Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 35 are related. No.12 is consequential on No.2. Nos. 1, 2, 5, 12 and 35 to be discussed together. Is that clear?
Death of Deputy. - Harbours Bill, 1986: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I will move amendment No.1 as I should like to hear the Minister's comment on it.
Have you the permission of Senator Durcan?
I do not know.
Senator Durcan is here now and he will solve the problem for us. We are about to discuss amendment No. 1 to Section 4.
I move amendment No.1:
In page 4, paragraph (a), line 19, after "harbour authority" to insert "where it firstly occurs".
If this Bill is enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas it will become part of the harbours code, amending the 1946 Act. The purpose of my amendment is to make clear what is intended in the Bill. If the matters which come after it, which are provided in section 4, are to be included in section 7 of the 1946 Act, then that can only be done in terms of giving legislative clarity if the words "where it firstly occurs" are inserted.
You can discuss all the amendments together but you can only move one of them.
My understanding was that I could only move one at a time.
That is right but you can discuss all of them.
Amendment No.2 in effect follows on from amendment No. 1. Amendment No.12 provides for the insertion of a table which would mean the insertion of a new subsection. The purpose is to have greater clarity and to give greater ease to those who may wish to read the Harbours Act, 1986, when enacted. It is interesting to note in that regard that the parliamentary draftsman in approaching section 3 of the Bill has provided for the inclusion of a table. It has been the practice in recent technical Bills which have come before this House and the other House to include a table setting out the new amended subsection. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister to consider seriously amendment No.12.
I wish to raise a matter which I raised on Second Stage. It is something which I should like to discuss with the Minister between now and Report Stage. One of the very disquieting things about the composition proposed in section 4 for the Shannon ports Authority is that labour, that is to say, representatives of the workforce, are, it is suggested, to have two places on the authority out of a total number of 21 places. Leaving aside the matter of eight local authority members, one finds chambers of commerce will have two members, manufacturers will have two members, ship owners will have two members——
Do I take it, it is amendment No.3 you are discussing?
I am talking about amendment No. 12. I thought I could raise it under that, but perhaps you would prefer if I did not.
That is all right.
The point I wish to make is that the workforce will have two representatives out of 21. Compared to that, chambers of commerce will have two members, manufactures will have two members and ship owners will have two elected members. That balance of six representatives of the users of the port as against two representatives of the workforce in the port is not correct. It does not reflect the spirit of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act. The suggestions in Senator Durcan's amendment whereby the ship owners are to have four members while the chambers of commerce and the manufacturers will retain the two members originally proposed still get the balance wrong. I should like the Minister of State to respond to the suggestion that it would be appropriate, at the very least, that there would be four members of the workforce on the authority. That is not asking too much. Secondly, I recommend to him — I would be prepared to table an amendment to this effect on Report Stage — that the four worker members of the authority would be elected in conformity with the spirit of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977.
In the creation of public authorities dealing with any matter of public policy, it is appropriate that the Government should give a significant representation to the workforce and that the workforce representatives should be elected within the model set down under the 1977 Act. I know that the 1977 Act does not apply to board authorities but there is no reason for not extending it or, failing that, there is no reason there should not be a similar provision built into this legislation.
This is a serious matter. In many ways it downgrades the importance and value of the workforce as regards the effectiveness and work of a port of any kind if they are to be allocated only two places out of a total of 21 at a time when other interest groups using the ports, who may well have interests which conflict with the interest of creating a viable and cost effective port operation, have six. Under Senator Durcan's amendment they would have eight.
I support Senator O'Mahony. Under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, the policy embarked on by the then Minister for Labour was that a third of the seats on these boards would be filled by elected nominees of the workers. This happened in the case of Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna, British & Irish Steam Packet Company Ltd., the Sugar Company, CIE, the ESB and Nítrigin Éireann. One wonders why the policy has not been continued and extended. After all, we hear many complaints about industrial relations, workers' attitudes and so on. When we have an opportunity to embark on a course of action we should not stop dead at a particular point but should extend it into other semi-State and State areas. It is courting disaster to introduce an imbalance to any of these boards.
I support Senator O'Mahony. Had I been here in the past fortnight I would have put down an amendment to this effect but I was away on holidays.
Under the 1980 Act dealing with industrial safety, provision was made for an extension of union participation. There is a precedent for this. It turned out to be quite successful in all these semi-State and public bodies. It is right that the Minister should think seriously about this. The whole question of worker participation and industrial democracy is not new. It is taking us a long time to come into the 20th century. We were dealing with the question of worker participation as far back as 1968-69. That is when the dialogue started. It continued into 1977 and we finally came to terms with it and appointed people to these boards. That policy should be continued. Senator Durcan's amendment would give an unfair imbalance and there is enough imbalance in society as it is.
Does Senator Durcan want to appoint an authority other than Shannon? Is it an authority for all the other harbours or what is his intention?
Every authority specified in the Schedule to the 1946 Act have a statutory basis for their own authority. That authority is quite specific. The appointment, election and nomination of members to each harbour authority is specifically specified in that Act.
The purpose of amendment No. 12 to introduce an element of legislative clarity and to insert into the Harbours Bill, 1986, if enacted, an ease to legislators, to public officials and to members of the public who may wish to read that Act. That ease will be made available if the table is inserted because that table specifies the full effect of the amended section 7 (1) of the 1946 Act. The purpose of including the table is to provide for inclusion in the Bill, when enacted, of the entire amended subsection. The purpose and motivation for the amendment is not in any way to interfere with the existing procedures or composition of various harbour authorities.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for legislative clarity. I do not think that the amendment has the effect of doing otherwise. If it does otherwise then I will be happy to have another look at it and to rephrase it in a more suitable way for Report Stage.
In answer to the question raised by Senator Kiely, the effect of the amendment is not in any way to effect the constitution of any harbour authority based on the 1946 Act nor is it intended to affect the new Shannon authority as envisaged in this Bill.
In relation to amendment No. 12 I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that section 4 of the Bill seems to be remiss in not giving adequate representation to the workforce. Amendment No. 12, if passed, would have the effect of imposing the ports authority structure as set down in the amendment to all other port authorities in the future. Section 15 in its present form gives the Minister power to reconstitute other port authorities by order. The Minister is to amend that, at least to the extent that the order must be passed by the Oireachtas before it has effect. That is a welcome amendment following comments I made on Second Stage. If amendment No. 12 is carried, then the composition of other port authorities, such as Dublin Port and Docks Board, would have to conform to the formula set down in the amendment.
I am very much aware of the need to reconstitute the organisational structure within Dublin Ports and Docks Board to make it a more dynamic institution than at present and that such constitution has been recommended in one particular way by the Dublin Port Review Group which recommended an eight-man semi-State company type organisation. I am happy to go along with the amendment whereby any order to reconstitute any other port authority including Dublin Port and Docks Board would have to be scrutinised and passed by the Oireachtas before it could be given effect. Amendment No. 12 apart from reinforcing the imbalance against the labour force in the composition of the authority——
That is complete rubbish.
I am not being personally critical. What has happened is that the number of elected members, who I understand would be elected by shipowners, would be increased from two to four. Apart from that, it seems to imply — although I am sure that is not Senator Durcan's intention — that that composition of the authority as set out in amendment No. 12 would be automatically applied to all other port authorities irrespective of the amendment tabled by the Minister under section 15. I would ask Senator Durcan to reconsider tabling this amendment until we have had time to clarify exactly what we want in relation to other ports.
I did not mean to be rude to my colleague when I said his comments were rubbish; I wish to withdraw the comment, I used the expression out of irritation. Section 4 of the Harbours Bill, 1986, provides as follows:
Section 7 of the Act of 1946 is hereby amended by—
(a) the insertion in subsection 1 after "harbour authority" of "(other than the Shannon Ports Authority)", and
Paragraph (b) is as specified in section 4 of the 1946 Bill. I put down three amendments which are relevant to that: first, amendment No. 1 which asks this House to insert after the words "harbour authority" in section 4 the words "where it firstly occurs".
The second amendment is amendment No. 2 which is to insert the words at the end of subsection (a) "the said subsection, as so amended, is set out in the table to this section". That is, as it were, the enabling amendment. The amendment to give effect to that enabling amendment is amendment No. 12. All that amendment No. 12 does is to set out in tabular form how the entire subsection (1), as amended, will read. The purpose of the table is not in any way to change or to attempt to reconstitute any harbour authority in this country. The purpose of the amendment is simply to set out in the Harbours Bill, 1986, when enacted in tabular form somewhat similar to the table that appeared at the end of section 3, a table which will indicate the total, amended subsection. The purpose of the amendment and the effect of the amendment is to do nothing other than that. The purpose of the amendment is not in any way to bring about a change in the composition of any harbour authority. The purpose of the amendment is simply to provide ease to legislators, members of the public and officials when they come to refer to the Harbours Act, 1986, and that ease would be provided in that at the end of section 4 of the Bill if my amendment is accepted one will find the word "table" and section 7 (1) of the 1946 Act, as amended, set out in toto. That is all the amendment No. 12 seeks to do. The enabling amendment is amendment No. 2 and the only other amendment I have put down to section 4 of this Bill is the amendment provided in amendment No. 1 which is purely of a drafting nature.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 12 are all amendments of a drafting nature; there is nothing substantive in any of them. I put them down simply to provide ease to people who have to read Acts of Parliament. It is a pity that we in the Oireachtas do not adopt a more sensible approach to legislation by increasingly introducing consolidating legislation and make available at the end of our deliberations legislation dealing with a particular topic in one precise volume. I am trying to provide ease for people who have to try to read the Harbours Bill, 1986, nothing else.
As regards amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5, 35 and 12, which is consequential, the Bill has been very carefully drafted by the parliamentary draftsman and approved by the Attorney General. The words which the amendment seeks to add are, from a legal viewpoint, superfluous. I think that is accepted by the mover of the amendments. There is nothing wrong with the amendments but they are not necessary. I am satisfied that the present wording expresses the meaning satisfactorily. I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendments on the grounds of being unnecessary.
I have consulted the parliamentary draftsman on these points to see if there was any legal dimension to them by which they would be required. I understand that the Senator is making the point with a view to clarity and that is an argument that can be made, but I am assured by the parliamentary draftsman and also by the officials that the existing wording gives sufficient clarity.
As regards amendment No. 12 and the points brought up by Senator Flor O'Mahony, labour has two places on all the Schedule 1 harbours existing at present under the Harbours Act, 1946. It is not the Minister's intention to change the Harbours Act generally; we are dealing here with a specific one. The whole area of harbours is under consideration arising out of the Green Paper on Transport.
Senator Harte went into the area of worker participation which is an interesting area to be explored. It is a fact that labour representation has been improved on the Shannon Harbour Authority as distinct from the Limerick Harbour Authority which is presently 2 out of 27. It will be 2 out of 21. That is an accidental improvement rather that one that was specifically designed by the drafters. The key point there was a more wieldy authority, which is something we will come to later. I am satisfied that the representation proposed in this Bill is the most satisfactory one.
As regards the addition of the table, it would not have the particular effect that Senator O'Mahony is talking about; it would simply add what already exists in the 1946 Act.
Section 15 gives the Minister freedom to reconstitute harbour authorities as seems appropriate and, as mentioned by Senator O'Mahony, with a very important amendment being inserted. The provisions in the Harbours Act, 1946, need not apply in relation to membership of any reconstituted harbour authority. That, in essence, would explain the point. I have looked at this carefully as far as the table is concerned with the draftsman and with the Attorney General and I believe that it is unnecessary. I must reject it but I would totally and absolutely agree with what Senator Durcan said about the question of consolidation of legislation. From a legal point of view it must be enormously frustrating to go chasing all the various strands of legislation. From a legislator's point of view I recently had experience myself with the Road Transport Act. I certainly do not envy the task of any person who is seeking to pursue that matter in the eight or nine Acts involved when there is no consolidation there. It is one of the difficulties that beset legislators both as far as their own time is concerned and as far as their job as legislators is concerned. It all boils down to a question of time and the ordering of the life of legislators is something that might possibly be looked at in the future.
On amendments No. 1 and 2 I cannot but agree with the remarks which the Minister has made about the desirability of the consolidation of our legislation. As I have said many times before in this House, the method in which Bills are presented to us is well out of date. The extent to which there is legislation by reference is such that the legislation is not in a sense fulfilling its function. I cannot agree with what the Minister said earlier regarding words being superfluous and in regard to adequacy of clarity, which is at the root of our legislation being in an unsatisfactory state. We have heard from many Ministers from time to time that where there is an attempt by Members of this House or Members of the other House to improve legislation by clarity by putting in words which do not introduce any ambiguity and certainly no contradiction, which create no legal difficulty, they are rejected on the basis that they are superfluous.
The inclusion of superfluous words can have a very real function. It can have a very real function in making legislation intelligible to those who have to consider it in these two Houses. It can have a very real function in regard to practitioners who have to advise in regard to it. I believe the public who send us to Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann have rights in regard to the clarity of legislation. I hold very strongly that it is not the clarity to an Attorney General or the clarity to a parliamentary draftsman that counts. That is not a sufficient answer to the question of clarity. The fact that the Attorney General or the parliamentary draftsmen think that words are superfluous and that there is enough clarity for him as Attorney General or for them as parliamentary draftsmen, if it is the opinion of the Houses of the Oireachtas that legislators and practitioners and the public would gain in clarity of understanding by the addition of those words, then in my opinion those words should be added. I have been many years in this House and I have heard this particular excuse brought forward many times and today I find it as hollow as the first time I heard it.
I do appear to owe Senator Durcan an apology. I read amendment No. 12 rather hurridly on the way in and I am now satisfied that the consequence of having that amendment included would not diminish in any way the ability of the Minister under the proposed amended section 15 to reconstitute other harbour authorities in other ways. In that sense I misunderstood the point of his amendment. On the general thrust of what he is trying to do I believe he is absolutely right. I agree with everything Senator Dooge has said. I have had the experience of attempting to draft amendments to another Bill and I found that with appropriate legal advice it was possible to come with a formula of words which was both legally effective and at the same time easily understandable and comprehensible to both myself as a non-lawyer and to those outside with whom I was working. It seems to me that there is some requirement on us to try to bring our parliamentary draftsmen to a point where they both meet the needs of tightness in law making and drafting and also of clarity, because, as Professor Dooge said, the law is for the people and they must be readily able to understand it.
My principal point is that I do apologise for having misunderstood the amendment proposed by Senator Durcan.
I agree with the Minister in the sense that I cannot see any reason for including this amendment in the Bill. I agree with Senator Durcan and Senator Dooge about the clarity of Bills in general. Nevertheless, in the context of this Bill I feel that there is no reason for this amendment.
The fundamental idea behind our whole approach to worker participation is equity. In that sense we believe that when one gets equity that is the form of government in industry or harbour committees which is best calculated to actuate and dispose every part of the community in the interests of the common good.
Senator O'Mahony has explained his position with regard to the amendment and I would like to make one further comment in response to Professor Dooge's remarks on the question of the framing of legislation. Speaking in Army jargon, one does not write legislation for the benefit of people who understand: you write it or try to explain legislation in a way that you will cater for the "thickest" man in the squad. There are people out there who left school at 12 years, who have not been back to school since and some of whom are now in their seventies or eighties. They will have to live with whatever type of legislation we enact. These are the people we must take care of. It could take somebody with little or no education practically an hour to understand a section of a particular Bill. He might be going back over it and over it and become totally puzzled by it. So I agree with that aspect of it.
I have listened with interest to the previous speakers. I fully support the remarks of Senators Dooge and O'Mahony. Our duty as legislators is to legislate in a way that is clear, intelligible and in a way that deals with the reasonable response or the members of the public and of society as a whole. What the Minister has said rings somewhat hollow in my ears. The Minister on the one hand sees the need for clarity in legislation. He expresses the view that we should have more consolidation of Acts dealing with particular areas and that legislation should be in a form that is easily readable and easily acceptable to all who wish to avail of it. The Minister is unwilling to accept amendment No. 12. which does not go as far as consolidation but travels a little way down that road. It travels a little way down that road because that direction was pointed out to us as legislators by the parliamentary draftsman's office. In my memory serves me correctly we have had tables of this nature in the recent Social Welfare Bill and in the Finance Bill. We have had tables of this nature in other Bills which have come before this House but for some reason the parliamentary draftsman decides that the Harbours Bill should not include that element of clarity, and for some reason the officials of the Minister's Department who have been busy in propelling into this House legislation dealing with all areas of transport policy have decided that that type of clarity should not be available. Maybe the reasoning behind that has something to do with the motivation behind section 15 of the Bill.
It is the Minister's responsibility.
I will direct my remarks to him; I was trying to take some heat off the Minister. As a democrat and as an able recognised communicator the Minister should realise the supreme need to ensure that legislators can communicate with the people we represent. He must realise that this Bill does not do that. Last weekend in Westport where I live I spoke to three commissioners of the Westport Harbour Board about the Harbours Bill. I advised them of section 15 and they became very worried about it. They asked me to send them a copy of the Bill and a copy of my speech and tell them what the Bill is about. When I send them a copy of this Bill and when they read section 4 it will not be intelligible to them and so I will have to go to the Library and have the 1946 Harbour Act which contains almost 200 sections photocopied. I would ask the Minister for a bit of realism. He should portray his art of communication in the broader sense and give us the ability to communicate what he is trying to do to the people most concerned. For that reason I would ask him to accede to my request that amendment No. 12 which is the amendment that proposes to insert the table, be accepted. I have quoted two precedents for you where tables have been inserted in Bills for the purpose of giving clarity. The purpose of amendment No. 12 is to give that clarity in relation to harbour legislation.
