to use. However, I want to know the facts. The Minister has a duty to put his proposals before the House so that they can be discussed before the Bill is enacted. However, he is not prepared to do that and has sought instead to turn the issue back on me. If he proposes that there should be two representatives from Galway corporation and one from Galway County Council on the Galway harbour company I will accept that formula. I merely want to hear his proposals. He made a mountain out of the representation on the Galway port company but refused to give information about all the harbour companies on which local authorities will be represented. Why is the Minister afraid to outline his intentions to the House? He has expressed his intention in regard to the Galway port company and I want to know why he cannot do the same in relation to the other companies so that we know the position. Why has it taken him nine or ten months to have inconclusive consultation with the Minister for the Environment about representation on harbour companies? He did not answer my question about whether consultations had taken place and I can only assume that they did as it would be abnormal if they did not. I am sure Government Deputies have been in contact with the Minister and Minister of State about this issue. They are as interested as I am to know the Minister of State's intentions. This does not keep me awake at night but it is part of my responsibilities as spokesperson prior to accepting the Bill which was the subject of a thorough examination on Committee Stage, to extract information in regard to the Government's intentions. However, there is a great reluctance to give it to us. I do not understand this. The Minister of State said there was no mystery about it, so, why create one? That is what he is doing in refusing to give us the information.

Mr. Bell

The Deputy is making a mountain out of a molehill. I was present for all Stages of the Bill and chaired the select committee.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy, probably, knows the Minister of State's intentions. The House does not.

Mr. Bell

The Minister of State repeatedly invited Members to advise him. I wish every other Minister would embark on a similar consultation process. It was democracy at its very best.

In the case of my constituency I have no hesitation in saying I would like to see two members of the urban council and one member of the county council on Dundalk Harbour Board and one member of Meath County Council, one member of Louth County Council and one member of Drogheda Corporation on the Drogheda Harbour Board. If four places were available, I would argue there should be two members of the corporation and one member from each of the county councils on the board.

Mr. Molloy

I would like to hear the views of the Minister of State, not those of the Deputy.

Mr. Bell

I have made my views known to the Minister of State. On Committee Stage he invited local authorities, trade unions, other interested bodies and the public to give him advice. I wish every other Minister would do the same. Democracy would benefit much more if this was done.

Mr. M. Smith

I disagree profoundly with Deputy Bell. As Members who have experience of Government know, issues arise from time to time on which it is not possible to reach consensus. If one were to wait for the recommendations of local authorities etc., one would never have a decision.

I have no brief to defend Deputy Molloy, but it would be strange if the only reason the Minister of State could give for not making up his mind, is that the Deputy failed to reply to a direct question put on 26 July 1994. We are trying to tease out this matter to reach a resolution, but in the final analysis, some hard decisions will have to be taken which will not please everybody. It is important that we go as far as we can to allow the new companies to develop in the way we want them to.

The time has come to make up our minds on these matters. We have made some suggestions to help the Minister of State. It is important that we move forward on a positive note and make some decisions. The Minister of State should not be convinced by the arguments made by Deputy Bell who chaired the select committee extraordinarily well. As I am sure the Minister of State appreciates, the buck stops at his desk and he must make a decision when it is not possible to reach agreement.

Mr. Kavanagh

I would have liked to have participated in the debate on this Bill, but I am chairman of a committee which, unfortunately, takes up much of my time. The Deputy has the same problem, he would like to speak about matters in which he has been involved for almost 30 years as a member of various boards and give the Minister of State advice and information, but, as has been said, we would not be here today if this was the only item at issue. Everyone would agree this is not the reason the Bill has been delayed for one year. It is nonsense to suggest, therefore, that the Minister of State cannot make up his mind.

Everyone would agree that the boards should be smaller in size. One could solve the problem of representation by increasing the number of representatives of urban and county councils, but one would end up with boards of a ridiculous size of up to 20 members. The Minister of State has, therefore, made the right decision. We have argued for additional places as, traditionally, local authorities have been represented on such boards.

I have no difficulty with the proposal that there should be one county council member and two urban council members on harbour boards. It could quite easily be the other way round. If the turnover of the board of which I am a member was £20,000 lower per year, strange as it may seem, it would be taken over by Wicklow County Council. This was the cut-off point. The board had the lowest turnover followed by Arklow.

The matter is more complicated in the case of the Drogheda Harbour Board on which three councils are represented. Where it is more straightforward, for example, in Galway, Wicklow, Bray and other areas, most would agree that there should be one county council member and two urban council members on the board.

Mr. McCormack

We have come a long way since the Bill was first mooted. One of the factors which concerned people was the proposed reduction in the number of local authority members. It was suggested initially that there would be only one local authority member on harbour boards, but following representations from all sides of the House we have arrived at a position where there will be three representatives. This is essential to maintain liaison between harbour boards and local authorities.

Like Deputy Molloy, as a former chairman of the local harbour board in Galway, I am aware of the advantages which flow from the liaison between members of the local authority and the harbour board. I am glad to say their relationship is excellent.

I have no difficulty in accepting the proposed figures. It is logical that, since the harbour board is based within its functional area, Galway Corporation should have two members on the board. As the board deals with several matters which affect the county council, it is also entitled to representation. There would be nothing to stop the county council from selecting a member of the corporation to be a member of the board as happened on the last occasion when a member of Deputy Molloy's party was appointed. I am sure the county council will select the best person for the job.

It is a matter of regret that responsibility is being passed from Dáil Deputies who will no longer be eligible for membership. I have been a member of the board in Galway for 17 years and will be replaced by someone with an interest in its development. I have every confidence in the Minister of State as he is following the correct line.

Mr. Gilmore

I am glad Deputy McCormack has reminded the House of the distance we have travelled in relation to local authority representation on harbour boards. This Bill originated from the report of the review body on commercial ports which recommended initially that there should not be any local authority representation on the boards of port companies. However, the Government decided that there should be, in the interests of local democracy and copperfastening the relationship which exists between local ports and local authorities. The Government is committed to a strong degree of local authority representation on the boards and has decided that three directors should be appointed by local authorities. This will give them substantial representation as the total membership of the board is 12.

As regards the composition of the boards and which local authorities should appoint which members, no decision has yet been made but when it is it will be in the form of regulations which will be laid before both Houses. Members will have an opportunity to debate them if they wish and to table a motion if they are dissatisfied with them. One would be led to believe by some of the contributions made today that there is great dissatisfaction. I will be happy to defend the decision that will be made. I thank Deputies for their helpful and informative debate on this issue.

Mr. Molloy

It is disappointing that the Minister is not prepared to state his intentions in regard to the representation that will be allocated to each local authority. Under the regulations it is proposed to introduce, will it be possible for one local authority with a nominating right to nominate an elected member of another local authority to represent it?

Mr. M. Smith

Possible but unlikely.

Mr. Gilmore

It will not be possible. The member will have to be from the local authority concerned.

Mr. Molloy

That is what I thought. I do not know what sighting Deputy McCormack has had of the proposed regulations but we have been left very much in the dark on this issue. It seems as if Fine Gael are even more in the dark than we are in regard to the Government's intentions.

Mr. McCormack

I am not in the dark because I have every confidence in the Minister.

Mr. Molloy

Blind confidence.

Mr. McCormack

I cited what Galway County Council did on the last occasion it elected members to the harbour board. A member of Galway Corporation who is in Deputy Molloy's party was not able to get elected from the corporation because of the pressure for places. As the person concerned would have a good input to make on the harbour board, Galway County Council very generously decided to nominate him despite the fact that he was a member of the corporation. It was a unique gesture in local politics. I am glad we nominated Councillor Martin Connolly because he has served well and has made a great input to the board. I am sorry we will not have an opportunity to do it again.

Mr. Molloy

In case the record shows the magnanimity and generosity of certain parties in Galway County Council, not such high ideals were attached to the decision. It was purely a practical political deal between the various political parties as to who would get representation on what authority and who would have the chair in each succeeding year.

Mr. McCormack

The Deputy knows all about deals.

Mr. M. Smith

The council meeting is over.

Mr. Molloy

If the parties had not come together to make some arrangement they would not have had any representation. It did not have anything to do with generosity. Deputy McCormack stated there was nothing to stop one authority appointing an elected member from another local authority to these harbour companies. The Minister has contradicted that.

Mr. Gilmore

The Deputy is clutching at straws.

Mr. Molloy

I knew the Minister did not intend to introduce regulations which would allow one local authority to appoint an elected member from another to represent it. I do not wish to add to the confusion. It highlights the fact that we should have been given full information during the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:

SECTION 30.

In page 28, after line 48, the following inserted:

"(7) The Minister shall, in selecting one or more persons to be appointed as a director or directors of a company (not being a director or directors to whom a preceding provision of this section applies), consult with—

(a) the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland (or any successor of it),

(b) the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (or any successor of it), and

(c) such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate,

and each of the said persons may, following such consultation, recommend to the Minister that a particular person or persons be appointed as such a director or directors and the Minister shall consider such a recommendation.".