I should like to see all Bills produced in layman's language and very easily intelligible to any type of person reading them. I would like to see them best sellers, a runaway success in that respect. We all understand they have got to be in the form they are in order that they cover the various contingencies and withstand the fine combing and dissection which they will later meet as the Bill becomes an Act and goes on the Statute Book. I want to assure the Senator that it was not just a question of legal perspective that was being considered when I say that the words he suggests in several of these amendments are superfluous. The ease and clarity were also considered and it was felt that it would not to any degree add to the clarity of the Bill for the layman or otherwise to have those words inserted. I believe the Bill would not be improved by the insertion of any of these amendments but I look forward to some major move — I do not know where it is going to come from — as regards consolidation of legislation overall.
We have had from the Minister a response which indicates, "live horse and you will get consolidation". The point has been quite properly raised by Senator Durcan in regard to this table. It would be a better Bill leaving this House if such a table were there. We are not asking for a layman's version. We are not asking for something that will have wide readership. We are asking for a degree of clarity in legislation which will assist legislators and other persons concerned. I would make an appeal first to Senator Durcan that he withdraw this amendment and then an appeal to the Minister that he examine the specific issue in regard to this Bill between now and Report Stage. If he would do that at least he would be saying to the House that he had considered the net issues — without disrespect — away from the cross-talk of Committee Stage. If we could calmly look at this the recommendation from all sides of this House is that the change be made. The feeling on all sides of this House is that it would be a better Bill with such a table inserted.
In view of the very plausible case made very well backed up with cogent arguments, I will consider this matter between now and Report Stage. I am aware of the excellent work being done by the Westport Commissioners and the difficulties they have——
I will communicate your views to them.
——with facilities for reference to earlier Acts. This is a very good example of the kind of debate that the Upper House might have on what seems a relatively minor point though, with due respect to Senator Durcan, it does not change the import of the Bill one way or the other. We are dealing with the framework of the operation. In view of the case put up I will consider the amendment between now and Report Stage.
In view of what the Minister has said I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No.2 not moved.
I take it there will be no objection on Report Stage to moving amendment No. 2 as well as No. 1.
No. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are alternatives, amendment 10 is related; 36 is consequential on No. 4. Therefore amendments Nos. 3, 4 10 and 36 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, paragraph (b), to delete lines 24 to 29 and substitute:
"(i) nine local authority members as follows:
(a) three from Kerry County Council;
(b) three from Clare County Council;
(c) two from Limerick Corporation;
(d) one from Limerick County Council,".
I have no disagreement with the overall membership of 21 proposed but we should strive for a better balance to ensure regional representation as well as sectional representation. In section 1 (e) of my amendment I propose that there should be three representatives from Kerry County Council. This amendment is being moved because it is now recognised that any major developments that will take place along the Shannon Estuary in the future will take place in the area between Tarbert and Ballylongford, because numerous studies have indicated that it is the most suitable for any future development because of its deep water-facility and aspects such as shelter.
I also feel there must be a case for Clare County Council, which, no doubt, will be made at a later stage by the Clare representatives here. They have more coastline along the Shannon Estuary than Kerry and Limerick put together. I agree to a certain extent with some of the fears they have expressed here regarding the representation from Clare County Council. It is proposed that we have two representatives from Limerick Corporation and one from Limerick County Council. The reason is that the original proposal — two from Limerick Corporation and two from Limerick County Council — would upset the regional balance and would ensure that Limerick county and city would have an unfair advantage. The proposal in amendment No. 3 is very reasonable.
Amendment No. 10, proposes to delete "5" and substitute "4". The reason for this was to take a member from the five nominated by the Minister and reduce it to four and add it to the number of local authority members by increasing local authority members from eight to nine. Again, this would not upset the balance and it would be very easy to manage within the present structure of the Bill.
Overall, I agree that a membership of 21 would seem to be more workable. I agree with the two-tier system proposed by the Minister with an overall board of management to supervise operations who will meet on a continuous basis. However, in order that the Kerry and Clare County Councils especially will be satisfied that they will be properly represented and to allay any fears they may have of not being active and total participants in the proposed harbour authorities, I feel that the Minister should give some consideration to my proposal.
It is a pity that we tend to be somewhat parochial about the matter. There was more to this whole Bill than just miles of coastline or the like. We are dealing with four authorities: Limerick Corporation and Limerick County Council; Clare County Council and Kerry County Council. I mentioned on Second Stage that North Tipperary County Council should also be included.
The whole question of the density of population and of the volume of trading must be taken into account. There is also the question of the whole value of the estuary and of, in due course, the entire area. For that reason I believe that the four local authorities, local to the estuary itself, plus North Tipperary should have representation, and preferably a large representation than is in section 4 of this Bill, It should be on the basis, as was originally proposed in 1983, of four from Limerick County Council, four from Limerick Corporation, four from Kerry and four from Clare and one from North Tipperary. I would say to my colleague, Senator Deenihan, that, frankly, miles of coastline must not be a factor here. The entire estuary should be looked upon as a unit and there should be no question of any effort on the part of any local authority to score points over the next one.
We are going to have fairly massive developments right through the estuary. We are going to have, hopefully, massive trading right through the estuary. It is not going to be confined, indeed, to Limerick, nor to Clare or Kerry. We must forget any question of one side of the river and the other side of the river, as was mentioned on Second Stage. The four local authorities should have representation on the lines I have suggested, four from each of them. It would extend the entire authority to a membership of 30. I appreciate, giving, as I said already, North Tipperary also one place on the authority.
I would agree with my colleague from Limerick. It would be better for members to be from local authorities than on a county or regional basis. We are speaking about the Shannon Estuary. That is what the Harbours Bill is about. It is to establish one harbour authority for the Shannon Estuary, with the exception of Foynes. It embraces Limerick Port and Kilrush Port. Senator Honan is not here but she would be better to put across the Clare point of view than I would.
Senator Hourigan also said that North Tipperary is in the Estuary area. They should have a representative on the authority as local authority members. Kilrush is one of the existing ports involved in this. It is the establishment of a harbour authority to take over, manage and operate the harbours of Limerick and Kilrush as well as certain other small harbours and public piers within the Shannon Estuary. We feel that Kilrish should get some representation on this harbour authority as their harbour is one of the main harbours involved, and also North Tipperary.
Kerry County Council are on the Shannon Estuary but still they have a coastline along the Atlantic ocean and I am sure there are piers and harbours there with potential. I am sure they have their own authorities there. As the Minister suggested, two from each local authority, plus North Tipperary and Kilrush Urban Council, would be fairer. It would mean only an increase in the authority of about three or four members. To be fair to Kilrush and North Tipperary, I think they should be included. Our amendment includes three from County Clare. That was Senator Honan's suggestion, I did not oppose her when she was tabling it. It might be giving Clare an advantage to have five over four from Limerick, two from Kerry and one from Tipperary. As Senator Hourigan stated, we should not be judging this on a regional basis. We would be entitled to have representation on the Authority.
In reply to Senator Hourigan, I have no wish to be any way parochial about the motion. Now is the time, when we are discussing the membership, to ensure that our own areas are represented in the best possible way. I agree that we must look at the new harbour authority in the overall context and in the spirit of the Bill as proposed by the Minister. Nevertheless, the reason I am making a case for Kerry is that numerous studies have indicated, the most recent being the report of An Foras Forbartha, 1983, that the Ballylongford/Tarbert area was a prime region for industrial location. Of the six types of industries examined, it was found suitable for each one of them. That is the reason Kerry County Council are concerned that they will be properly represented. If there is a major development, which is very much on the cards in this area, it will be important to satisfy local demands that Kerry County Council and that the people of North Kerry feel that their area is properly represented. Indeed, local development associations, both in Tarbert and Ballylongford, would like to have a member on the board from each association.
I am in agreement with restricting membership on the board. If we involve over-representation from the local authorities, it will take away the whole policy of the Minister and his idea of having a board that will be workable and dynamic rather than having a large and unwieldy type of board. I should like to mention that North Tipperary have a member on the Limerick Harbour Commission. I agree with Senator Kiely that there is a justifiable case for North Tipperary because they have acted as a guarantor of loans to Limerick Harbour Commission. This loan will not be fully paid back for another 20 years.
I am glad Senator Deenihan agrees that North Tipperary should be included. He also mentioned Limerick Corporation and Limerick County Council. At one stage an attempt was made to make them one body when Limerick would play hurling against Clare or Tipperary I do not think that on an issue like this there would be full agreement. Therefore I would not agree with his suggestion that there be a member from Limerick County Council. They are two different authorities. Limerick County Council would have more jurisdiction over the estuary than the corporation.
Limerick County Council are very supportive of fine harbours, trustees, and in actual fact we are not in total agreement with this proposal.
There are other small piers and harbours in County Limerick along that estuary. The county council would have an interest and, therefore, would want to have representation on the Authority. There is a section in the Bill which makes provision to include Foynes at a future date. When that is done, will section 4 be amended so as to give bigger representation to Limerick County Council or to Foynes. There is that danger also. Provision should be made to ensure that there is adequate representation. At present Foynes are not anxious to go in and I think there are good reasons for it but there might come a time when things could change.
I am not very dogged as to whether representation be four per local authority, or two as the Minister proposes. Frankly, there will not be harmony, which is very desirable between those four local authorities local to the estuary, that is Limerick Corporation and Limerick County Council, which are absolutely distinct units in themselves and Clare and Kerry.
I do not think that for any reason we should say that Limerick is entitled to more than Kerry or vice versa but I would urge very strongly that equal representation be given to those four authorities — Kerry County Council, Limerick County Council, Limerick, Corporation and Clare County Council and that there would be positive provision to include at least one representative from North Tipperary County Council.
We should not start making cases as to the potential that exists in the Kerry area because one could equally talk about the contribution made in Limerick Harbour itself, by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners down through the years. That would be negative. If we are to move forward, we must strive to have the matter equalised. You will never get a perfect balance because of miles of coastline involved. That is not necessarily a good criterion nor, indeed, is density of population in so far as Limerick is concerned or the volume of trade through Limerick Port. For that reason, it would be highly desirable, in the interest of harmony all round, to have equal representation from those four authorities, plus North Tipperary and, if possible, I would prefer to see four members per local authority than two as proposed by the Minister but in the absence of that possibility, I would favour two members per local authority.
There is absolutely no possibility of getting an authority that would meet the wishes of everyone. That is the very nature of things. The contributions to the amendments on this section on the composition confirm what I said in the course of Second Stage that this is undoubtedly the most controversial issue on this measure. There has been an enormous amount of consultation with local interests. I outlined the number of representative groupings that the Minister personally met on this. All of these things were taken into consideration. There is an infinite number of permutations as regards representation and also there is the question of size. I think overall on the question of size, it automatically means that a number of people will be excluded who would have made excellent members on the Authority. There is fairly general agreement that an authority of 21 would prove, as Senator Deenihan has just said more dynamic and more workable than a much larger board. I can appreciate the concerns of Senators to try to get the balance of representation right.
I remain convinced that the balance, as represented in section 4, as it now stands, is the best that can be achieved. This was not arrived at without an extraordinary amount of consultation, consideration and huge representation before the Minister as he finally arrived at this permutation from all of those available.
I hope that with the passage of time the various inter-party rivalries will disappear and Shannon Ports Authority will be seen to be representative of the whole Estuary area and working for the whole of that area. I am also convinced that, once established, the inter-county rivalry will evaporate as they get down to the job of making the Shannon Ports area into the giant trading and shipping area that Senator Hourigan has just been talking of about. I am very conscious of the concerns expressed by the Senators and I can say in this respect that the Minister has undertaken to use his power to nominate five members of the proposed Authority to rectify any geographic imbalance that may emerge following the appointment of other members to the Authority. He will pay particular attention to the concerns in relation to representation on behalf of Kilrush Urban District Council because of their history and the authority they had in their own area. It is not possible to meet the wishes of all of them. Much work has gone into the particular proposition and I think few people would question it.
The size has been the most appropriate for action and that is really what is required, not just a talking shop as such. You want an authority that will be workable. It is not a question of going round the table getting the views of everyone. At European level and, indeed, Council of Europe level I witnessed examples of that kind of committee working and, generally speaking, the large ones just do not work so far as coming to decisions is concerned, not through any fault of their own but because of their composition. When you listen to everyone's point of view, it is very hard to get an appropriate consensus and get it in time, which is also very important. Having got that limitation, there are then knock-on limitations to the number of people who can be appointed from the various interested bodies.
Senator O'Mahony made a point about the representation of the workforce on the Authority. In the area we are dealing with now, that is about the best disposition we can get and as such I would hope that the whole variety of amendments might possibly be withdrawn.
With regard to north Tipperary specifically, one appreciates the importance of getting the best balance. As the Minister said, it is impossible to get total agreement with regard to representation levels and so on. Perhaps he has to set a certain position there. My understanding is that there is total agreement that north Tipperary ought to have representation on the Ports Authority.
I am not in total agreement with the Minister's reply regarding representation. Nevertheless, I agree with the general sentiment he expressed that when this board comes on stream and begins working, regional interests and local interests will probably be forgotten about. When the Minister is appointing his five nominees, I hope he will take into consideration regional and local representation and will ensure that the progress of the Harbours Board will not in any way be held back by local county councils who feel that their interests are not properly represented. It is important to allay these fears at the outset rather than when the board is working. Local authorities must feel that, as participants in the new harbour boards, their views are heard and that they have a say.
Coming from the midlands, all our problems with harbours are with canal harbours and it is good to see a move again in that regard.
From 1 July.
I should like to compliment the Minister and the Government for the progress they have made on that score. It seems to be a very positive step. I accept the problem the Minister has and I think he has given great consideration to the problems of representation but every place you have a river or an estuary you have the banks and you have trouble on the west bank in some places and trouble on the east bank in some other place.
Senator Howard pointed out that the north bank was 92 or 93 miles long, whereas the south bank was 20 miles shorter and all the representation would appear to be going towards the south bank. I think there is an anomaly there and I take the points raised by the Minister this afternoon. It is important that an adequate balance be achieved so as to ensure that not only would there be representation for the ordinary trade and commerce there but that both sides of the estuary would get a fair crack at development. It is important that this problem be addressed at this early stage in the legislation. I hope the Minister can respond and recognise the problems which section 4 poses for people on the north bank.
Senator Honan and I realised the problem about the northern bank, too, when we tabled amendment No. 4. We would like to see a representation on that side. If it is not asking too much, I would like if the Minister could see his way to amending section 4 as represented from the local authorities. Surely he could include one from Tipperary North Riding and maybe one from Kilrush Urban District Council. As regards length and mileage of the north bank and the south bank, I do not think that would be a criterion. I suppose population would have to be taken into consideration.
Senator Howard has put other amendments down with regard to representation as where other bodies should be from. I feel that population should be taken into consideration there. Kilrush has a harbours of its own. It is one of the major harbours that is being joined up with Limerick to form the Harbours Authority. As Senators Deenihan and Hourigan said, some guarantees should be given to the Limerick Harbours Board as regards loans. The Harbours Authority will be servicing the North Tipperary area which is adjoining Limerick. Therefore, those two bodies should be included in paragraph 4, lines 24 to 29. This would not increase the Authority that much.
To deal first with the question of representation of Tipperary North Riding as mentioned by Senators Hourigan and Kiely, I should like to point out that the local authority there had one representative appointed to the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. This appointment was made in recognition, as already indicated, of financial assistance which had been given some years ago to the commissioners by Tipperary North Riding local Authority. Accordingly, local authority members from that area who were not among the original local authority members of Limerick Harbour Commissioners as such and it would be inappropriate, therefore, to include them in the original membership of the Shannon Ports Authority, especially as what we are doing here is reducing the numbers considerably.
On the question of the representation of the north bank and the south bank and the imbalance that people perceive as existing there, I do not think that whatever happens it would be possible to eliminate all of those particular problems or perceived problems. The Minister has undertaken to use his power in the nomination of five members of the proposed authority to rectify any geographical imbalance. This might be a very effective way of doing that, having seen the situation that has arisen. There are people, other than the local authority, who could create an imbalance, perhaps an imbalance in a way that we do not perceive here, an imbalance in the other direction, considering the people who might be represented from the workforce, from the shipping interests or from the chambers of commerce. The Minister will pay particular attention to the concerns in relation to representation on behalf of Kilrush Urban District Council. As was pointed out by Senator Kiely there is a particular situation there. They had the jurisdiction themselves in the past. They have the potential, both as regards size to begin with, and the composition we have here, to have a good Authority. That will depend to a great extent on the personnel appointed to the Authority. I have no doubt that these will be very good representatives of the areas they are coming from. We had a lot of representations from bodies such as Kilrush Urban District Council, Clarecastle Pier Trustees, Shannon Town Commissioners and Ballylongford Development Association, who were looking for direct representation on the Authority. Unfortunately the Tipperary North Riding County Council cannot be accommodated in this limited number. There are limitations to it. It is most controversial. I understand that the representations made by the Senators are not made for any parochial reasons but they are anxious to get a good balance as regards all sides of the geographical spread. The geographical imbalances can be very well met. The Minister said he would rectify them when it comes to the appointment of his members.
I feel that a geographical imbalance should not predominate in the context of the Minister's appointees in due course. There are only five persons and it would be a great pity if that dominated the situation vis-á-vis who should and who should not be appointed. The Minister of State, stated here now that there are many other areas where imbalances may be more in need of correction and balancing out, whether it is a work area, a trade area or whatever. I would like to state very strongly with regard to the Minister's appointees that they should take account of all possible imbalances that may exist, be they geographical or of any other nature. I would finally say with regard to north Tipperary, perhaps it might be considered at that stage in time.
As the Minister says it is not possible to satisfy everyone as to who or how many would be on the Authority. Because Kilrush will have half the estuary under their jurisdiction and because north Tipperary gave financial assistance, they should get recognition. Recognition is important and should be taken into consideration. Because of north Tipperary's and Kilrush's previous involvement they should get representation — one each. It is not too much, you are only increasing the Authority from 21 to 23. The Minister says he will rectify an imbalance when he sees who is appointed. If he is to rectify imbalances from the other elected representatives, that is from the chambers of commerce, the manufacturing members the labour members and other members, he might not have enough in the five to rectify a geographical balance especially when there are further amendments tabled that one of these would be from a particular county. It would not be increasing the Authority a lot. There was a submission before the Minister that the Authority would consist of 29 or 30 members. There is a big difference between 23 and 29 or 30 whereas it is only a small difference from 21 to 23. The Minister should consider giving these two bodies some representation. If he cannot do it today he might do it on Report Stage.
I inadvertently omitted mentioning Kilrush. I am in total agreement with Senator Kiely that Kilrush and north Tipperary should get representation on the Authority.
A very important point was raised there by Senator Hourigan as regards other imbalances that may arise as distinct from geographical imbalances. It is possible to get one type of person who would rectify more than one imbalance. I have some experience as regards nominations for councils and boards. Where you have a number of interests greater than the number of people you can accommodate on the board, it is possible to get one type of person who will cover a geographical area and cover an interest and have various other desirable attributes on the Authority. Most important of all is the talent and contribution to the board. It would be possible to meet a variety of these things. It would not be very difficult.
As regards Tipperary North Riding, I know of the existing situation. I have given the particular history of that. The local authority have been very helpful in the past. I regret that it would not be possible withing our existing confines. A lot of thought has gone into the size of the board and then the subsequent distribution. We thought of everything and indeed tried them out. I have a whole list of other methods by which the Authority might be put together. On balance and taking all these things into consideration, we came down in favour of 21 members. I would not be willing to depart from that.
I would like to point out to the Minister that in amendment No. 4, we look for an increase in the local authority members from eight to 12. We are inclined to come half way and say from eight to ten. We are reasonable in that. Maybe the Minister would come half way too.
If we move that way the job would not be over. We would have to get different proportions. We would be leading ourselves into further difficulties. We have given a lot of thought to this. The Senators are very accurately reflecting an enormous amount of representations we got earlier, so it is not a question of rejecting the proposals of the Senators. Most of these arguments were considered by many of the Senators, along with the interests on whose behalf they are pleading. I know we are not going to make everyone happy because that is impossible. Indeed to make anyone deliriously happy is impossible. It is a question of getting a balance and we feel we have reached the right balance in this case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, paragraph (b), to delete lines 24 to 29 and substitute:
"(i) twelve local authority members as follows:
(a) two from Kerry County Council;
(b) three from Clare County Council;
(c) two from Limerick Corporation;
(d) Two from Limerick County Council;
(e) one from Tipperary North Riding County Council;
(f) two from Kilrush Urban District Council, County Clare.".
Are you pressing amendment No. 4 in the light of the fact that No. 3 is withdrawn?
I will not press amendment No. 4, although I am disappointed that the Minister is not inclined to come part of the way to meet us. Perhaps he would consider doing this at Report Stage.
I fear it is most unlikely. I would reitreate though, that significance should be given to the Minister's undertaking to rectify, in his nomination of five members, any geographical imbalance.
I believe there should be a special case made for Kilrush and north Tipperary in recognition of their position. I hope the Minister will consider this on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No.5 has been discussed already.
I take it that since No. 5 was not discussed with the thoroughness with which the other amendment with which it was grouped was discussed, there would be no objection to it being put down again on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Acting Chairman
As amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, are related they may be discussed together.
On behalf of Senator Michael Howard, whose permission I have, I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, paragraph (b), line 30, after "members", to insert "at least one of whom shall be from County Clare;".
Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 are all concerned with the general principle that there are two banks to each river and that a river with a single bank is a phenomenon unknown to nature. What amendments Nos. 6 and 9 attempt to do is to say that recognising this fact, it is very much more appropriate, instead of saying, as in section 4, line 30, "two chamber" of commerce members", "two manufacturer members", "two labour members", "two elected members" that it be clearly recognised that there are the two sides of the river, that their interests may be different but that we would hope that it would be recognised that there are commercial interests on both banks of the rivers, that there are manufacturing on both banks of the rivers and labour interests on both banks of the rivers.
The argument was made by Senator Howard and by Senator Honan on the last day to this effect. I might say that Senator Howard is in the precincts of the House. He is engaged in discussion with regard to other legislation which is coming before the House tomorrow and that is the reason he is not in the Chamber. I hope I have adequately summarised his position and that of Senator Honan on this point.
I would join my colleague, Senator Dooge, in pressing the amendments of Senator Howard. The Shannon Estuary divides a very important part of the country which, with the aid of this legislation, will significantly develop in the years ahead. Obviously Senator Howard, who comes from Clare, feels it is important that both banks should be looked on with equality. If we look at the proposals in part 1 of the Schedule it would appear that there would only be one fifth of the representation coming from the north bank, which is over 20 miles longer than the south bank. The mileage does not matter so much but that kind of imbalance is severe in the extreme. I am not surprised that my colleagues from Clare should wish to put down a marker at this stage of the Bill. I would ask the Minister to very seriously consider the amendments of Senator Howard and try to achieve a formula which will ensure that the input into the new Shannon Authority will adequately reflect the development interests of both the north and south banks of the estuary.
Senator Howard is endeavouring, with this series of four amendments, to write into the legislation some kind of equality. It would appear that since, in practically all of the four headings, two members are being appointed it is not really unfair to ask that one should be appointed from the north side and one from the south side. That would be very just and would at least lay the basis for equality.
It is important that people should have trust and faith and look forward to the work and the opportunity that this new port Authority will offer to this region. I think the population down there should be able to pin some hope on this new Authority being sufficiently financed and being able to attract a sufficient amount of industry and development. It would be unfortunate if, by virtue of the composition of the board, that development was channeled too steeply towards the southern bank.
I may have been the champion of Clare's cause in the last amendment but I do not know if I will be entirely their champion on this occasion. It would be unfair to make stipulations for any body or organisation who would be appointing members to this or to any elected authority and to tell them that if they are appointing two or three or four members one person should be from a certain place. That is a function for the Authority. I will be speaking about that in the next amendment. There should be no direction given by the Minister as to where any member should be from. Those bodies who have power to elect members to this Authority should be free to elect the members as they see fit.
Amendment No.6 deals with chambers of commerce. The Limerick Chamber of Commerce ran the Limerick port initially. They are not mentioned as one of the bodies to be represented on the new Authority. I am not looking for any special treatment for them. The chambers of commerce should not be given any directions and the same should apply to other bodies. That would be fairer to all parties involved especially to those involved in the Shannon Ports Authority. I am sure other Members will be of the same opinion as myself.
I agree with Senator Kiely regarding the guarantee that Senator Hourigan is looking for. The Bill does not suggest that there will be neither a chamber of commerce member from Clare nor a manufacturer member nor a labour member from the county so there is a possibility that they could be on the Authority. To guarantee Clare that they would have a member on it would be taking away from the spirit of the Bill. Kerry and Limerick would be looking for similar guarantees. Although Senator McDonald supported the amendment he must have some other reason for doing so and he must not be too familiar with the region.
Regarding the chamber of commerce I feel that the members elected should be elected from the chambers of commerce that cover areas contiguous to the estuary. The National Association of Chambers of Commerce should not have the right to nominate both members. The chambers of commerce of Limerick, Clare and Kerry should have the right to nominate them. I am in agreement with Senator Kiely in opposing these amendments. It would not be justice to the overall spirit of the Bill if these amendments were accepted.
I believe the local area must be taken in as one unit. I feel strongly that the chambers of commerce in the Kerry, Limerick and Clare area should have representatives appointed from them. Whether they are appointed by the National Association of Chambers of Commerce is not very relevant provided they come from the region itself.
The Limerick Chamber of Commerce were very much involved in the Limerick Port earlier on and they feel they should have an input. I agree with Senators Deenihan and Hourigan that the Chambers of Commerce from Limerick, Clare, Kerry and maybe north Tipperary should have the right to appoint representatives. There might be a danger that if the National Association of Chambers of Commerce got the power to nominate two members they would nominate a member from outside the Limerick, Clare, Kerry or north Tipperary area.
The Seanad is very fortunate in having as the Leader of the House one of the world's leading hydrologists and hydrology engineers. I totally accept his word that every river has two banks. But even if I never saw a river flow and did not have the benefit of Professor Dooge by my side, having gone through the preliminary work for this Bill, I would accept that every river and in particular the Shannon, has two banks. That is one of the difficulties we have. The composition of the port authority is the most controversial issue we face. Knowing that it is the most controversial issue and trying to ensure the appropriate balance in representation we have produced this line-up for the authority. I would reiterate that the imbalance which may arise as regards geographical locations can be tackled and will be tackled by the Minister in his appointment to the Authority. I believe that the option chosen gives that the best spread, not the perfect spread from the point of view of all the individual interests but, taking the general overall concept, it provides equal representation for the councils of Clare, Kerry and Limerick as well as Limerick Corporation. Clare and Kerry may feel that Limerick is over represented but it should be borne in mind that at present most of the estuary is under the control of Limerick Harbour Commissioners and that any change in this situation is an improvement for these counties in terms of having a voice in the affair. The Bill goes further in giving those with a legitimate interest in the estuary as fair representation as can be devised in the circumstances. In addition bodies such as Kilrush Urban District Council, Clarecastle Pier Trustees, Shannon Town Commissioners and Ballylongford Development Association have sought direct representation. It is not possible to give direct representation to all of these various groups. The fairest way is to confine representation to the four main local authorities who have the power to select their representatives from within those smaller groups. The Minister can redress any imbalance which may be percieved from among his five nominees.
The Bill specifies that the two chamber of commerce representatives will be nominated by the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland as opposed to the Limerick Chamber of Commerce as it the case at present with the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. That gives the possibility for the geographical concept to be incorporated in their nominees if they wish to give a more even spread. There are chambers of commerce around the estuary or in the general vicinity of the estuary with very direct interests in the activities of the estuary and the success of it so they would also have a say. Because of that it is felt that the appropriate body would be the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland. I have no doubt that they will be doing it in association with all the chambers of commerce in that area that they believe have a legitimate interest in the case.
I am not free to accept any of the amendments. When people make a case for any amendment in such an attractive fashion as has been the case here one would like to accommodate everyone, but unfortunately in putting legislation on the Statute Book it is not possible to do that. Obviously, though, we must do our best. Contributions are not lost even though the amendments proposed are not accepted. When the Minister is nominating people to the Authority, he will have a good concept of the very strong feeling that has been indicated regarding the necessity for a geographical spread.
I am not clear about the position of Limerick Chamber of Commerce and the associated chambers of commerce. The associated chambers of commerce will appoint two members to the Shannon Authority. Is there a danger that they could appoint a member from outside the Clare, Kerry, Limerick or north Tipperary regions or should it be the chambers of commerce within the area who would appoint the two members to the Authority?
On the same point, while the national body of chambers of commerce may be the appropriate one to make these appointments it should be stipulated clearly that the persons to be nominated should come from the estuarial area or the Shannon ports area, in other words from Clare, Kerry or Limerick. That should be mandatory on the national chambers of commerce body. The Minister says they would like to do this in consultation with the local chambers of commerce. That may be so but we should not leave the loophole.
As it stands, the general chamber of commerce can nominate from anywhere. On a procedural point, this comes up under section 17, amendment No.37.
I am sorry. I am out of breath. I did not realise that the Seanad was sitting at 12 noon today.
At the request of the Opposition.
I appreciate that. I presume we are still dealing with amendments to section 4.
We are debating amendments Nos. 6,7,8 and 9.
Have these amendments been moved?
Amendment No. 6 has been moved. If the debate is concluded I will now withdraw it. However, if amendment No. 37 is not found to deal adequately with the problem it may be that we will consider an amendment on section 4 for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, paragraph (b), to delete lines 35 to 41.
We asked for two members from Kerry County Council, three from Clare County Council and two from Limerick Corporation.
We have moved from that. We are on amendment No. 11 which proposes to delete lines 35 to 41 which read:
The Minister may by Regulations specify the manner in which the local authority members are appointed pursuant to paragraph (a) (i) of this subsection, and any such Regulations may make provision for such matters relating to such appointment as the Minister considers proper.
This is a move to reduce the powers of local authorities. These members are elected by the people and they have a mandate from the people to appoint the members to this Authority or to any authority as they see fit. There should be no interference from any Minister or from anyone outside as to what they are asked to do. It is offensive to local authority members that regulations are drawn up as to how they should appoint members on this or any body. It is a reflection on their ability to work as proper local authority members. They have a mandate from the people and if they are asked to elect members to any authority they should be let do so as they see fit. I propose that lines 35 to 41 which give the Minister such authority should be deleted.
In supporting Senator Kiely, I have strong views that we delete lines 35 to 41. I have seen this implemented in another area, the field of health, and it does not work there. We talk about giving back power to those who are elected by the people but in this section of this Bill we are taking away their power. We are providing that the Minister may by regulation specify the manner in which local authority members are appointed. That is wrong. With Senator Kiely I have proposed to delete lines 35 to 41. This is because these people should be entitled to elect whom they see fit to elect as opposed to having persons on the authority by regulation of any Minister.
I see a difficulty with this amendment. While I would be sympathetic to resisting any undue control by Ministers in regard to the actions of local authorities of all types, I think a blanket removal of these lines, 35 to 41 of section 4, without the insertion of anything else could leave us in a great difficulty. How would the election proceed if we removed these lines? Something needs to be said, possibly in statute or in regulations. Of course, any regulation the Minister makes under section 20 of this Bill is subject to annulment by this House. That gives us great protection. Since it is only a question then of annulment we could only reject in toto what the Minister has proposed. It may well be that this might be better done by positive resolution of the House than merely saying omit these lines 35 to 41. Perhaps members of the Opposition could suggest how it would be done. If we leave it completely blank I do not know how the members of these local authorities would go about it.
I do not see any difficulty in that regard with due respect to Senator Dooge. They can go about it the same as the chamber of commerce will appoint their members and the manufacturing members will appoint their members. How does the Minister see fit to make regulations for these bodies to elect their members to the Authority? The provision is that the Minister by regulations, may specify the manner in which the local authority members are appointed. This is very unfair to the local authorities. It is a complete reflection on them. Why does he not propose the same regulation for the other bodies, the manufacturing members or the labour members? This provision is not necessary and should be deleted.
In the Minister's Second Stage speech he said that this was essentially a Bill to enable us, the legislators, to meet with the wishes of local interests in the estuary region. I accept what Professor Dooge has said. He said that if you take out section 4(b) we have to put in something else. I am proposing with Senator Kiely that we delete lines 35 to 41. It is not the right of any Minister to continue this type of power in a Bill. Having gone through this Bill since last week and having talked to people about it, I can say that it is far removed from what the whole area of the coast wants. A certain person in one little place in a big city must have written for the Minister the sentence I have quoted. I am not talking about Deputy O'Malley. I, with Senator Kiely, propose to put this to a vote. This is taking away power and nobody is more aware than the Minister how elected people know what is good for their own area. In my Second Stage speech I said I did not want the Authority monopolised by Clare on the basis of our having three quarters of the coastline. This section certainly removes power from all the authorities as the Minister is going to hold the power by regulation. I respect the advice of Senator Dooge always in this House, but with Senator Kiely, I will oppose this power now. I see this not working at health board level. I see it as causing trouble. It has caused friction where we would not have had any. It is giving too much power to future Ministers as well as to present Ministers.
I understand that the Minister, in accordance with this regulation, specified that membership of the Authority will only come from areas contiguous to the Shannon Estuary. If that is the reason for this section I would agree totally with it. For example, in my own county, somebody from north Kerry would be far more au fait with the Shannon Estuary than would somebody from south Kerry. For that reason, I think there is justification for this section.
I could not agree with Senator Deenihan that there could be justification for the section. The people of Kerry have always proved to be sensible people.
And forthright.
When they come to appoint representatives to this Authority I am sure they will be wise and appoint people who will be of benefit to the area in this respect. Every local authority are well able to do that. They should be left to do as they see fit without any regulations as to the manner in which the appointments are to be made. It is a reflection on local authorities to specify how they should appoint members to the Authority. They should be left to do their own business in the same way as the other bodies who are appointing or electing members to this authority will be doing.
I have listened with interest to some of the arguments put forward in relation to this provision, and to the amendment in particular. One has to come back at all times to the new section, (1A)(a)(i), to be inserted by way of amendment to the 1946 Act. The words specified are as follows:
The Shannon Ports Authority shall consist of the following members:
(i) eight local authority members appointed as to two each by the local authorities mentioned in the second column of the said Part I opposite the mention in the first column of the said Shannon Ports Authority;
If we enact that section, which is not disputed by anybody, then we are fairly putting into legislation what is the will of this House. The will of this House then will be that eight local authority members will be appointed as to two each by the local authorities mentioned in the second column. That is what we are attempting to do. To suggest that the Minister can change that by regulation is a complete misconstruction.
We are not saying that.
If I can continue without interruption, the point is that there is no attempt to change nor can anyone change the operation of that statutory provision. I make that point in relation to paragraph (b). This paragraph is emasculated somewhat because it must be read and construed and operate within the confines of subsection (a)(i). What the subsection permits is that the Minister may regulate the manner in which local authorities appoint members of the Authority. The appointment will lie with the local authorities. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. It is reasonable that the manner in which the relevant local authority appoint has to be regulated by somebody. To my mind it is reasonable that it should be regulated by the Minister for Communications of the day. It is not unusual that this is done in relation to other bodies. For that reason, I find the argument being put forward by Senators Honan and Kiely to be totally unconvincing.