Deputies will recall that while I did not accept proposed amendments to the Bill to provide for statutory representation by chambers of commerce on the board of new port companies, I advised that it was my intention that the ministerial directors would, in general, be drawn from the professional and business community. I also advised that it was my intention to invite recognised bodies such as IBEC, chambers of commerce and so on to recommend persons for consideration for appointment as directors. I accepted in principle an amendment tabled by Senator Fitzgerald during the Committee Stage debate in the Seanad that the Minister before appointing ministerial directors should be statutorily required to consult with the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland. However, I indicated I would like to broaden the consultancy provision to cover cases where there are no chambers of commerce in existence, such as Foynes, and also to provide for consultation with other bodies such as IBEC, leisure and other interests as may be deemed appropriate. The amendment approved by the Seanad meets these requirements and I am happy to commend it to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

We have prescribed in primary legislation that the person who will carry out the audit for the new companies will be suitably qualified. We have prescribed for the elected members of the local authorities and for trade union representation. The main emphasis in the provisions in the Bill and the thinking behind them was to give a commercial mandate to harbour boards in the new companies. We fought as diligently as we could to obtain for chambers of commerce a statutory right to be represented. This is an extremely important matter. I understand an amendment was tabled in the Seanad and the Minister has gone as far as he deems necessary to meet it.

The amendment has been considerably diluted. The Minister will consult with a range of organisations. We should indicate the willingness of the House to recognise the contribution those in the business profession could make towards the enhancement and development of the new companies. It is illogical to provide for trade union and local authority representation without providing for the direct statutory nomination of a person from the business community. Perhaps in the final analysis such a person will be appointed by the Minister, but why not go the whole way and provide for that? We tried at all stages of this debate to reach agreement and there were very few divisions. A positive response was forthcoming from the Minister in this House and in the Seanad — I pay tribute to our colleagues in the Seanad for their interest in this matter and the wide-ranging debate there on all Stages.

This amendment is only a token concession which is not what we had in mind. We indicated to the Minister in the strongest possible way what we believe is necessary. Failure to provide in the legislation for representation by the business community sends out the wrong message. There are many good measures in the legislation, but the Minister should have gone the whole way and met the arguments put forcefully in both Houses. I recommend that he take the bull by the horns, give statutory representation to chambers of commerce and indicate a willingness to accept their contribution, as he has done in other cases.

Mr. Molloy

The original thinking behind the proposal to change harbour boards, as set up in 1946, to harbour companies was to create a greater business focus at board level of harbour companies. That was the overall intent of the Murphy report, yet having accepted the broad thrust of the report the Government has made major alterations to the original proposals vis-à-vis the matter we have been discussing, granting representation to local authority members. It is extraordinary that while the Government thought fit to make changes of that nature, it is not prepared to give the same statutory right to the business community to representation on harbour boards, considering that was the original intent of the legislation.

The legislation provides a statutory right for worker representation on the boards. The trade union-worker aspect is adequately provided for, as are local authority members, although we do not know how satisfactorily until we see the regulations. Yet the business community which traditionally played a very strong role on the majority of harbour boards is being denied the statutory right to nominate a member. As Deputy Smith said, this amendment has very little significance in the way it is worded. There is provision for consultation with chambers of commerce and IBEC "or such other person as the Minister considers appropriate". There is no clause to the effect that the person should be from the business community. It could be anybody, even the Bishop of Galway. I do not see how the Minister can justify sloppy legislation of this kind.

I have experience of legislation and was involved on one occasion in a review of a programme for Government. I ensured that the language relating to consultation and consideration was eliminated as far as possible because I realised it meant nothing.

Mr. Gilmore

The Deputy had a bad experience.

Mr. Molloy

I learnt rapidly that even though the Government may state that a matter will be considered, it may later oppose it. The Minister said that he will agree to consultations, but they are not binding. He may consult with the people involved and they may submit names to him, but that means absolutely nothing. It is like tipping the hat to the gentry. The Government looks in the right direction, and people should be grateful for that, but it proceeds in the opposite direction. This is sloppy legislation and is unusual in the way it is written.

The House should take a stand on this issue. The Opposition has a duty to ensure that legislation means something, and clauses that mean nothing should not be included. I realise the Minister may have had a difficulty in the Seanad in that the Government does not have a clear majority there and he did not have sufficient numbers to support his opposition to representation by chambers of commerce. He, therefore, caved in on a weak measure that got him off the hook. In this House, however, where the Govenment has sufficient numbers the Minister is seeking support for an amendment that has no meaning whatever. It is demeaning to include this amendment in its present form.