It is not interfering with the appointment of eight local authority members as outlined in section (1A) (a) (i). What we are saying is that the local authority members should be left to themselves without any regulations specifying the manner in which they can appoint members. Senator Durcan said there should be regulations drawn up for the local authorities. Is he suggesting that local authorities are not capable of making appointments without regulations? If so, that is a very bad reflection on local authorities, of which Senator Durcan is a member.
I am a member of two local authorities, namely, Mayo County Council and Westport Urban District Council. I am unfortunately in a situation where my party are in a minority on both of these councils.
That is why this section is in the Bill.
The majority party on both of those local authorities, without any respect for democracy and without any interest in power sharing, have taken two seats on the Westport Harbour Commissioners. This is the kind of lack of democracy and lack of interest in power sharing which we in this party have no interest in but which people in other parties seem to believe in.
One of the reasons we introduced a very important Local Government Bill, in this House recently was to provide a grouping system to prevent that type of thing occurring. The Minister, by regulation, may provide something similar to ensure that no party who have a majority of one or two members can, in effect, grab every nominated place on a relevant harbour authority. For that reason I totally disagree with the point of view being put forward by the Opposition.
If section 4 (b) is allowed stand, I am confident that the Minister of the day will introduce regulations to ensure that the democratic will of the people, as indicated by the ballot box, will find its way right through to membership of the harbour authority we speak of here.
I would like to see this type of provision having effect in relation to every harbour in so far as local authority nominees are concerned. Certainly we have not witnessed that in the very recent past.
Fianna Fáil have a majority on county councils and in his phraseology as a lawyer, the Senator has made the case for the inclusion of section 4(b).
I have not.
The Senator has done a great job. I do not know what has happened on the Westport Harbour Board. All I can say is that the local authorities have served this country well. They are well able to appoint persons to any board. Do not be so sure that the board we are talking of will become a reality. The legislation is not complete yet.
I have been speaking about it in the interest of democracy.
I still object to any Minister instructing local authority members as to whom they should elect to boards.
It is up to the leaders of the Dublin Corporation as to whom to elect as Lord Mayor.
This is another example of the point I have been making. It is easily known that Senator Durcan has not been too long a member of the county council. He must have been elected only last June, because he would not make such a speech if he had served longer. The county councils are well able to select members to this body if it ever comes into being. I ask that we delete lines 35 to 41 of this section.
I agree with Senator Honan and I am delighted that she has joined me. I was very lonely until she came into the House.
The Senator needs a little backing.
I am timid by nature. From the point of view of democracy we are looking for the deletion of these lines. The local authorities were elected democratically and they will appoint members to this board in a democratic manner. It will be a reflection on local authorities if they are to comply with regulations in appointing members to this new Authority.
Senators on all sides have expressed the wish that the Authority should be representative of the area directly touching the estuary. That is a generally accepted proposition. There is obviously a difference in respect of numbers regarding the north bank and the south bank representation but everyone wants the Authority to be truly representative of the estuary area. This is what this is all about. There is no question of the Minister telling the county councils who should or should not be members of the Authority. The four local authorities concerned are Clare County Council, Kerry County Council, Limerick County Council and Limerick Corporation. Some sections of Counties Clare, Kerry and Limerick, part of the latter joining the Dublin-Cork road at one point, all of these are an extraordinary distance away from the estuary as such. I am sure a person in Kenmare might be as far away from it as a person in Athlone. Local authority members from remote areas could not possibly be expected to have the same interest in the development of the estuary as, for example, those from electoral areas bordering on the estuary itself.
The enabling powers in section 4 (b) will enable the Minister to devise a system whereby only those local authority members with a legitimate interest would have the right to appoint local authority members. It goes without saying that regulations under this subsection will only be made after full consideration. The situation will be monitored to see if a clear need arises for such regulations.
In the overall interest of the estuary, I would have to reject the Senators' proposals to delete the provision. What we are providing for is the representation of the area directly touching the estuary. As I stated, we will monitor to see if such regulations are needed. I can give a perfect example arising out of the last local elections where in one county drainage committees were appointed. In one case a man appointed was from about 60 miles away. He would hardly recognise the main town in the electoral area, never mind the drainage that had to be done. So it may be necessary to have these provisions. Local authorities will have the right to appoint members but regarding the manner in which they are appointed, what the Minister has in mind is to ensure that members of the Authority truly represent the area touching on the estuary.
This will be done after full consultation and there will be monitoring to see if what we are proposing is necessary.
It is a regulation and as such it is not going into the Statute Book. The consequence of this would be a regulation which, of course, as earlier pointed out would have to come before the House as Senator Dooge said for annulment in toto because of the mechanics of this section.
The intention is seeking to make a provision for what all Senators have been asking for throughout the debate so far. It is a very positive inclusion in the Bill and as such I would have to reject the Senators' case.
I still do not accept the Minister's explanation. I am not interested in those who were appointed to the Sligo/Leitrim drainage board.
I did not say so.
I had a fair idea of what you were referring to. Whether it be by regulation or otherwise no one knows better than the people of the counties we are talking about how appointments to boards are made. With due respect to the Minister one would imagine that the Shannon Estuary was totally owned by Clare, Limerick and Kerry. The Shannon Estuary is the greatest asset this nation has and if the composition of this board is right, if it is non-political and if it is not doomed from day one it could prove a tremendous advantage to the nation. Clare County Council are responsible for 93 miles of coastline. The east Clare county councillor knows as much about the Shannon Estuary as the fellow in Kilbaha. They are the kind of councillors we have in Clare.
There are 37 miles of coastline in County Limerick. Clare County Council are not only the planning authority for the northern shore of the estuary but provide also the fire fighting services, pollution control services and all other major developments and infrastructure for major developments. I do not accept that Minister can tell a county council, either by regulation or by writing a letter to them, the manner in which local authority members are to be appointed.
The idea was to put this Bill through quickly but fair play to Senator Kiely and myself, we woke up in time——
An admission of sleeping.
No, I was not sleeping. I still move that we delete lines 35 to 41 of section 4. Nothing the Minister of State has said has convinced me that I should change my mind.
I find it hard to accept the Minister of State's statement that the reason for section 4(b) is to ensure that the members would be from local authority electoral areas adjoining the estuary. If he was familiar with the decisions of Limerick County Council in the past in appointing a member to the Limerick Harbour Board and to the Foynes Harbour Board he would know that they were always appointed from the areas bordering the Shannon bank and the Shannon Estuary, that is the Rathkeale and Newcastlewest areas. They were never appointed from Kilbeheny. I am sure that other authorities would do their job properly and appoint them in a proper manner. They were appointed for those areas also this year. The Minister had power to appoint four who previously were always appointed from the outside interests and were not members of a local authority because it was considered that four members from the local authority were enough. Instead of appointing them from outside bodies, the Minister appointed to local authority members from his party to that body.
Hear, hear.
It is hard to have confidence in a Minister when that happens. Local authorities should be left to do their own business as they see fit themselves. They are very capable of doing that.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Before the question is pressed, in case it is passed to a division, I would like to say that I think the effect of this subsection is being completely misunderstood on the far side of the House. If we read that section as a whole, there is nothing that would allow the Minister to make a direct nomination. If the case is being made on that basis we have no option but to vote against it.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Belton, Luke.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- Daly, Jack.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- Durcan, Patrick.
- FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
- Harte, John.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Lennon, Joseph.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McGonagle, Stephen.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Mahony, Flor.
Níl
- Cassidy, Donie.
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Belton and Harte; Níl, Senators Killilea and Séamus de Brún.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 12 was already discussed with amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of this Bill."
I should like to come back to the main point that I made at the beginning of our debate on the Bill this afternoon. I cannot accept that the representation given to the workforce in section 4 of the Bill is adequate. There is provision for two labour representatives out of a total authority membership of 21 whereas in the same provision it is suggested that there should be two chamber of commerce members, two representatives of the manufacutring industry and two representatives of shipping interests. On what basis does the Minister of State justify the idea that the labour movement should have only two representatives out of 21 as proposed in this section, whereas these other interests that I have mentioned have two members also?
It must be borne in mind that the labour movement or the labour representation provided for in this section is not just representation of those who might work for the port authority. It is presumably representation for the labour movement as a whole in the Shannon estuary area. The provision of two representatives out of 21 representatives seems to me to be insulting. The Minister in an earlier reply to me said that the present composition is to some extent based on the traditional composition of the Limerick harbour authority where there are two labour representatives out of 27. He said there was an improvement in that under the provisions of section 4 but the improvement is so marginal as to be irrelevant. In any event, I do not see why we should operate on the basis of tradition. At this stage in our political development we have got to the point where we recognise the importance of the labour movement in its broadest sense in our affairs. That should be recognised in any institutional arrangements which we might make for the running of economic and other bodies.
In the 1946 Act there is provision for four representatives of the labour movement out of 23. That is what is provided for in the table put down today by Senator Durcan. Be that as it may — four out of 23 is really neither here or there — the provision of two labour members is grossly inadequate and is insulting to the labour movement in the context of the format of the remainer of the Authority. I urge the Minister to consider this with the Labour Party between now and Report Stage. The perception I have of it is that, while the harbour authorities are not subject to the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, as of now, steps should be taken in this Bill to make them subject at least to the spirit of that Act. There should be provision for the election of a significant number of worker representatives to the Authority.
The representation of the labour movement on the Authority has a consequential implication for its representation on the board of management which is provided for in section 5 which we will come to. The long and the short of it is that, on the basis of the present proposed composition of the Authority, the labour movement will have no representation on the board of management which will look after the day-to-day affairs of this port. That is entirely unsatisfactory and unsustainable, given our knowledge of the way in which society works.
Therefore, while I am pleased that the Minister has seen fit to accept, in substance at least, the amendments I tabled to sections 15 and 16 of the Bill I am left with this problem which we have not yet addressed properly. We have sorted out, in a long discussion from 12 noon until 2.45 p.m., the geographical distribution of the membership of the Authority, but we have not looked at this matter at all closely. I press the Minister of State to indicate that he recognises that there is an injustice here which may not be intentional except in so far as one would have expected him to recognise the injustice. It may well be that the outcome is based on some traditional model that applied to the Limerick Harbour Authority. I ask him to recognise that this is entirely unsatisfactory all the more so when one takes into account the composition of the board of management and the way in which it will be appointed under section 5. That is a matter of real concern to the labour movement but it is one which can be dealt with, at the same time ensuring that the Authority does not become unduly large once again.
Section 7 of the Harbours Act sets out the membership of existing harbour authorities. The insertion of the new section 7 (1) (a) would provide for the membership of the Shannon Ports Authority. The representation of sectional interests, as set out in the Harbour Act, 1946, has, generally speaking, not been disturbed although it is a fact that the representatives of the chambers of commerce and the port users, which were mentioned by Senator O'Mahony, are being reduced from four to two. While, as he said, it is still a fact that the labour interests have only the same representation as the chambers of commerce and the elected members of the port users, these two sectional interests have been reduced from four to two. We come back again to the general question of balance in membership.
Regarding the board of management no sectional interests are specifically designated in relation to the composition of the board of management — hopefully the board of management will be comprised of people best suited to look after the day-to-day affairs of the Authority as such. I was not referring specifically to the Limerick Harbour Authority. All the Schedule 1 harbour authorities, under the Harbours Act, 1946, gave labour two places. The labour representation on the Limerick Harbour Authority is presently, as I said earlier, two out of seven. This, both geographically and regarding the sectional interests, arrives at a reasonable balance in so far as we can within limited numbers. It is a fact that the chambers of commerce have lost out, with a reduction from four members to two. The elected members from the users of the port have lost out from four to two. While Senator O'Mahony makes a point about the considerable size and importance of the labour interest in the estuary area, we have got as near to a balance as we can. We are adhering to the general designation, in so far as harbour authorities are concerned, under the Harbours Act. The administration of the harbours is being looked at in the context of the Green Paper on Harbours. We have got the balance right as far as we can. I give an undetaking to the Senator that I will pass on his views to the Minister.
I am glad that the Minister has said that he will be prepared to discuss the views I have expressed with the Minister for Communications prior to the Report Stage. I, at this stage of the discussion, do not intend to press the matter to a vote but that possibility is not necessarily ruled out on Report stage. I accept that the harbour authority should not be significantly larger than it now is with 21 members. I am not necessarily committed to the notion that harbour authorities, with a broad composition of the kind now proposed, are the best way to run the large port areas. I cannot accept that, with our knowledge of the importance of the labour movement — I mean that in the broad sense — and the role that it plays in our national life, it should only have two representatives here, a similar number to the chambers of commerce who, by and large, represent no one except groups of individual traders or that it should have similar representation with ship owners or manufacturers. The labour movement has only two representatives, whereas these other interests have six between them. That is unsustainable.
I take the Minister of State's point that in some sense the proportions are roughly equivalent to the proportions set down in the 1946 Act for harbour authorities, although I have said that the proposal for the Shannon Estuary Authority provides for a less favourable representation than in the 1946 Act for port authorities generally. We must remember that that Act was enacted at a different time, at a time when the labour movement had no effective say in the affairs of the nation. It was a very bad time following the thirties and into the forties. Labour was treated with derision in this society at that time.
I do not think it is sustainable to say that because a model was drafted at that time in that environment we should continue with it into the future. It is something I feel extremely strongly about and I hope to have discussions with the Minister about it between now and Report Stage and, if necessary, I would be prepared to table amendments about it at that stage. It seems to be a hangover from another period. It is one that is totally unjustifiable. That is recognised by the Minister because he did not, beyond saying that it was based on a model developed in 1946, attempt to justify the disproportionately low representation for labour compared with other interests. At the end of the day it is the labour movement that has most interest in the success of this port, not just those who work in the port authority but the workers of the whole environment of the Shannon Estuary. They may well have significantly more interest in real life in its future than the other interest groups who are to be represented on a ratio of three to one against them.
I do not propose to continue this debate ad infinitum although I would like to mention once again that the consequence of the low level representation here would be to exclude them from the board of management provided for in section 5. I hope that the Minister will have serious discussions with the Minister for Communications prior to Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 13 on behalf of Senator Howard:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 43, to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
Subsection (i) of the section reads:
As soon as may be after the establishment day, the Authority shall establish, in accordance with the section, a body of persons to be known, and in this Act referred to, as the "Board of Management".
The amendment seeks to delete "shall" and substitute "may" in line 43 so as to give the authority discretion as to whether to appoint such board of management. It may be better that some of these bodies or institutions should evolve more slowly than be written in in law. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the suggestion that Senator Howard has made in this amendment.
It is intended that the structure of the Shannon Ports Authority will differ from the traditional structure of a harbour authority under harbours legislation. Limerick Harbour Commissioners as at present constituted have 27 members appointed mainly to represent sectoral interests with full responsibility for the management and operation of the harbour. I consider that present day commercial considerations and the competitive requirements of a modern port call for a less unwieldy and a more dynamic structure than is being provided for under the existing harbours legislation. Harbours generally are made up of sectoral interests with full responsibility for the management and operation of the port. In order to get this change for more dynamic structure we have this proposal for a two-tier management structure for the proposed Shannon Ports Authority. The two-tier structure will involve a 21 member main authority with overall responsibility and a seven-member board of management with general responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the estuary. This is considered the best option to cater for the requirements of the Shannon Estuary. I must reject Senator Howard's proposed amendment removing the obligation on the Authority to set up the board of management. This could, in effect, mean that the board of management might never be appointed, there by running contrary to the intentions of the legislation.
The point at issue here is the vesting of authority and the responsibility of the legal authorities. While I am sure that the smaller board of management as envisaged in section 5 would be easier to control, while large representative authorities may take a little longer and there will be many more points of views submitted, discussed and responded to, it is more expedient to have a small authority. However, in a democracy such as ours business is never that urgent that it cannot be teased out painstakingly. For that reason what amendment No. 13 seeks to do is to give the decision to the Authority as to whether they want to delegate these functions to a smaller board of management. In subsection (2) of section 5 the Minister proposes that the make-up of that board of management would be the chairman of the Authority, vice-chairman, the chief executive officer, members of the Authority and one officer of the Authority nominated by the chairman. That is a small board of management that would be relatively easy to control and to get business through.
If we go back to section 3, it seems a very wide range of interests will be covered and it will be difficult to encompass all those with five or six people plus an officer of the Authority. The Minister is not concentrating sufficiently on the democratic rights of the people nominated or elected to the Authority itself. It is much better to have such important bodies evolve and to give the Authority the discretion to consider whether they need to delegate their powers to a board of management in the interests of development. For that reason I should like to see the amendment being made.
I support Senator Howard in this amendment because I think there is a great difference between "shall" and "may". Like myself the Senator has reservations about the second body or the board within the Authority. I would fear that the seven may be the group that make all decisions, and in doing so they may take more power unto themselves than they should. This is why Senator Howard is worried and he is asking that "may" be put in because he has deeper worries for the future. We might have done too much talking earlier about the bigger grouping, perhaps those are the seven who will make all the decisions. I support Senator Howard's argument. I do not know whether the Minister sees or understands what Senator Howard is saying. Maybe he does understand and does not want to admit it. Our worry is about the body of seven. I opposed the two-tier system in my Second Stage speech.
The Minister might enlighten me on this matter. It is provided that the board of management shall carry out on behalf of the Authority the powers, duties and functions assigned to harbour authorities under the Harbours Acts 1946 to 1986. The Minister also may, by regulations made after consultation with the Authority, declare such powers, duties and functions to be a reserved function of the Authority. The Authority comprises 21 members; at first it was intended that they sit six times a year and now it is required that they meet once a month. Are all their powers transferred to the board of management?
I must try to be consistent with what I have said earlier. I believe that if the amendment were to be passed it would defeat the purpose of the Bill. If it is the intention to approach the management and development of the Shannon Estuary port by involving a whole range of people from local authorities to chambers of commerce people and manufacturers and so on in the composition of the Authority, then it is necessary to have a board of management which is smaller and which has clearly defined functions for the day-to-day management and administration of the port. That is what is intended in the Bill. If the board of management is taken out, then you are back to a situation which is similar to the Dublin Port and Docks Board which, while it has served a very useful function over the years, is not the kind of authority that is appropriate in an era when port management systems have got to be geared towards development, efficiency and so on.
The substitution of the word "may" for "shall" would have the effect of totally undermining the concept behind this Bill. However, the composition of the board of management of seven leaves all of us with considerable concern. It is absolutely wrong that the labour movement would have no possibility of having anybody elected to the board of management, given the composition of the entire Authority and given the method by which the board of management is to be set up. While I accept the need for the word "shall" as opposed to the word "may" in relation to the board of management. I do not accept that labour representatives — not the Labour Party representatives but the labour movement or workforce representatives or regional representatives of the workforce — can be effectively deliberately excluded from the board of management by virtue of the composition of the main Authority.
A great deal of concern was expressed about trying to get the regional balance right on the Authority and that is appropriate. It is appropriate that people from different counties should try to see to it that the membership of the Authority is representative of the region on a geographical basis. Very little concern has been expressed so far by any grouping in the House, apart from my own, about the total under-representation of the labour movement on the Authority and secondly about the reality that the labour movement will be excluded from the board of management by virtue of sections 4 and 5 of the Bill. It would not be appropriate to change the word "shall" to "may" in section 5.
I will have to agree with Senator O'Mahony. The point has not been made strongly enough about labour representation. We have a situation in the Cork Harbour Board where there is, unfortunately, an impression that there is a divide in the membership of the board because of the same difficulty whether it should be labour representation or worker representation or people from harbour boards or chambers of commerce or port users. This is regrettable because of the amount of work that has gone on, particularly in the Cork area. If we are creating a board of management for Shannon we should not have a situation in which the labour force would not be represented. We get the impression that three members of the Authority are to be elected by the Authority, one officer of the Authority nominated by the chairman of the Authority following consultation with the chief executive; in other words we are giving the power to the chairman of the Authority to nominate whomever he likes on the board, yet the Minister gives the impression that he is not prepared to say even at this stage that the labour force of the whole area would not have any representation at all and certainly would not have any hope of getting it even if they tried through the Authority because of the elected representatives already there. This would seem to indicate that we would not be recognising the labour movement. To set up a new authority and not recognise for the sake of goodwill alone that a member of the labour force should be on the board would be wrong. We have learned that in the Cork area where we have had many arguments at a very high cost, arguments involving management and trade unions because of lack of labour representation at board level. Since the representation at board level has been created in the Cork area there is a happier situation. It can only be for the benefit of the Authority generally and the board of management that some member of the workforce would be on the board. It is a very serious situation if a member of a trade union would not be on the board of management. I would ask the Minister for the sake of goodwill to consider this.
The implication of this amendment is that the harbours board may not appoint a management board when it is itself appointed. This would take away the central aim of the Bill in setting up a harbours board. At the beginning I felt the Minister would have set up a board of from eight to 12 members. He did not do that because of pressure from local authorities and other interested groups. The Minister tried to get over this problem by having a broader-based board and having a special board of management that would look after the day-to-day running of the estuary. If I had been the Minister I would have set up a harbours board at the beginning with eight to 12 members. All over Europe most harbour boards are made up of eight to 12 members. Belfast has 12 members all appointed by the Government. These boards, because of their size, tend to work better and produce better results. If we had a harbours board of 21 members making the decisions and responsible for the day-to-day running of the estuary then it would not have the same effect as a smaller board of management which would be representative of the 21 members and drawn from the 21 members. No interest will be unrepresented in the board of management and the harbours board will have control of the membership of the board of management. I cannot see why there should be doubts or fears about the board of management. The local authorities of the three counties involved should at least have one member each on the board of management to ensure that they will not be left out in the cold.
I take it that what the Minister is doing is ensuring that there is effective and efficient transaction of business. In order to do that he sees quite clearly that this is largely done in most organisations throughout the country and world-wide by an efficient, effective small group of people representative of the mainstream, conducting more frequent meetings and getting to grips with the body of business. Those of us who have served on boards and organisations by virtue of our elected capacity will know that is what happens. Those people who are most interested, most involved and keen are the people who turn up routinely at the meetings and carry out the decision-making process.
What the Minister is doing is allowing the mechanism to exist which will enable what is practice to be streamlined and effectively organised. This measure reflects what I know and what I think members will know to be the reality. There might be a certain danger in that the board meetings will only be held once every two months and there might be a certain reluctance on the part of the board of management to reveal all the information to the entire membership. There might be a difficulty there. There should be ground rules laid down which would ensure that that would not happen. Overall it is an effective and intelligent way to go about what is required.
The nature of the amendment substituting "may" for "shall" indicates to me that Senator Howard has grave reservations about this amendment. If he were present in the House he might not have pursued it with the tenacity with which Senator McDonald pursued it.
The Authority will determine policy which will be implemented by the board of management and it will be a matter for consultation between the Authority and the Minister as to the specific powers to be reserved by the Authority. There is no question of the board being in a position to take on to itself any powers reserved to the Authority. In effect the Authority will be delegating specific functions to the board. As mentioned by several Senators this two-tier system is the efficient and modern way to get a dynamic workable board in shape.
As regards the representation within that board, it will be a matter for the Authority to elect whatever members it sees fit within the constraints of the designations to be members of the board of management. I would expect that the Authority would take into account the most efficient and effective combination of members of the board. It is our job as legislators to provide for all contingencies but in considering those aspects we often lose sight of the fact that all of the people involved in the Shannon Ports Authority will be there to do the best possible job for the area. That is what we are trying to do here and therefore I would ask that the mover, on behalf of Senator Howard, might consider withdrawing the amendment.
Before I withdraw the amendment, I gather from my discussions with Senator Howard that his apprehension as far as section 5 was concerned was based purely on the democratic process. There has been a tendency over the last 20 years, with the regionalisation of various bodies and boards, for democracy to take a reduced role, a second row seat. He thought — and I share his opinion — that the new Authority should have the discretion to decide whether in its experience it would be more expedient for the execution of the work of the Authority to set up the board of management. What he was seeking was to give the Authority the discretion, and so by substituting "shall" for "may".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 14 and 15 are alternatives and related to 16 and 17 which are also alternatives. Therefore amendments 14, 15, 16 and 17 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 5, subsection (2) (d), line 7, after "and" to insert "at least one of whom shall be from each county and".
I put down this amendment to ensure that the board of management would be as representative as possible of the three counties. I mentioned already, when dealing with section 13, that there would be a fear if either of the three countries were not included in the board of management that for some reason they would not be part of vital decision-making. I request the Minister to give consideration to having at least a member from each of the three counties included in the board of management by whatever process possible. I am sure that representatives from the other counties will support my amendment and what it sets out to do. A fear has been expressed generally that the board of management will have too much power and that the general body of 21 will have very little say, especially when they are only going to meet six times every year.
The Senator does not know that yet.
It is proposed in the Bill that the Harbour Board——
The Senator might vote for our amendment because it proposes monthly meetings.
I think the Minister is agreeing to monthly meetings.
That is the reason for that fear. There may be some justification for it. Personally, I feel, when we address ourselves to the true spirit of the Bill, that it does not matter where the board of management comes from provided they are a good and effective board of management and have the expertise to ensure the optimum development of the estuary. Nevertheless, I would appreciate the comments of the Minister on my amendment.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are being taken together, I understand. Is that right?
Yes and amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
We ask in amendment No. 15 that "In page 5, subsection 2 (d), line 7, after "and", to insert "at least two of whom shall be members of local authorities and ..." The reason Senator Kiely and I have this amendment to the section is because of our earlier worries of representation. I am sure Senator Howard has this in his head as well. He has another amendment coming up anyway. Living in a constituency near the estuary one can be told already the name of the chief executive who is going to hold this post on this board that is not yet set up. I think Senator Howard asked on Second Stage who the electorate to the elect this board would be. Perhaps he got an answer when I was not in the House. If so, the Minister can answer again in his reply.
What Senator McDonald was asking was, and he is a long time in public life, why there is a need to set up this board so quickly when you are talking about such an important body as the Authority of the Shannon Estuary. I appreciate that the Government have accepted this board within the Authority. I opposed the two-tier grouping on Second Stage. I would have terrible worries that these seven persons would hold unto themselves the total power. It can be done and it has been done. If we are here today talking about democratically putting legislation through that will be the Authority for the future of the Shannon Estuary, we should make sure that seven do not dictate to the body of 21 what is to be done. That would be my concern.
I do not know whether I took Senator Cregan up right. Did he say that is what is happening in Cork, and if it is, why are we bringing in another Bill here today to make sure that this board of management are going to dictate to the estuary body of 21 members for the future of the Shannon Estuary. I can name, but I am not going to do it, the person who is already tipped to get the appointment of the chief executive officer of this board. I ask that to section 5 (2) (d) there be added "two of whom shall be local authority members". I want to make a comment there. Senator O'Mahony is not in the House and he might misjudge local authority people. He seems to be carried away with having representation on this Authority that might look after the labour force. He is quite clear that he is talking about the workers, not the Labour Party.
I have local authority elected persons sitting beside me at meetings who are union top brass. I do not know why the Senator should be worried that such persons may not eventually find themselves on the Authority. I am worried about these seven boyos. They are the ones who will dictate what will happen in the Shannon Estuary and not the 21 whom everybody is concerned about because they are county councillors or corporation members.
I support amendments Nos. 14 and 16. Amendment No. 14 is one which seeks to ensure that at least one shall be from each county. It is the definition and the desire of some Members of the House to have a better geographical distribution. As I have already said, the Shannon Estuary has two banks and there are three counties. Our friends from Clare could wind up with absolutely no member on the board of management because all the authorities would appear to be on the southern bank. From that point of view, I believe it would be highly desirable to have it written into the main legislation that representations should be equitably distributed. Amendment No. 15, seeks to insert:
... at least two of whom shall be members of local authorities and ...
Senator Howard's amendment states, "Provided that at least three local authority members shall be members of the Board of Management".
This is extremely important. I am almost 30 years a member of a local authority. In that experience the vast majority of the colleagues at my own county level or at regional level or at general council or whatever, are people of at least sound commonsense, people who in the main go to a meeting in order to give the authority or the body or the council that they are serving on the benefit of that commonsense. That is very important. All of these authorities set up are able to employ people who will give them all of the technological and professional expertise that is required. These semi-State boards have no scarcity of professional and technological advice. What they need is more commonsense and what we need are authorities and boards of management who remember that the very fact of their establishment is to serve the public and not assist a person to build yet another pyramid or cathedrals in the desert, a phrase I much prefer to "white elephant" a phrase much used in the last 20 years. It is important.
There is an ongoing desire in many quarters to downgrade at every turn the ordinary elected members of local authorities. It is a basis for democracy and if we want it to survive, we are entitled to nurture it.
Three counties have been involved with four major local authorities. There is the Limerick City and County, Clare County Council and Kerry County Council and, perhaps, north Tipperary as well. The two main regions would be Clare on the north side and, perhaps, Limerick and Kerry on the south bank. There is so much involved for those counties that it is highly desirable they should have a direct input at all levels to the board of management and the Authority. Without the co-operation of those local authorities, it will be difficult to visualise the new Authority getting off the ground and having the co-operation that is required for the speedy implementation of the infrastructures that will be necessary to service the board. There is no point in bringing produce to the Shannon Estuary if there is a bottleneck of infrastructure, whether it be road or rail services. Therefore, it needs co-operation. We have an opportunity of writing into the Bill a sound basis on which the Minister can have the co-operation and the direct input of all of these authorities at the very start. I would look on amendments Nos. 14 and 16 as being fundamental to the whole philosophy of this Bill. I should hope that the Minister would look kindly on them.
One could argue as to the number of local authority members one would have. I would wish if people would get away from the idea that by being elected to a local authority he becomes either untouchable or that it is undesirable to put any of these people on the board. People who have the support of the electorate, at least people whom they are living with and who know them feel that they are capable of representing their views, that in itself, is extremely important. I should like to support those two amendments.
I agree wholeheartedly with what Senator McDonald has said regarding members of local authorities on the board of management. No doubt, they will have great contributions to make.
Amendment No. 14 states "at least one of whom shall be from each county ..." A person could be appointed from each county who might not be a member a local authority.
Our amendment No. 15 states: "In page 5, subsection (2) (d), line 7, after ‘and' to insert ‘at least two of whom shall be members of local authorities and'". As the Authority is constituted, there are only eight local authority members in it. There is a danger that there may not be a local authority member on the board of management. That is the reason for the amendment. As regards Senator Howard's and Senator Deenihan's amendment, the intention is that the one from each county would be a local authority member. There is no guarantee that there will be local authority members according to that amendment. Senator Howard is of the same opinion as Senator Honan. It is a reflection on the local authority members, as Senator McDonald pointed out, that, when they are elected, people are inclined to appoint them to further bodies to which they are more entitled than, perhaps, other members. We asked for the deletion of lines 11 and 12 to ensure that there could be more than three local authorities but it also might mean that there would be fewer.
I would nearly favour Senator Howard's amendment to our own in that there would be at least three local authority members and more if possible. I would like to see that the members of local authorities would be recognised and get a fair crack of the whip on the board of management. It is most important, because of their experience especially in their own local authorities regarding infrastucture and so on in the contributions they can make to the board of management. I think it is vital that local authority members would be on the board of management.
I support Senator Kiely and Senator Howard. I absolutely support what Senator McDonald has said. We are talking about giving greater power or at least equal power or whatever power is left to local authority members. We are asking that this be left to them. We are now setting up a board which is the grouping that will dictate policy. These are the seven and not 21. If we leave local authority members, persons elected by the people, off this board, we will leave the real control of the estuary to non-elected people. The local authority people of the three constituencies on the estuary and north Tipperary are the people. The Minister is long enough serving in Government and in public life to accept that members of local authorities must be on the board. If it is accepted by the Minister that local authority members are put on the board of management, we would need to make sure that there are not two members from the one area and only one member from another and that there is still an area left out.
It is not because they are my electorate but because I have seen 35 years of service in local authorities in Clare and I will fight any Government who will try to take any of the powers that are left to the members of local authorities. Here they are being ignored completely. They will not have the power to get themselves elected because of the thinking of industrialists and so on in regard to people elected to local authorities. In relation to amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16, preferably we should get three members under section 5.
At last we are coming to the facts of the matter. The facts are that the board of management are going to be dictating even though it might be recognised that the Authority will designate certain authorities to the board of management. The board of management are going to be the strong team. The chairman having the right to bring somebody else from the Authority on to the board of management is very questionable. Of seven members, it could be a case of four versus three. That type of situation is prevailing in some areas at this time. There are cartel groups and this is not good generally. I have witnessed instances in my own area where there are certain groups and where there have been major battles, worse than any general election battle, to ensure that certain people even get a nomination for appointment to a harbour board. I am sure all the Senators have read about such happenings. I can think of one such recent case in which there were major battles between people in high positions in business for a position on a local harbour authority board.
No recognition is given to those who represent the people generally. Regarding labour representation, as has been said there are people on local authorities who are trade union members. We must recognise, once and for all, that for a happy situation in boards of management we need people from the labour side. Whether we like it or not the every day running of the affairs of the Shannon Estuary will be in the hands of the board of management though they will be dictated to by the Authority. Whether they are going to meet once a month or once every two months it does not matter. The three local authority members must be from three different counties. In my view that is going to be very hard to define. I hope we can work it out but, at the same time, there will be a political situation and that is very questionable. You must make sure that the board of management for this Authority must work for the good of the area and not for themselves in a political sense. Let us be fair about it. If we are deciding on three local authority members let us be sure that we are deciding what is right for the good of all and for the good of the Authority generally.
I would question very seriously the idea that the chairman of the authority is entitled to nominate one officer following discussion with the chief executive.
In effect, the chairman is allowed bring in who he likes provided he discusses the matter with the chief executive. That is a bit too easy. Just because he is chairman, he can nominate someone else to to the board with him. Is that because the chairman may not be strong enough and may need someone to give him an extra push? This provision is very questionable. I do not think that we should put such provision in writing at all.
Certainly at the end of the day the labour members will not have any say because there are only to be two of them. That is the point. I do not carry any flag for any trade union but I recognise that there is need for fair representation and we are not providing for it here. By having a fair representation you get a fair working of the management and a fair working of the board and that is very important. If members are to be elected to the Authority, who will they be? Will they be all from one party? I have to ask that question. Are they going to be from three different parties from three different counties? I should like to see that happening but let us be realistic about it That is not going to happen because politics is politics. There could be a situation in which the board of management could be totally dictated to by a political group, whether Fine Gael, Labour or Fianna Fáil. I would not want that to be the case.
Let us get back to the question of the chairman saying that he bring somebody else on to the board provided he consults the chief executive. That is questionable and I could not agree to it I recognise what a board of management mean in terms of a harbour board authority. They do not half dictate. I have seen situations where many jobs were lost because of bad management and bad boards of management and because of special considerations and special emphasis by particular groups within the board or authority for their own use only. That has happened and many millions of pounds have been spent and probably many millions made that I do not know about but I am not foolish enough not to recognise that there are particular groups on these bodies who are there for their own good only.