Paragraph (c) is so global in its intent that the Minister can do whatever he likes. He may appoint another local authority member, another worker representative, another trade union representative or even a fictional Senator. The amendment is so global I am surprised the Minister suggested it. It states that "such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate" may be appointed, but who would they represent and in what way must they be appropriate? It simply adds to the Minister's list of political nominees to these boards.

I previously sought by way of amendment on Committee Stage to provide on a statutory basis for representation by the business community through the chamber of commerce structure. I have no objection to including IBEC, an organisation that represents employers and businesses. It is, however, unacceptable that other persons whom the Minister thinks appropriate may be added. Does that include his programme manager or his director of elections from Dún Laoghaire? I am surprised the amendment has been put forward in such a form. Unless the Minister comes up with a reasonable explanation or agrees to change the wording I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. Bell

I listened with interest to the remarks of Deputy Molloy. In the past it was traditional that trade unions be represented on harbour boards — usually the person appointed was a full time official of the union operating on behalf of the majority of members in the docks area or a union representing larger ports. Prior to the appointment of the previous harbour authority a directive was issued by party headquarters telling local activists of the party to ensure they got their union cards from the local union headquarters. Suddenly they were all representatives of that union — the majority of them had never even held union cards — to the exclusion of the full-time officials responsible for the operation of the docks labour. That was done deliberately but not by a Democratic Left or Labour Minister.

Mr. Molloy

They would not have the ingenuity.

Mr. Bell

I do not want to name the gentleman concerned because he has since left the House but if I have to I will.

The distinction between worker-director and local authority representatives and chamber of commerce representatives is simple but significant. Local authority representatives must stand before the people to get elected before they can be nominated to serve on the harbour authority. The worker-director must stand before his fellow workers in an election to be democratically elected by them.

Anybody can become a member of a chamber of commerce. They are non-elected people; they do not have to stand for re-election and some of them represent very minor interests. They do not have to stand for any form of election.

Mr. McGahon

They do.

Mr. Bell

All that is required of them is to have a business interest in a local town. They simply make an application and are then accepted into membership. They do not have to stand before all the traders in the town in order to gain membership of a chamber of commerce.

Approximately 25 chambers of commerce, including the two in my constituency, have communicated with me in regard to this matter. I explained to them that the way in which the Minister proposes to proceed will be to the benefit of the chambers of commerce, not to their detriment. Rather than having a fixed number of two representatives on the authority, they may well have eight because it is logical that the Minister of the day will not nominate local authority members in place of people who run commercial businesses. The Minister made it clear on Second and Committee Stages that he would welcome nominees from the chambers of commerce.

I hope the authority goes outside the ambit of the chambers of commerce because there are many successful business people who would be well suited to serve on the new harbour companies who are not members of chambers of commerce. Many of them live in my town. It is wrong to compare local authority nominees, who have to stand before the people, and worker-director nominees, who must stand before their fellow workers, with people who are not required to stand for any election.

I hope the Minister nominates more than two chamber of commerce members in my constituency to the authority. I am confident that will be the case in County Louth.

Mr. McGahon

I sympathise with Deputies Smith and Molloy and my constituency colleague, Deputy Bell, in their support for the nominees of chambers of commerce. Having been a member of various municipal authorities over the years, I am of the view that harbour boards are not particularly suited to domination by members of local authorities. I refer particularly to the very small harbours. I accept Deputy Bell's point that nominees from various councils are elected by the people but that does not keep ports viable. In fact, if the small port in my town of Dundalk, for example, had been depending on business emanating from Dundalk Urban District Council or Louth County Council, it would have closed 100 years ago. The people who kept that small harbour open were those who had a vested interest in doing so, namely, business people who used it for various reasons. The port struggled along for many years with the support and commitment of local business people.

We do not have any docker representatives in Dundalk; that system was dismantled many years ago. I do not see any reason trade union members should be represented on boards in the Dundalk area. I support the rights of the chamber of commerce and other business people, who have kept the port open over the years, to have a seat on the board. I hope the Minister, who must be aware of similar situations around the country, accepts that. He should give a mandate to the chambers of commerce to put forward their own nominees and not resort to the old custom of nominating hacks of whatever party. In opposition we can all say that various practices are wrong but we do the same when we are in Government.

A blanket approach cannot be adopted to this problem because the difficulties in Drogheda, which has docker representatives, are different from the problems in Dundalk.

Mr. Bell

Worker-directors.

Mr. McGahon

I understand Deputy Bell's appreciation of that particular area.

Mr. Bell

They are all members of the ATGWU.

Mr. McGahon

I am not a member of any union, and perhaps the survival of Dundalk port was due to the fact that we did not have any problems on the docks emanating from trade union disputes. I live within 200 yards of the docks and I know Dundalk port would have closed but for the personal support of business people who, virtually single-handed, ran the local harbour office. I support the reasonable request by Deputies Smith and Molloy that full representation should be given to business interests, whether they are members of a chamber of commerce or any other business community in a particular district.

Mr. M. Smith

Before the Minister replies, I want to thank Deputy McGahon for his support. We have tried in this debate to avoid divisions but we genuinely believe the Minister must move further in regard to this issue. I have the greatest respect for the democratic system which I have been honoured to serve for a long time. I am under no illusion that I am any more important because of that and, perhaps, less important than a number of people who never engaged in the democratic system, those who create jobs and those who have the entrepreneurial bent — some of whom are elected to this House. The greatest need here is to create jobs and to have people working. I have never thought that those who stand for public office have superior rights.

The Minister should go the extra step and avoid divisions in this House as far as possible because all sides genuinely want to solve problems. In this instance the Minister is offering a token concession which is not enough. The whole thrust of the Bill is to have the business orientation and the commercial ethos engendered in the boards. I plead with the Minister to take that final step. That is no diminution of the respect I have for people who are elected. We are merely pointing to where we see these boards going and how we want to place the business community. Those who create jobs, those who, as Deputy McGahon said, sustained these little ports for years should stand equal — we are not asking for a concession — to other representations which are being put on a statutory footing in the Bill.

Mr. Bell

There are few issues on which I disagree with my good friend and colleague, Deputy McGahon, but we always disagree when it comes to the difference between employers and trade unions. I admire him for admitting in public many times that he has no time for trade unions. He repeated that this morning and said they would not be permitted if he had his way. I respect his point of view but that would not be the view of the vast majority of people not only in County Louth but in Ireland. Every organisation has a trade union. The Garda Síochána has two trade unions.

Mr. McGahon

That is the problem.

Mr. Bell

The Army has two trade unions. Every Member of the House is involved in one way or another in a trade union as are the staff of the Oireachtas. I accept everybody is entitled to their point of view but I do not share the Deputy's view. For the information of the Deputy, the representation in Dundalk Harbour Authority always included the full time official of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union. The workers on the docks in Dundalk are members of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union and the staff of the harbour authority are members of IMPACT — a major trade union in the public service — so too are the workers in Drogheda.

I am not saying members of the chamber of commerce should not be members of the new harbour companies. On the contrary there should be more than a fixed number but it would be impossible to fix a number of nominated people to a board when they are not elected members. The best way to get party political hacks on the boards of new companies would be to tell them to join the Chamber of Commerce and we will ensure the Minister of the day appoints them.

Mr. M. Smith

Absurd, absolutely not.

Mr. Bell

The Minister, Deputy Barrett, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, have taken the right line on this and I support it.

Mr. Gilmore

The long debates in this House and in the Seanad were not on the issue of whether there should be professional and business representation on the boards of the harbour companies, because that is entirely accepted, but on the type of that representation The review body which examined our commercial ports made the core recommendations on which this legislation is based. That body did not recommend that there should not be representation from particular interests. On the contrary it recommened that the best available board should be appointed by the Minister. However, a case was made on the position of local authorities. I have heard some criticism outside this House of the Government's decision to permit local authorities to have a right of representation on the boards of the harbour companies. I have heard no such criticism either in this House or in the Seanad. I do not know whether some criticism is implied in respect of the decision to appoint local authority representatives. If it is being suggested, because of that decision, that there should automatically be some type of representational board drawn from particular bodies having the right to nominate members of the board I should point out that the review body specifically recommended that that should not be the case. One of the difficulties which the review body identified with the existing structures for the governance of our ports and harbours was that there was too much representation from vested interests. In fairness, it had in mind the confined community of interests who trade and operate in and around our ports.

A decision was made, and there is some confusion here, that there should be a balance on the board as between management and labour representatives. I use the term "labour" with a small "I" on this occasion. The management representation would be the chief executive of the board and the labour or worker representation would be employees of the company who would have the right to elect one or two, depending on the size of the port company, worker directors. That is in line with the policy of successive Governments to extend worker representation in our semi-State companies. It is a modest representation although it reflects the size of the labour force.

The Government's intention is to ensure that the best possible board of directors is appointed to manage and run the commercial semi-State companies being established to manage and run our commercial ports. I have also made clear repeatedly that it is our intention to appoint to those boards people with appropriate professional competence and business backgrounds who can bring to those boards their business experience and abilities. This legislation establishing commercial companies to run our ports can be given practical effect when the boards are appointed. The intention is that the appointees to these companies would be of good professional and business calibre.