Senator Cregan's remarks prompt me to comment on the constitution of the board of management, that is, the members elected. Of the seven there will be only five from the Authority and two officers. One of the officers will be appointed by way of the nomination of the chairman in consultation with the chief executive of the Authority. Is it necessary to have two officers on the board of management? Would the chief executive officer and six from the Authority not suffice?
Would the House permit me, first, to apologise to the Chair for my absence from the debate so far today. There is other legislation which may be here tomorrow and on which I have an amendment. I was seeking a meeting with the Minister concerned for some time and found that the meeting could only be arranged for this morning and, consequently, I had to make a choice as to which place I should be in. I regret the circumstances that caused this to happen and I apologise to the Chair for my absence.
I understand that in my absence the amendments which were in my name were moved by my colleagues and that I have been ably represented by them in that respect.
On both sides.
I was coming to that. I am sure their capacity to represent me so effectively was not limited to one side of the Chamber either.
Thanks, Senator.
I want to come back to the remaining amendments. We are discussing in this group two amendments in my name. I am at a slight disadvantage because I have no knowledge of what was the fate of amendments Nos. 6 to 9.
They were withdrawn.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I do not know under what circumstances they were withdrawn but I just want to say that I will have an opportunity, should I consider it necessary, to put down similar amendments for Report Stage. That would give me an opportunity of arguing the validity of what is enshrined in them.
With regard to the present group of amendments, amendments Nos. 14 to 17, I am motivated by two reasons in putting forward the amendments here and in speaking to these four amendments. The first one is to preserve the status and the standing of local authority members in so far as the constitution of the board of management and the future operation of the Shannon Estuary Authority are concerned. Like many members of local authorities, which most of us here can claim to be, I am always concerned at the regularity with which our colleagues express their concern for the way powers of local authority members have been eroded over the years. A lot of it is our own fault because we have permitted that to happen. Today, we are again confronted with a situation which is a continuation of that process. It is time we called a halt. I believe there is a deliberate policy here to erode the influence and the power of the elected members within the proposed harbour authority. It is wrong and it is objectionable. I want to speak against it.
The second reason why I am advancing these amendments is to protect, as far as I can, or to preserve, the representation of County Clare or, to use a phrase that has been used regularly here during the debate on this Bill, the representation of the north bank. I am sure that phrase has been amply explained already and there is no need to go further except to say that I am talking of 92 miles of river bank as against 72 miles on the other side. I am talking of one local authority there that has been given two representatives out of a total authority of 21. It may well be that in the circumstances the representation from the northern side of the estuary will be better than two out of 21. In theory that could be the measure of representation from the greater area of the estuary. We have to safeguard against that position emerging. That fact must be recognised. If it has not been recognised so far, before this measure can leave this House, recognition and balance must be restored and must be given to the northern side of the estuary. The risk exists that the representation of the larger side of the estuary will be two out of 21 or two against 19. That we cannot have.
I want to come to the composition of the proposed board of management. The Senators who have spoken before me referred to it. I understand an earlier amendment of mine which would have given discretion to the authority as to whether a board of management would be established fell by the wayside. The Authority are obliged to appoint a board of management. When that decision is made only three places can be filled on that board of management. Four of the places are already gone. The chairman whom we presume will already be elected at that stage has got his position on it. The vice-chairman whom we presume will be elected at that stage has his seat on it. There is a place reserved for the chief executive, whether or not he is appointed at that stage.
There is this peculiar hybrid at the end of the section, that the chairman out of the blue can say: "I want him, provided the chief executive accepts him or her." That individual has to be an officer of the Authority. Therefore, on this board of management of seven people four of the places are already gone, three are left to be elected. It is therefore, possible that of the four places already committed none of the persons concerned will reside on the northern bank. It is very likely, unless the safeguard I am seeking here is included, that nobody from the northern bank of the Shannon will be included on the board of management.
The greatest potential for development on the estuary is along the northern bank. The development at Moneypoint has proved that. The commitment of the people of County Clare is to development and progress on the northern bank of the estuary. If they have not representation on the board, the primary duty of which is to promote that development, then that development and that progress will not be achievable on that side. Of that I am certain. I recommend that at least one member must come from each county. The acceptance of that would mean the minimum guarantee that at least one of the seven would be from the northern bank. The Minister said that he cannot accept that. My response to that can only be that there is no regard for the northern bank and there is no concern as to whether it will have representation on the board of management.
I want to speak on my other amendment which is that at least three local authority members would be members of the board of management. I am talking about the only three positions that are available for election. If my amendment is accepted it means that of that seven member board there are only three who will ever be required to submit their performance for the judgment of their peers at election time, even though it is to local authorities.
That is an essential reason for ensuring that these three remaining positions must be filled by elected representatives. I am not specifying that the one that should come from the northern bank should be a member of the Clare County Council or should be a member of the Kilrush Urban District Council which is the harbour authority. I am saying that there are two amendments here, both of which have one basic objective and that is to ensure that there is the minimum representation from the northern and the larger bank of the river. One of these three should come from each county. That will give County Clare and the northern bank one member. I am also saying that these three are the only members of that board of management who can ever be submitted to the judgement of the electors and that these should be members of the local authority. I look forward to the Minister's response.
If the board of management were to take all power unto itself it would be a sad reflection, in my opinion, on the Shannon Ports Authority. This Shannon Ports Authority will be the body given the statutory power and that is charged with carrying out the functions. I cannot imagine that any board of management appointed by it according to the regulations we are dealing with here would take over its authority as such. The specific statutory powers, that will be reserved to the Authority are clearly laid down. What will happen will be that the authority will delegate specific functions to the board. It is not possible, in my opinion, for the board to take unto itself any powers that are reserved to the authority. It is not possible.
The theory is perfect.
I am also concerned about an opinion that seems to be emerging, not specifically but the impression is coming across in the debate that all non-local authority representatives will only be concerned with their own vested interests rather than primarily concerned with the efficient operation and development of the estuary. Once we have the Authority in place they will work with one object in mind, to make the best use of this great natural resource.
Senator Cregan mentioned the chairman bringing on to the board a member of the management team of the Shannon Ports Authority. This person must be an employee of the Authority. It is not a political appointment as such. It has to be an official.
Overall, on these amendments I feel that the optional representation which the Minister has chosen is the fairest way to deal with this matter. There is absolutely no question of a bias or any intention of that nature against the north bank, for which Senator Howard has been pleading so eloquently. We could have the other side of the coin. Senator Howard is making the point that there might be no one from the north bank. Perhaps all three members could turn out to be from the north bank. I would not like to limit the Authority to electing one member from each county. I consider that it would be far more important to have the best three people appointed, rather than limiting the choice in any way. In effect the Senators' amendment No. 14 would serve only to perpetuate, by its enshrinement specifically in legislation, the inter-county rivalry that obviously exists. Perhaps in an area such as Senator Cregan represents it might be inter-bank rivalary of some sort within the same county. But this could emerge as inter-county rivalry. This element would have to be kept in mind. I would, therefore, have to reject the amendment as such.
Lines 11 and 12 are the subject of amendment No. 17. They are included so that membership of the board of management would be weighted towards those with knowledge and expertise in the general business of running a port. However, to be consistent with what I said earlier, I do not want to inhibit the choice of the Authority in any way in appointing the board of management and getting the best results possible, so I have decided to accept the amendment deleting lines 11 and 12.
That, only to a certain extent, touches on amendment No. 15 in the names of Senator Tras Honan and Senator Rory Kiely and amendment No. 16 in the name of Senator Michael Howard because the effect of this will be that there will be no limitation on the number of local authority members who can be members of the board of management. In effect, although it will not happen, it would be possible to have five local authority members out of a total of seven. In other words, we are lifting the reservation on that. It meets the requirements of Senator Tras Honan specifically and Senator Rory Kiely in amendment No. 17. It goes some distance towards meeting the spirit of amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
I appreciate the Minister's agreement to eliminate lines 11 and 12. It recognises that more local authority members should be on the board of management. Now you could have a situation where there could be quite a political board. I will readily admit that I am a political animal like everybody else. At the same time, the Minister is not prepared to consider the idea of having a labour member on the board of management. The three members of a local authority could be of one political party so, the board could become quite political. Yet we are not prepared to compromise and create a happy situation for the good of the Authority. I am not trying to be an authority on harbours but I recognise that this new Shannon Ports Authority is very big. The board of management should have some representation of the labour force. In fairness to the people who are trying to reach compromises at present — and they are badly needed in our workforce — if we are prepared to eliminate lines 11 and 12 we should consider, even in the long term, the idea of labour representation. It is only fair and for the good of all. In fact you could create a situation where there would be a happy compromise. There is now a situation in which the board of management could be quite political.
I want to thank the Minister for meeting the spirit of my amendment and the intent in the case of some of my colleagues who I am sure will be speaking for themselves. I am very happy that we have obtained a positive response from the Minister in relation to this aspect. I have been here for less than one hour and have not put that much energy into it, but for those who have been working hard all morning, trying to improve this measure, it is certainly encouraging that their efforts have been responded to in a positive manner.
The Minister's suggestion is a welcome development. It meets not only the spirit of my amendment, it meets in full what I had in mind. The Minister did meet us more than half way on this issue. I am sure he did it in the knowledge that once you take that step, you encourage further persuasion on another aspect. To develop that further persuasion was the second leg of my argument. One was to preserve and enhance where possible, the status of the local authority members. The second was to ensure balanced representation of the county. The Minister has responded to my first argument. He says that at the moment he does not see his way to accepting that he should intervene to ensure that bias does not exist in the balance of representation at the end of the day. I hope to persuade him that that is another area which deserves his intervention. While I accept totally that it is the Minister's intention and I accept that it is his belief that there will not be a bias in the balance of representation, the fact is there is no guarantee that there will not be any bias. The way to ensure that there will not be bias at the end of the day is to legislate against it. I accept and appreciate what the Minister has done here. But in relation to the question of balance of representation and ensuring the elimination of bias I will continue to argue this point. I will give him all the time he needs to reflect on the validity of my argument. I am convinced that at the end of the day we will convert the Minister to the need to act in relation to this.
I would like to thank the Minister for coming more than half way to meet us. Amendment No. 17 does not restrict the number of local authority members that will be on the board of management but, at the same time, it does not give a guarantee that there will be local authority members on the board of management. Of the 21 members on the Authority, only eight are elected members of local authorities. I appreciate what the Minister has done. Like Senator Howard we will be trying to persuade him to our way of thinking later on. Senator Honan and I put down amendment No. 15 which requires that two members of the three should be members of local authorities. There may be a danger that the local authorities would end up without any member on the board of management. This is something that Members of the House would not like to see happen. It would be another instance of the status of local authority members being eroded and I do not think they deserve that. I would like to see something inserted to ensure that there would be members of local authorities on the board. The chairman of the Authority need not be a member of the local authority; neither is there any need for the vice-chairman or any of the three members of the Authority to be members of the local authority unless we put a guarantee in the Bill.
I sincerely thank the Minister for coming so far. Like Senator Howard I would still have deep worries that we will not have representation on the board of management. The place is already gone. Rather than going on about this section we might talk about the Minister taking another look at section 5 before Report Stage. The chairman, the vice-chairman, the chief executive and whoever the chief executive wants with him, those four places are gone. I thank the Minister for coming some of the way. We will talk to Senator Howard about section 5 before Report Stage.
With great reluctance I interrupt the cross floor play. I must refer to something which was dealt with at length earlier on, in the absence of Senator Howard. The Minister has given a clear indication that he will use his nominees on the Authority to redress any perceived imbalances. I mentioned in particular Kilrush Urban District Council. If the balance of the Authority is right, then it is hardly appropriate to intervene as far as the appointment by the Authority of members to the board of management is concerned. The Senators were good enough to thank me for what is regarded as a minor movement.
Minor?
That was mentioned by Senator Howard and I got the same impression from Senators Honan and Kiely. I have really major ones down along the line if I could only get at them.
As regards amendment No. 15, the Minister will appreciate my worry about the board of management ending up with no local authority member. None of us would like to see that happen. It would be reducing the status of local authority members. Amendment No. 15 would ensure some local authority member on the board. They would be as well qualified as other members on the board. The Minister mentioned that you could end up with five on the board. I would not see anything wrong with that.
I can only repeat what I said earlier, that I consider it the more satisfactory that the Authority shall have the power to select three people whom they consider would be the most beneficial to the Authority. The points have obviously been made with great conviction. I believe that the fears expressed will prove unfounded although no one can provide for all contingencies. I believe it is best to leave it to the Authority.
Is amendment No. 14 withdrawn?
I will be withdrawing amendment No. 14 but I want to clear up any misconception the Minister may have in regard to my earlier comments. I understood him to say that I welcomed something I considered to be a minor concession. I consider it as a very generous concession, befitting the Minister, from what I know of him. When I have had an opportunity of considering the discussion on earlier amendments I will consider what I will do on Report Stage. The Minister has indicated that he will adjust any imbalance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 5, subsection (2), to delete lines 11 and 12.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are alternatives and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 25 and 26, to delete", unless exceptional circumstances otherwise require, shall hold not more than one meeting in every two months" and substitute "shall meet at least once a month".
I note that Senators Honan and Kiely were of a similar mind to me in regard to this amendment. The Minister has been generous here. He has met the spirit of my amendment. I was seeking that the board should meet at least once a month instead of every two months. The Minister has substituted "every month" for "every two months" and that is satisfactory.
This is a new coalition— Senators Howard, Honan and Kiely. I suppose it is only the region that would achieve it. Has the Minister accepted the monthly meeting provision?
Yes.
I thank the Minister for that. The board would have the regular meetings and the Authority the two-monthly meetings. Those of us who serve on health boards, VECs and other authorities know that meetings on a two-monthly basis, six meetings in the year, would not be sufficient. That is why we put down this amendment.
I am delighted that the Minister has tabled a similar amendment. I am of the same opinion as Senator Howard and Honan that the Authority need to meet more often than once every two months. They should meet at least once a month to give them status and standing.
I want to express certain views on the two amendments. I give notice that I will also be speaking on the section. I am unhappy with the two amendments put forward and I do not welcome either the Government amendment or the motivation for it. The purpose of this amendment is to limit the holding of meetings to no more than one meeting per month, unless exceptional circumstances arise. Bearing in mind the provisions of section 20 of the 1946 Act to which I will refer in greater detail when dealing with the section, the amended provision should not go into the Bill and I do not think the section should be included in the Bill. I would ask the Minister to consider the deletion of section 6 in its entirety between now and Report Stage.
We have the amendment in the names of Senator Howard, Honan and Kiely.
I understand that that amendment is not to be moved.
If what Senator Durcan has said is true it might be withdrawn.
I was reserving my right to speak on the section. It may add clarity if one reads the subsection as it it were amended: It would read: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 20 of the Act of 1946, the Authority, unless exceptional circumstances otherwise require, shall hold not more than one meeting in every month."
The Senator will be able to do that when these amendments are disposed of.
I am speaking on the amendment. What I have read out is what the subsection——
Is amendment No. 18 being withdrawn?
We will make it clear for you. It depends on what the Minister says. What my amendment sought was to substitute "shall meet at least once a month". Senator Durcan has put the cat among the pigeons. He has said that the effect of the Government's amendment is to say that the board can meet only once a month that if they had met on the first Monday of the month, no matter what crisis arose on the second, third or fourth Monday they were debarred from meeting to consider it.
It would be open to interpretation.
We will see what the Minister says. If he says that Senator Durcan is away off beam, it will be withdrawn.
What is happening to amendment 18?
It stands.
Is it moved?
Section 6 in its original form suggests that the board would meet every two months, "shall hold not more than one meeting in every two months". Our amendment is an improvement on that.
I oppose both amendments. I regard them and the section as being a sinister statutory provision. It must be read in the light of the provision we are amending. This is a provision that relates to section 20 of the 1946 Harbours Act. I am not quite sure what the words "notwithstanding the provisions of section 20 of the Act of 1946" mean. Section 20 of the 1946 Harbours Act is a section of eight subsections. The first two deal with the holding of an annual general meeting. Section 20 (3) of that Act is extremely important. It may be wise to read it into the record. It says:
In addition to annual meetings, a harbour authority shall hold such and so many meetings as may be necessary for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties.
That was very sensible legislation that was enacted in 1946 and it has stood the test of time. Subsection (4) of that section states:
The chairman of a harbour authority may at any time call a meeting of the harbour authority.
Section 20 of the 1946 Act should apply in relation to the new harbour Authority. Section 6 of this Bill is totally unnecessary and for that reason I oppose both amendments. I do not think we should have either the amendments or the section.
It is rarely we get free legal advice. Senator Durcan went to the Library and collected the big book.
It is rarely accepted.
Senators Howard, Kiely and I, having listened to the lawyer — my esteemed friend, Senator Durcan — are totally confused.
(Interruptions.)
My friendship is that way with all Members of the House.
We are all God's children.
I did not say that. We have the Cathaoirleach confused as well. I wonder if Senator Durcan has a point? Are we confining the new authority to a monthly meeting only and in an extraordinary situation where an emergency meeting would have to be held, is he saying that it could not be held if we allow the Government amendment to stand that is, to delete "every two months", and to substitute "every month". If that is so, it puts Senators Howard, Kiely and me in the position that we do not know if this means the Authority could only have a monthly meeting and in a emergency situation could not hold an emergency meeting. Is that what Senator Durcan is saying?
I do not see any reason for the fears expressed by Senator Durcan. I do not see anything wrong with the section. Of course, I am not a lawyer and I would not have the same qualifications as Senator Durcan. Section 6 states: "... unless exceptional circumstances otherwise require..." Surely, that gives permission to hold a meeting if the need arises between the monthly meetings? I do not think it is a restriction at all. The section necessary in regard to the holding of meetings. If exceptional circumstances arise it does not restrict the holding of a meeting.