Mr. Molloy

Good fund raisers?

Mr. Gilmore

No.

Mr. Molloy

That has been the experience to date of this Government.

Mr. Gilmore

The Deputy described some of the difficulties he experienced in Government and——

Mr. Molloy

The importance of words.

Mr. Gilmore

Another matter of importance, of which the Deputy did not experience a great deal, is that of trust with Government colleagues. I am happy to say that is an experience I have enjoyed since coming to office. The issue is not whether people from the business community or with business experience or a business background will be appointed to the board of these companies. That is assured. The question is how that representation will be achieved. It was argued here and elsewhere that the chambers of commerce in the respective towns should have an automatic right of nomination to the boards of the port companies. I rejected that argument here and in the Seanad.

Mr. McGahon

Why.

Mr. Gilmore

I will explain later. We are talking about 12 semi-State companies. I have great respect for chambers of commerce and pay tribute to the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Dublin chambers of commerce, with which I am most familiar. Chambers of commerce vary from area to area. A number of them could legitimately claim they represent the business communities which the ports in their areas serve. There can also be rivalry between business organisations with different business interests in certain areas. A short time ago we talked about how we would decide the weighting of various local authorities where different interests are involved. A range of business organisations, such as the Irish Ships Agents' Association, the Irish Exporters' Association and IBEC, who have a direct involvement in various ports sought representation on the port companies. In response to an amendment from Deputy Smith on Report Stage we decided to widen the remit of the companies by giving them a brief for leisure type activities as well as traditional commercial port trading activities. This includes bodies such as the Irish Sailing Association and the Irish Federation of Marine Industries who sought representation on the boards on the basis that they represent business interests in port activity.

Following a reasoned debate in the Seanad, I believe the best approach is to enshrine in the legislation the principle of business representation on the boards and to provide a mechanism whereby prior to appointing the representatives there should be formal consultation with chambers of commerce, because much of the debate centred on them, and with IBEC because of its national dimension as a business organisation. We also decided that, based on their port activities, there should be consultation with organisations such as the Ships Agents' Association, the Irish Chamber of Shipping, the Irish Exporters' Association and the Irish Federation of Marine Industries.

Consultation prior to the appointment of directors is not an invention or, as Deputy Smith said, a sop to the chambers of commerce. That principle is already enshrined in the case of worker directors where we provided that if their number is less than 30, trade unions should be consulted and there should not be an election. The consultation process in this case is similar.

I gave assurances here and in the Seanad about the intention to appoint directors with business experience and of good calibre. Given the principle enshrined in the amendment, the procedure I set down for a formal process of consultation with named business organisations and the possibility of extending that to other business organisations as appropriate, I am surprised at the less than generous response from some Members.

Mr. McGahon

I do not often fall out with my colleague, Deputy Bell, and Deputy Gilmore is a good Minister. However, I am peeved at the use of the words "vested interests". What is wrong with vested interests? Does the real world not spin on vested interests? It has been argued that harbour boards are part and parcel of the local authority set up. That may be so, but that is not the correct approach. One cannot compare a harbour board with the functions of an urban or county council. Their functions are miles apart. While I accept there should be a place at the table for local authorities, they are over represented and, to use the Minister's words, vested interests are under represented. The Minister referred to various organisations such as the Ships Agents' Association and Irish Exporters' Association who should have a seat at the table because of their commercial involvement in keeping ports open. They depend on the ports, can attract importers and exporters and, in turn, create jobs. What jobs can representatives of urban or county councils or trade unions attract? What business activity, in a nautical sense, can they attract to a harbour?

The present system was probably set up when the State was formed and it has acted as a depressant for business in the case of small harbours. There should be less political participation on the boards and more places for people who can attract economic activity to the harbours and, in turn, create employment. Urban or county council representatives are not in a position to do that.

Let us give a vote of confidence to the people who stimulate business activity in our towns and accept that there is a good side to vested interests. It is when they are abused that problems arise. We should support people with a vested interest in their towns and harbours. I would like greater representation of people with vested interests on harbour boards.

Mr. M. Smith

I have no wish to introduce a discordant note into the debate, but it is outrageous of the Minister to assume because we are making this case for the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland we are against representation for workers and local authority members. We are approaching this matter in a genuine way. We are not against the participation of others. What we are talking about is balance. In this instance we have argued cogently that it is wrong not to accord to the business community the same statutory rights as are accorded to elected local authority members and workers, and it is absurd to interpret that as being against representation for others.