Before this difficulty arose I was saying that there was a reference to the alliance between Senator Howard, Honan and Kiely and naturally I sought to get a suitable political tag that might be appropriate. The only title I could come up with immediately, until Senator Durcan came along and demanded my attention otherwise, was the Estuary Democrats.
May God forgive the Minister.
It is what the Minister might call flotsam and jetsam.
In regard to amendment No. 19, I am proposing to enable the authority to meet every month if it so desires. The restriction to every two months was imposed originally to draw a distinction between the role of the board of management, which should meet as often as necessary for the day to day management of the port, and that of the authority, which would meet less regularly and on a more formal basis to carry out its reserved functions. It is my view that these functions could be satisfactorily carried out by meeting not more than once every two months. I would not wish in anyway, however, to inhibit the work of the authority by imposing too strict a curtailment on the number of times they could meet. I am putting down this amendment which will allow the authority to meet every month if they wish and more frequently in exceptional circumstances. This provision enables the authority to meet more frequently in exceptional circumstances and that is the net point raised by Senator Honan, Senator Kiely and Senator Howard also.
While it might be accepted that the word "exceptional" is not as precise as it might be, it is intended to give sufficient latitude to the authority to meet more often in the event of some unforeseen crisis. There is quite a substantial latitude there for the authority. It is the authority who will decide what are exceptional circumstances. Naturally the inhibition here is that they would not meet for frivolous reasons. I would not expect the Shannon Ports Authority would consider meeting for frivolous reasons. The section now enables the authority to meet every month as distinct from every two months, if it so desires. Also there is provision to meet more frequently in exceptional circumstances. I have no doubt that exceptional circumstances will occur from time to time. I believe there is sufficient latitude there for everyone. The overall section is a wise one to have, because there is always, let us face it we are seeking here to cover all sorts of contingents, the danger that the situations of meetings could possibly be abused. Let us not put a tooth in it.
The discussion has developed very much since we began on the section. The Minister said he did not see any great danger of the harbour authority meeting for frivolous reasons. Senator Durcan has quoted from the Harbours Act, 1946, of which there has been 40 years experience. It must be known to the Minister and his Department as to whether the freedom which that Act allowed to harbour authorities was abused in any way by the holding of frivolous meetings. I am grateful to Senator Durcan for having done the research in relation to what is involved. Senator Durcan said he saw no reason for either of our amendments either the amendment from Senators Honan, Kiely and myself or the Minister's amendment because he felt the situation was adequately covered by section 20(3) of the Harbours Act, 1946, which states:
In addition to annual meetings, a harbour authority shall hold such and so many meetings as may be necessary for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties.
That is a lovely measure of control and discretion. It is very hard to improve that. The value of this debate is that we will have a much better Bill emerging from this House at the end of the day. We are all confident that we will have a better authority, an authority that we are all aiming at, that we can have confidence in.
In that case why should we impose restrictions on an authority, in which we should have confidence, as to how often and under what circumstances they should meet to discharge their duties. Section 20(3) of the Harbours Act, 1946, is adequate in relation to the holding of meetings and states:
In addition to annual meetings, a harbour authority shall hold such and so many meetings as may be necessary for the exercise and performance of their duties.
There is a provision also in section 20(5) of the Harbours Act, 1946, whereby any three members of the harbour Authority may requisition a special meeting to discuss a special matter. The point raised now by Senator Durcan is whether either of our amendments is worth the amount of time we are giving them, whether they should be scrapped and we should revert to an Act that has 40 years of experience behind it. It seems very logical and very sensible to have a section dealing with the number and frequency of meetings. The Authority can have discretion depending on the circumstances as to when and how often they should meet. There is much merit in what Senator Durcan has said.
At this stage I am in disagreement with Senator Howard because section 6 of the Harbours Bill, 1986, is an improvement on the section in the 1946 Act. It regularises the whole question of holding meetings. Under that section there might not be very many meetings but there would be order and regularity regarding the holding of meetings. There might be only two or three meetings in the year, or, at the other extreme, 24 or 25 meetings. Section 6 of the Harbours Act, 1986, is an improvement on the section quoted by Senator Durcan. Definitely it would regularise and bring order into the holding of meettings by the Shannon Ports Authority.
I should like to clarify one point. Section 6 does not bring any order into the matter at all. Section 6 is a most restrictive section. Let us be clear what we are talking about. Section 6 deals with meetings. The conduct of the meetings of harbour authorities will now be governed by section 20 of the Harbours Act, 1946, and by section 6 of the Harbours Bill, 1986. Section 20 of the Harbours Act, 1946, deals first with the holding of annual general meetings; and secondly, it deals with the holding of ordinary meetings. We are now to replace the provisions dealing with ordinary meetings with section 6 of this Bill. Section 6 of this Bill is restrictive because it simply provides that the harbour authority, and I quote: "shall not hold more than one meeting every month". It does not impose any obligation on a harbour authority to hold any meeting in any month. My understanding of what Senator Kiely has said is that there will now be monthly meetings of harbour authorities. Section 6 does not convey that and it does not mean that. It is a very restrictive section. I would ask the Minister — and I realise I am going beyond the scope of the amendments when I say this — to examine section 6 between now and Report Stage and to consider deleting section 6. Section 6 adds nothing whatever to the power of harbour authorities to call meetings. It does not impose any duty on harbour authorities to call meetings.
As I said at the outset, I am a little worried about the words "notwithstanding the provisions of section 20 of the Act of 1946". What do those words mean? Do they have the effect of removing section 20 (3) and (4) from the Harbours Act, 1946? If they do, let us be honest about it and let the Minister put down a section repealing those provisions. If those words do not repeal section 20 (3) and (4) of the Harbours Act, 1946, are we to take it that those subsections still have operation? If section 6 of the Bill is passed, amended in either form, it will have the effect of repealing section 20 (3) and (4) of the Harbours Act, 1946. It will impose greater restriction on harbour authorities in relation to the calling of meetints.
Senator Howard made a valid point when he said that the words contained in section 20 (3) were nice words. I wish to put them on the record again. They are as follows:
In addition to annual meetings, the harbour authority shall hold such and so many meetings as may be necessary for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties.
What words could be nicer or more sensible? They are words that have stood the test of time. Senator Howard also reads into the record the provisions of section 20 (5) of the Harbours Act, 1946, which allows any three members requisition the holding of a meeting. Section 20 (4) of the Harbours Act, 1946, allows a chairman call a meeting. Therefore, the situation is that a meeting can be held by agreement within a harbour authority at a regular interval under the 1946 Act more or less frequently than once a month. A meeting may also be held on the direction of the chairman or a meeting may be held if three members requisition the holding of one. This is all provided for in the Harbours Act, 1946.
The draftsman who drafted section 6 of the Harbours Bill, 1986, did not take out the Harbours Act of 1946 and read it. Section 6 and the amendments thereto should be looked at carefully. I oppose the amendments because the section is not worthy of amendment. When the House is dealing with the amendment I will express similar views.
Why was it decided to include section 6 in the Bill when section 20 of the Harbours Act, 1946, organising the holding of meetings was adequate? I must ask this question having listened to Senators Howard and Durcan. I listened with great care to Senator Durcan. His intervention has changed the situation regarding the section and I thank him for his advice. I have tremendous respect for the people who draft Bills, regardless of my odd comment now and then.
Under the 1946 Act we did not have the two tier system we have now. This is an entirely new concept as far as harbours are concerned. Section 6 is included in recognition of this new two tier structure of the Shannon Ports Authority. The objective is to achieve a balance between the board of management in carrying on their everyday duties and the role of the Authority in overseeing the activities of the board. Boards of management will meet on a regular basis with no elements of constraints but the Authority will operate in a different area. The amendments will substitute for the two-month period a one-month period. I emphasise the point that this will allow the Authority to meet more frequently in exceptional circumstances. This is more restrictive in spirit than section 20 of the Harbours Act, 1946, and more restrictive than the phraseology used by Senator Howard, that a meeting can be held at any particular time. There is an element of restriction to a certain extent. This is because of the two tier system which will exist — the Authority and the board of management.
Because of this new element, which did not exist at the time of the 1946 Act, it was felt that a change should be introduced. As the House will be aware, the change was for a two-month system when the Bill was first brought in. Following the comments from Senators at that time and on the basis of the amendments put down, the Minister considered it right to produce this amendment allowing the authority to hold meetings every month and more frequently in exceptional circumstances. This is a good addition. The provisions of section 6 apply only to the Shannon Ports Authority. All the provisions of section 20 of the Harbours Act, 1946, will apply to this Authority except in relation to the frequency of meetings.
Having heard the Minister I am happy to accept the Government amendment. Once there is no restriction on an emergency or important meeting that would have to be held other than the monthly meeting which the Minister is now granting to the Authority. I do not accept the two-tier system. I accept his explanation that the section has to be included in the Bill because of the two-tier system.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government Amendment No. 19:
In page 5, line 26, to delete "every two months", and to substitute "every month".
I should like to record my disagreement with this amendment for the reasons I have already specified.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister indicate what would "exceptional circumstances" be and who would determine what are "exceptional circumstances"?
That is a simple question for a lawyer but not for ordinary mortals.
As I had no lunch and I was watching Barry McGuigan's fight last night, the answer will be simple whatever about the question.
I accept that the word "exceptional" is not as precise as it might be. It is intended to give sufficient latitude to the Authority to meet more often in the event of unforeseen crisis. It will be a matter for the Authority in the final analysis.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 25 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 6, line 11, to delete "fund", and to substitute "scheme".
The existing superannuation schemes operated by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners are unfunded. It has been concluded that the use of the word "fund" in section 9 as drafted would exclude the Limerick schemes which is clearly not the intention. The Foynes harbour trustees operate a funded superannuation scheme. As they will not be part of the proposed Shannon Ports Authority from the outset and as the other schemes to be taken over by the Authority are unfunded there will be no moneys or securities to be transferred from the establishment day of the authority. Accordingly, section 9 (3) is unnecessary. For the same reason, there is no need for a mandatory requirement to appoint trustees for the purpose of any superannuation scheme, hence an amendment to change "shall" to "may" in subsection (4).
In section 10 the requirement that the Authority should within two years after the establishment date prepare a superannuation scheme in respect of its staff was inserted because Foynes had not been included from the outset. If Foynes had been included there would have been a need to prepare new schemes to cater for the mixture of funded and unfunded schemes taken over. This requirement is not so pressing and I consider that the new Authority should not be required to draw up a new scheme at its own convenience. Existing superannuation schemes will continue in operation in the meantime. When Foynes harbour trustees come within the ambit of the proposed Authority — I expressed the hope in the initial stages that they will — section 13 of the Bill will be adequate to cater for the transfer of their funded scheme to the Authority. All these amendments deal with a defect that was in the Bill and I trust they will not prove contentious.
Is section 9 the one that allows for the transfer of staff?
No.
Acting Chairman
We have passed that section.
I mentioned dues which are collected from boats that come in to Aughinish and other piers. Are they included under section 9?
No. This deals with superannuation schemes that exist. It is a question of remedying a defect that existed in the Bill. The word "funded" was used. The schemes already operated by Limerick Harbour Commissioners are unfunded. The difficulty arose originally because it was thought that Foynes, which has a funded scheme, would be incorporated into this. The other schemes are unfunded so, therefore, it is not necessary to make any provision for the transfer of funds which do not exist.
The Minister of State said "funds which do not exist". Where is the money from Moneypoint, from the Shannon oil ferry and from Alcan at present? We are talking about funding and authorities without funds. Where is that money? I understand the money from the Kildysart harbour is going directly to Clare County Council but where is the money from Moneypoint, the Shannon oil ferry and Alcan? I do not want to embarrass the Minister in any way. I have been asked where the money is many times in the past week and I could not answer that question.
I am not suggesting that Limerick Harbour Commissioners or others are without funds. I said there is no superannuation fund. In other words, pensions and various other things are paid for out of the revenue that comes in to them. Limerick Harbour Commissioners get their revenue from people who use the port. There is a very big turnover in all these cases.
What we are dealing with here are superannuation funds which, if they existed would need to be transferred but in this case they do not exist. We are also suggesting that the Authority should set about organising its superannuation in the appropriate fashion. This obviously will be done. The time limit was imposed originally because Foyne's have a superannuation fund and it was thought they would be involved. The others would not have a superannuation fund and it was thought better to have them aligned quickly. It is now up to the Authority to draw up a new scheme at its own convenience. It does not mean that anyone will be left without superannuation to which they are entitled. When I am talking about "unfunded" I mean not having a superannuation fund.
I know what the Minister is talking about. The provision will read then as follows: "existing superannuation scheme" means a staff or pension scheme in as far as it applies at the moment and not a pension fund. If there is a scheme in existence how the scheme is actually paid out or funded is irrelevant. If we discuss the word "fund", presumably it means there would have been a fund lodged there. That would mean that section 9 (3) would be deleted. We are not talking about any securities or moneys held because they are not there. Lines 23 to 25 would be deleted.
What has happened in recent times in insolvency cases is that funds which were thought to exist for the protection of employees were discovered not to be subject to the provisons of the Act which gave statutory protection to employees for various holiday schemes, superannuation schemes, pay in lieu of notice and so on. We discovered that companies absconded with pension funds belonging to their employees. I hope that the Minister of State and the Minister for the Public Service will look at this problem.
This is a technical amendment and moves away from the word "fund" and confirms the word "scheme." The scheme could actually be funded or not funded. If it is paid out of current funding that is all right but there is no fund on deposit because the Authority does not have such a fund.
There is a fund. I think I know what Senator Honan is seeking information on.
You do know what Senator Honan is on about.
I asked a question on Second Stage. At that time the Minister was not in a position to reply. I do not know whether this is the appropriate section on which to raise the matter. Superannuation could have a claim on this fund. The fund I am referring to is made up of the landing fees in relation to coal shipped into Moneypoint. Limerick Harbour Commissioners originally laid claim to that fund. I understand that there was also a claim made by another authority on the same fund. I understand that these dues are now lodged in a fund and that it is only the interest on that fund — it is a joint fund apparently between the ESB and Limerick Harbour Commissioners — which is available to the harbour commissioners.
That is one story that I heard. It is important to get this correct. What use is to be made of existing funds? If the harbour dues on the coal and on the materials used in construction at Moneypoint are now lodged in a fund which the ESB have in joint names with somebody else then that should be a sizeable fund from which superannuation could be drawn. If there is such a fund who controls it and how much is in it?
That is exactly what I was asking the Minister. I know that there is a bank account jointly owned by the ESB and another body. As Senator Howard said, a harbour board is at present drawing money from the interest on that. I asked the question because I and other people know that the money from the landings in Moneypoint, the oil jetty in Shannon and Alcan must be somewhere. I also know that the money from the small Kildysart pier goes directly to Clare County Council. All we want to know is where is the money? Is the interest on that accumulated money being drawn at present by a body? In fairness, we are entitled to know the answer to this question. I have been asked about it quite a number of times in the past fortnight and I do not know where it is. Whatever about minding my own money I would be more deeply concerned about public funding than I would about my own few quid. I could not answer that question and say where the money was. I was told then of the joint account. If the Minister does not know about it he should be made aware of it. I understand it is fact.
In section 8 there was provision made for the transfer of staff. Are the landing fees which are collected through Moneypoint, Aughinish and other places being transferred to the Authority?
There is absolutely no suggestion that the bodies are without funds. We are dealing here with the superannuation scheme. The reason it is necessary to amend section 9 of the Bill was very clearly put by Senator Ferris. It is to provide for a wider definition of the existing superannuation schemes. It takes account of the fact that the existing schemes operated by Limerick Harbour Commissioners are unfunded. Therefore, to define the existing superannuation scheme as a pension fund would have the effect, which of course was not intended, of excluding the Limerick scheme. The purpose of the amendment is merely to rectify that defect in the Bill.
The general funds of Limerick Harbour Commissioners form part of the assets of the commissioners as such and will be transferred under section 3 of this Bill to the proposed Shannon Ports Authority. Regarding the specific question asked by Senators Howard and Honan, I am endeavouring to get that information. I do not have it in my brief at this stage. If it comes before this session ends I will find an opportunity, within the rules of the House, to produce it for the information of Senators. If not I am sure I will be able to get it for Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 6, line 17, to delete "fund", and to substitute "scheme".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 6, to delete lines 23 to 25.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 6, line 26, to delete "shall", and substitute "may".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 6, line 28, to delete "shall", and to substitute "may".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 6, line 42, to delete "within two years", and to substitute "as soon as may be".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 11, after "the Minister" to insert ", having received the consent of the Foynes Harbour Trustees,".
The purpose of this Bill was to provide for the establishment of a harbour authority to take over, manage and operate the harbours at Limerick and Kilrush, as well as certain other small harbours and public piers within the Shannon Estuary, with provision for the future amalgamation with the authority of Foynes Harbour Trustees. Under section 13, the Minister may, by order, make provision for the dissolution of the Foynes Harbour Trustees on such a date as may be specified in the order.
Foynes, as I stated on Second Stage, has been very successful and has progressed immensely in the past number of years. The annual tonnage increased at the port, imports increased, the number of ships using the ports increased and employment increased. The present number employed on a permanent basis is in excess of 320 people. Comparing that with other ports, Foynes had a good case for not being included under this Bill. What is worrying the Foynes Harbour Trustees is that a Minister may, by order, at any time with the stroke of a pen, dissolve the harbour trustees and amalgamate them with the Shannon Ports Authority. They are more successful than other ports. That is not a reflection on other ports. There is a danger that if a Minister made such a decision, it would reduce employment at or the viability of Foynes port. They are functioning very successfully at present and they should be allowed to carry on. If a decision is made regarding the dissolution of the Foynes Harbour Trustees it should be made with their prior consent. That would be fair.