That some review body did not recommend it, is often trotted out as an excuse for not doing something. May heaven save us from review bodies, their reports, and recommendations which were not implemented in the past. Inevitably review bodies propose a totally independent board, which would mean appointing people who know nothing about the business in question. When appointing boards as a Minister, I selected people who had vested interests, because it would be impossible for someone to give good service on a board without knowledge of the business, and the only way one can have such knowledge is to be in some way engaged in the business. It is not true that we cannot trust people if they have a vested interest. If a person has 30 years experience in a business and employs 30, 40 or 100 people, that should be recognised as a national contribution by that person and on the basis of such results and experience I would be prepared to appoint him to a board. We are far too shy in this House about standing up for people who do such work, as if there was something wrong with making profit, engaging in enterprise and doing something for the country in terms of giving employment. When the Minister says he would have difficulty in appointing somebody like that on a statutory basis, he should remember there will be 12 members on each board and he will nominate at least seven or eight of them. We are asking for one statutory appointment; the rest will be open to the Minister.

This House should not divide on this matter. We have all set out to improve this legislation as it progressed through the Houses. There is no real difference between us on this question. The Minister has the scope and the numbers and there is nothing to stop him from doing what he was able to do in other instances. He has prescribed for matters that are not nearly as important. We have asked the Minister to face up to reality and recognise the work, involvement and participation of the business community. He should take the bull by the horns and let us have no further debate.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister's attitude is wrong, illogical and contradictory and displays a bias against the business community. Ministers have been wrong before. I remember a Minister for Tourism and Transport, Mr. Childers, a very able Minister and a man who made few mistakes, telling me during my first month as a Member of this House that there was no future for Galway Harbour, that the future of ports and shipping was influenced by developments in shipping which was moving towards containerisation, that the type of ship would change, that the goods Ireland exported went out through the east coast and only the east coast harbours or ports could prosper. He said there was no future for a harbour on the west coast and he would not grant the money I was seeking to deepen the harbour in Galway to enable larger vessels to enter and turn in the harbour and discharge or bring out a cargo. Mr. Childers was adamant about that on the basis of research he had carried out. Subsequently the Minister's constituency benefited greatly from ro-ro activities and is still benefiting with the rapid expansion of Dún Laoghaire. Galway harbour is still there, 31 years later — I am not saying that was because of my persistence in eventually getting the money to deepen the harbour.

My point is that Ministers can be wrong, despite their belief that they are properly motivated in making decisions. In this case the Minister is very wrong. There is a serious principle involved here. The Minister has granted statutory representation to two groups, to employee representatives and to elected local authority representatives but is refusing to give statutory representation to the business community. It has been said by Deputies McGahon and Smith that harbours cannot thrive without business activity. The leaders of business, in exercising their judgment, generate the business for the harbours and have been responsible for the importation and exportation of goods. It does not make sense to deny statutory representation to the main harbour users. I do not know whether the Government is refusing to agree to this amendment or due to some ideal of the Democratic Left the Minister is opposing the amendment. I do not find it easy to understand where the Minister is coming from on this other than from his political background and his ideological outlook in regard to business; perhaps he is throwing all that aside and saying he supports business activity, that he sees the necessity for it to create employment but nevertheless he will not give it representation on this board.

We could cave in and go on to the next section, but if we do that this section will be cemented into place and it will be some time before the House again discusses major harbour legislation of this nature. Because this is major new legislation establishing a whole new way to control and run the harbour business we have a duty on the Opposition side — I am glad to see support from some Government backbenchers — to insist that the legislation is put together in a way that is workable. It is inconceivable that the harbour users should end up without representation on the harbour board. There was a suggestion at one time that that should be the ideal.

Rather than accept those recommendations the Minister sought to construct these harbour boards along his own lines. He advanced solid proposals for local authority, employee-worker representation but ludicrous ones for representation of the business community. How can he expect any need for these harbours unless business people use them? How can he expect the harbour companies to operate in the most effective, efficient manner if those with most knowledge, experience, most reason to ensure that a harbour is successful, are not allowed representation on the board? Despite how busy some of these business people are, and have been, it is remarkable that they have made themselves available to participate, as members of harbour boards, in their discussions.

Having served as a member of the Irish association which governs the various harbour boards and on my local harbour board, my observations of meetings of both lead me to the conclusion that business and harbour users' representatives have made the greatest contribution, without whom we would not have experienced the success we have.

Earlier the Minister wanted harbour masters excluded from participating in harbour board meetings but he caved in, for which we thank him. In future they will have a right to attend board meetings and can be excluded from participation in certain circumstances, but only by a decision of the whole board. The Minister's proposal had been to exclude the one member of the board or staff with overall responsibility for the movement of shipping in and out of the harbour, for all the facilities required, from the safety and other points of view, for traffic management, the flow of goods through the port and all the arrangements to be made about ships on the high seas en route to and from a harbour. The Minister wanted to exclude the harbour master, not the harbour secretary, from such meetings but we overcame that problem.

Representatives of the business community, the most important influence on the degree of business conducted through any harbour, will be excluded from membership of those boards. When this Bill is passed, political appointments will be made — I have seen it happen frequently in the past — when the Minister and parties in power will want to know how many seats they will have to fill. They will be filled by political appointees whose knowledge, interest and commitment to the development of harbours and business flowing through them will not be of primary concern. Unfortunately, that has been the track record of some parties in Government on all sides.

I had hoped my party would not participate in that kind of practice——

Mr. M. Smith

The Deputy should not test my patience.

Mr. Molloy

We are all human and fall from time to time but, in the event of opportunities presented us in this area in the past, we fell on fewer occasions than any other party.

Mr. M. Smith

Never seen doing so.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Molloy

We are not "holier than thou" but it cannot be denied that I have had plenty of experience. I stand over any public appointment I made, particularly in my reborn form, my appointees were unique and performed exceptionally well.

Mr. D. Ahern

Remoulded.

Mr. Molloy

We have travelled that road sufficiently long now. All parties recognise the temptation and pressure to appoint political supporters to such boards. As Opposition spokesperson on the Environment, when the Fine Gael and Labour parties were in Government, the present Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, as Minister for the Environment introduced a Bill proposing a change in the manner in which members of An Bord Pleanála would be appointed. It was on the basis of nomination by certain national representative organisations, such as engineers, architects and others involved in planning and development. That was the then proposal of the Leader of the Labour Party who remains its Leader. Now, within the radical overall structural changes being effected in all harbour boards, the method of appointing two categories of members is being laid down in statutory form with which all sides of the House agree. However, representation of perhaps the most crucial interest to the development of any harbour and business flowing through it, the business community, will not be statutorily provided. How can the Minister of State justify that illogical decision?

The proposal contained in this amendment is even worse. The Minister has not answered one of the questions I posed in relation to subparagraph (c) which reads: "such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate..." Appropriate on what basis; appropriate for what purpose, in what way?

Mr. Gilmore

I listed them for the Deputy.

Mr. Molloy

This is a global provision enabling him to appoint anybody he wishes.

As I pointed out on Committee Stage, perhaps the reality is that if this Bill is passed in its present form when it comes to making these appointments, his role will not be as dominant as here where he is deemed to be acting on behalf of the Government. I assure him that, when it comes to selecting nominees — wherever there are no restrictions on appointing representatives of any particular group — such decisions will not be left in his hands.

I take this stand from my knowledge and experience of the system as it has operated to date but, judging by the Minister's response so far, I find it difficult to agree to this amendment in its present form. I recommend that the Minister avails of the forthcoming break to consult his senior Minister — a reasonable, sensible businessman himself whom I would have thought would be very supportive of the business community — on the necessity to grant the business community statutory representation similar to that granted other representative groups. He should bring the views expressed here by the members of Fianna Fáil, Progressive Democrats and an able, experienced backbencher of the Government parties, to the attention of the Minister, when he may well return with a somewhat different approach from that he has adopted so far.

Mr. Bell

I notice the growing tendency to blame the Labour Party for everything. The fact that yesterday, May day, was such a wet one appears to be the only thing for which Deputy Molloy's party has not yet blamed the Labour Party. It is beginning to sound like a labour ward rather than a Labour Party.

As Deputies Molloy and Michael Smith know, I chaired the Committee Stage discussion on this Bill when we had one of the lengthiest ever discussions on this matter. There is nothing in the Bill which excludes port users from being appointed to a harbour board. While there is much talk about vested interests on the part of members of such boards, what about the most important vested interest, the workers, who contribute most to generating the wealth from which administrative costs are met? Members tend to talk about members of chambers of commerce and the like as though dock workers did not exist. I am proud to have been associated with the Minister of State, at one stage having been one of his bosses in the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union.

I know how capable he is. He came in as a young man from the students' union. I am glad he is the Minister responsible for handling this issue. On behalf of myself and Deputy McGahon, I thank him for the £300,000 he gave to Dundalk docks——

Mr. Molloy

Is that the reason?

Mr. Bell

——and the £5.5 million he gave to Drogheda docks for the job Deputy Molloy is talking about in Galway.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time has come to proceed to other business.

Mr. Bell

The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, will look after Deputy Molloy in Galway.

Mr. Molloy

They are jumping off the sinking ship there.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.