I support Senator Kiely. If there is an Authority which is not happy with the results of this legislation when it goes through, can the Minister see trouble with just one county opting out? Foynes Harbour Trustees think they are safe but I do not think they are safe. Section 13 (3) reads:
The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section (including this subsection).
Other people are aware that that section is in this Bill. Foynes have opted to stay out and do not want to come in. After this legislation goes through could another authority opt out?
Regarding the last question asked by Senator Honan I recall a famous reply given by the former Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave, in 1973 when the arrangements were announced, just after the election was called, for fighting the election as a Coalition. He was asked what would happen if any one of the partners wished subsequently to back out. He simply reminded the assembled press of a famous reply given by Boss Croker on the lines of, the definition of an honest man — once you are bought you stay bought. That ended that question and Mr. Cosgrave quoted it on many subsequent occasions as a good manner in which to handle a press conference.
The answer to Senator Honan's question is no. They would not have the option of opting out because this legislation is forming the Shannon Ports Authority. Otherwise if they were not satisfied that their area was getting the attention it should or that other areas were doing better, they would opt out but they will not have that option.
Regarding the amendment in the name of Senator Kiely, it was not the Minister's intention to exercise the powers under section 30 other than with the agreement of the Foynes Harbour Trustees. I cannot accept the amendment proposed, however, as it would give the trustees a perpetual veto on the matter. Nevertheless, in recognition of the concern voiced by Senators Kiely, Honan and others, I have decided that the Oireachtas should have a voice in the exercising of the power under this section. To that end I am proposing a separate amendment, that is amendment No. 27, which I trust will be acceptable to all. I understand that amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are not being taken together so I will have to wait until that amendment is moved.
I appreciate the reply that the Minister has no intention of using this section to dissolve an authority without their prior knowledge or consent. The Foynes Harbour Trustees would be happier if this could be included in the section by amendment. I appreciate the Minister is introducing his own amendment and the fact that it has to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, but the Foynes Harbour Trustees should be consulted and that should be provided in the Bill.
My amendment has gone a long way down the line when this power cannot be exercised without the consent of the Oireachtas. By way of clarification, the structure of Shannon Ports Authority could be changed by use of the proposed power in section 50 to dissolve, reconstitute or amalgamate harbour authorities in the future. That is the next section coming up and of course we hope to modify that also. We hope to modify it by way of amendment about coming before the Oireachtas.
On the substantive amendment in the name of Senator Rory Kiely I regret that I would not be in a position to go any further in that direction.
I accept the Minister's amendment but at the same time I can bring in my own amendment on Report Stage.
I sincerely hope that it will be possible to persuade Foynes to participate in the new estuary authority. I say this for some of the reasons that I advanced during the Second Stage debate. Foynes have proved themselves to be a progressive, enterprising organisation. The type of enterprise they have shown will be needed in the new Authority for its success. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible to persuade and encourage Foynes to participate, recognising the fact that their experience and the capacity that they have already shown for innovation and development is something that will be of immense benefit to the entire harbour. I said that in relation to Foynes and SFADCo. I hope that there will be a role for both of them in the new Authority. If there is, it will certainly be worthwhile.
As one familiar with Foynes I appreciate Senator Howard's remarks about how successful Foynes is. It is the wish of many that Foynes might become a member of this Authority. I would like to see Foynes coming in voluntarily whenever they have to come in. I would not like to see anything being forced on them. I am sure that is also the Minister's view. That is the concern of people in Foynes at present — they are progressing so well they fear that becoming part of the estuarial authority might interfere with their progress.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Where the Minister proposes to make an order under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
As I have already said, it was not my intention to exercise the powers under section 13 other than with the agreement of Foynes Harbour Trustees. Nevertheless, in recognition of the concern voiced by some Senators I decided to have an amendment to this section drafted as outlined. This amendment provides that before Foynes could be dissolved by order under section 30 it would be necessary for a draft order on the matter to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas which would be subject to a resolution approving of the draft by each House before it is made. This will allay any fears of unreasonable coercion of Foynes Harbour Trustees into amalgamation with the new Authority.
I accept the Minister's amendment. As I have already said, I withdraw my own amendment but I might introduce it, if possible, on Report Stage.
The section as drafted is draconian. There must be a reason for it. If the reason is that by having the power of abolition of the Foynes Harbour Trustees we could coax them into the estuarial authority it is a severe weapon to use. The Minister has, in a way, met some of our concerns. The Houses of the Oireachtas would have an opportunity to discuss and approve or reject a motion from the Minister that he intends to do this and he will have to give very good grounds for doing it. Foynes are functioning at the moment as a successful authority. Therefore they should not be interfered with. They should be left to their own devices which so far have been successful. We would hope that they would join the estuarial authority if they felt they would benefit. I hope that section 13, which is so strong, will not be held over them as a big stick. At least we would have another look at the matter if it comes back here. A Minister would have to have a very good case to put to the House before he would get approval that they should be abolished.
Foynes will want to wait to see how successful this new ports authority will be. If successful, it would be appropriate for Foynes to become amalgamated with the new Authority and this would probably benefit the Authority but if they did not want to become amalgamated and were forced to do so it would be to the detriment of Foynes which is working so successfully. The volume of employment that is there must be maintained and improved if possible.
I support Senator Kiely. I want to thank the Minister because I see in this a softening of section 13. I agree with Senator Ferris that it is extremely harsh that they could be nearly dragged in against their wishes later on. There are two things in the discussion of Foynes that should be noted here this evening. One is that Foynes will have no trouble in coming into the new Authority if they see the Authority working properly. Secondly, it contradicts the early statements made on the floor of this House today that one party dominates and dictates and cannot be a success in an authority they take over. Foynes is an example. Foynes is not dominated or dictated to by any one unit. Foynes is a success story. Also, Foynes has no block about not coming into the Authority. As Senator Kiely who is very familiar with the Foynes situation, says they will wait. I welcome the Minister's amendment to give the two Houses an opportunity for discussion before Foynes would have to come into the Authority.
The one point that requires answering is the one made by Senator Ferris: there is absolutely no coercion either in subtle form or in any other form. What we are doing here in this section is making provision for the hoped-for arrival at some stage of Foynes without it being necessary to pass new legislation. What we are seeking to provide for in the amendment we have now introduced is to make sure that no pressure can be put on Foynes. If there is any movement in that respect nothing could possibly happen without it coming before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 7, line 25, to delete "sixty" and to substitute "ninety".
I am proposing to substitute 90 miles for 60 miles. The 60 miles is a substitution for 30 miles which appeared in the Harbours Act, 1946, under which a member of the Authority could not reside more than 30 miles from the office of the Authority. The Bill proposes the 30 miles be extended to 60 miles. I am still confident that the power of argument and success will eventually locate the head office of the harbour Authority in Shannon. If we were to apply a limit of 60 miles we could be excluding representation from north Kerry which I would find distasteful. At the end of the day if the wrong people emerge in charge of the Authority and they decide to locate the head office somewhere else, for example, in Limerick city, and we take it that the north bank extends for a total of 92 miles, then if we remain at 60 miles, we are excluding representation for a substantial part of the western side of county Clare.
The distance is 92 miles to Loop Head. I am staying at 90 miles recognising that if there is anybody residing in the vicinity of the lighthouse who might qualify for membership I might in some way be excluding him, but being familiar with the family ties around the western seaboard I have no doubt that if such an eventuality arose the person in question could find a domicile with his in-laws two miles nearer the centre of activity. In the expectation that the head office will be in Shannon if we persist with a limit of 60 we would be denying representation to the people in north Kerry. In the unlikely event that the head office would be in Limerick city we would be excluding people from west Clare.
I support Senator Howard on this amendment. We had worries earlier about certain people being elected and now we are making sure that they can travel and that the mileage is right. If one knows Clare and Kerry, 60 miles is too short. I support Senator Howard in the extension to 90 miles. There will be no argument about the two miles one way or the other. I would be concerned about the farthest point in Clare and the furthest point in Kerry. At the end of the day the Minister in his absolute wisdom will no doubt base the head office in Shannon and not in Limerick city even though he has a reservation tag on a certain building in Limerick city. That can be easily removed; he might lose the deposit but, other than that, I am sure somebody will fix it up for him. This extension would facilitate members of the Authority and the inner board of which I do not approve — travelling to meetings.
I also support Senator Howard's amendment. Members from my county would probably qualify under the 60 mile limit whether the headquarters are in Shannon or Limerick but knowing the calibre of public representatives in north Kerry and especially in west Clare I think it would be most unfair if this 60 mile limit would debar them from membership. The extension will give a fair chance to everyone to qualify for election to the Authority.
I have listened to this debate with some interest. The drafters of this Bill have not had any regard to the Harbours Act, 1946. I hope the Minister has a copy of the 1946 Act with him and that he has read section 19 of that Act. There is certainly a point of view such as that expressed by Senator Howard and Senators on the Opposition benches. If one reads section 19 of the 1946 Act one becomes more concerned. In relation to the proposed amendment what the law presently provides is as follows and I am quoting from section 19 (1) of the 1946 Act. It states:
A person shall be disqualified for being appointed, elected or nominated of being a member of a harbour authority if...except in the case of being appointed or being a local authority member, the place where he ordinarily resides is more that thirty miles from the principal office of the harbour authority,
Therefore it would seem that there is one rule for those who are appointed and the same rule applies to those who are local authority members but a different rule applies to those who become members of the harbour Authority otherwise. It appears that there is discrimination both in the Bill as drafted and within the amendment as suggested against those who are not appointees or local authority members. Perhaps my reading of the 1946 Act is incorrect but if it is correct and the Minister's nodding would seem to suggest that it is, I would then suggest that the amendment be withdrawn and that the entire subsection be redrafted between now and Report Stage. Clearly, this type of discrimination should not be brought into our legislation.
I would hate to see members of the new Authority sitting at their first meeting and finding different rules apply as to the eligibility of different types of members. What is sauce for the port authority gander should be sauce for the port authority goose. We are trying to improve legislation; we are attempting to produce the best Bill possible. I would suggest that this matter be looked at between now and Report Stage. Section 19 (1) (a) deals with the position of persons who are not Irish citizens — they may not be appointed to harbour authorities. I would like if the Minister would indicate our position in the light of our membership of the European Economic Community
I am very pleased to set the minds of Senators Howard and Honan at rest on this issue, as far as County Clare is concerned. This is not another effort to have any discrimination against the north bank that might be perceived or otherwise. We are talking about radial miles. If the situation arises that the headquarters are in Limerick City as has been suggested——
No, we did not suggest that.
No, but the possibility of it has been suggested. The information I have got here is way in advance of anything available to the Minister, — I mean about the new chief executive being named——
Do not push it Minister.
The fact is that 60 radial miles from Limerick would get one well outside any part of County Clare. If by any good fortune on behalf of the Clare people the headquarters were situated in Ennis town for instance I think 60 radial miles would bring one up to the extent that I might have a nominee myself for the boards there.
We must have something done about that.
Section 19 (1) (c) of the Harbours Act, 1946, provides that a person can be disqualified as outlined by Senator Durcan, from being appointed, elected or nominated, or being a member of the harbour Authority for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that, except in the case of being appointed or being a local authority member, the place where he ordinarily resides is more than 30 miles from the principal office of the harbour authority. Consequently, it was decided that the figure of 30 miles should be extended to 60 miles in the case of the new Authority because of the greater distances from the principal office of the new Authority where some members may reside. In the situation we are dealing with it is radial distance we are concerned with and it is more than adequate to cater for those with legitimate interests in the estuary.
I cannot accept the Senator's amendment. As regards other points raised earlier we had the question raised by Senator Durcan in regards to the two types of treatment of residence limits that exist here. Senator Durcan has been talking on many of the amendments about what he would regard as a superior drafting or the excellent drafting of the Harbours Act of 1946 where local authority members are not subject to the 30 mile limit. If there is discrimination it is being consistent. The same distinction is being maintained in the Harbours Bill here. It is important to say also that a legitimate reason for the exception for the local authority members is that while a local authority member might conceivably live further away, exempting his electoral area might come well within the appropriate interest area. It is right that a case can be made, apart from the other reasons the Senator advocated very strongly, for the local authority members, the people who get their authority from their peers, as stated earlier by Senator Howard. They are a special type of people. I do not think that Senator Durcan, as he explained to us as a member of Westport Urban District Council and of Mayo County Council would dispute that. A general review of the harbours legislation would be a more appropriate occasion to consider such a change as that suggested by the Senator.
I should have alleviated the fears of Senator Howard, who is the proposer of the amendment, and of Senator Honan also who raised the question lest any area of County Clare should suffer a disadvantage in that respect.
Or Kerry.
I do not know whether they are 60 radial miles away.
It all depends on where the office is going to be.
The people Senator Deenihan would regard as having a legitimate interest in becoming members of the posts Authority would be covered well by the 60 radial miles.
You know them already.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister said he hoped he had alleviated my fears in relation to this, and to a great extent, he has. They would be totally relieved if somewhere in the legislation I saw the word "radial" included. It is not in the 1946 Act. I want to ensure that if we nominate somebody or if somebody is appointed to the board somewhere along the extreme end of the northern bank there will not be some official attempting to disqualify him unless he proceeds by currach up river.
As a matter of interest, where do we get the word "radial" from?
I have questioned that and I will consider now if it is necessary to put it in. I understand it is commonly accepted terminology.
Would the Minister accept an amendment at Report Stage that the word "radial" be inserted?
If it is necessary that "radial" should be there for clarification for legal purposes it will be accepted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 27, after "Minister", to insert ", having received the consent of the harbour authority concerned,".
The powers envisaged in section 15 for any Minister for Communications present or future to make unspecified charges on boards of harbour authorities could undermine the resolve of the existing boards in carrying out their duties. The uncertainty of tenure under this section would also have an unsettling effect on any future board. It is strongly held that far-reaching decisions concerning re-organisation of harbours should only be taken following circulation of a Parliamentary Bill with full Seanad and Dáil debate. Many Senators in this House are concerned about this section. At one point, I went as far as thinking of asking for it to be deleted.
Amendment No. 30 is for the purpose of inserting certain words in subsection (1) of section 15. Subsection (1) of section 15 as presently drafted reads:
The Minister may by order dissolve, reconstitute or amalgamate as he may consider it necessary or desirable so to do any one or more of the harbour authorities specified in the first column of the First Schedule (as amended by this Act) to the Act of 1946.
The purpose of the amendment is first to insert words in the section which will impose on the Minister the obligation of holding a local inquiry pursuant to section 164 of the Harbours Act, 1946, before he dissolves, reconstitutes or amalgamates any of the harbour authorities specified in the First Schedule to the Act of 1946. The purpose of the amendment secondly is to impose on the Minister the obligation or duty to have regard to the report of the said inquiry. Section 15 (1) is a most draconian section. It gives to the Minister the power by a movement of his pen to wipe away any one of our harbour authorities. It can be used improperly with ease by an improper Minister. While I have no fear that the present Minister would avail of the provisions of this section I worry that at a future time there may be a Minister who might not have the sense of enlightenment or the sense of public obligation that the present Minister has.
The amendment should include the obligation to hold an inquiry under section 164 (1) of the Harbours Act, 1946. It provides that:
The Minister may at any time direct that a local inquiry be held into any of the following matters:
(a) the performance by a harbour authority of their powers, functions and duties;
(b) the finances of a harbour authority;
(c) the condition of the harbour of a harbour authority;
(d) the rates charged by a harbour authority;
(e) the accommodation and facilities provided by a harbour authority;
(f) any complaint as to the operation of any by-law of a harbour authority;
(g) any complaint as to the conduct of an officer or servant of a harbour authority;
(h) any matter in respect of which the Minister is authorised by any other section of this Act to direct a local inquiry; and
(i) any other matter whatsoever relating to a harbour authority in respect of which the Minister is of opinion that a local inquiry should be held.
That section is one which gives the Minister balanced powers, powers of a democratic nature. It is a section which entitles the Minister to investigate the functioning of a very important public authority, namely, a harbour authority. If the Minister is to exercise the powers which he is giving to himself, under section 15 of this Bill, then those powers should not be exercised without just reason being given. I do not accept that it is sufficient for the Minister to come in here and propose an amendment on the lines of amendment No. 31, which reads:
...(4) where the Minister proposes to make an Order under this section, a draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
In a short period of time in this House, I have noticed an increasing tendency on the part of Ministers to provide that statutory provision in legislation coming before this House. I note the tendency on the part of Ministers to give to themselves power to amend legislation by order and to lay the order before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is similar to the situation existing in the North, whereby the Assembly, which passed away yesterday, had power to debate orders made in council. Such debates were usually to no effect. That is the kind of power the Minister, through this section, is trying to give to this House, a power which will be ineffectual.
If this House and the Dáil are to have real power, then we should have power to introduce proper legislation and if we believe that the legislation is wrong or incorrect, unworkable or unsatisfactory in any way, we should then be able to introduce amending legislation. To come in here, as the Minister has done, with this amendment is an insult to the type of parliamentary democracy that I believe in and I know many people on both sides of this House believe.
It is all the more hollow when there is a mechanism in section 1 (64) of the Harbours Act, which allows the Minister to hold a public inquiry, which allows the Minister to investigate every aspect of the functioning or the malfunctioning of the harbour authority. The purpose of my amendment is to say to the Minister, if you were to exercise these new powers, then these new powers must be exercised within strict parameters. They must not be exercised in a way that gives the Minister unlimited freedom, despite the laying of an order before the Houses of the Oireachtas, but otherwise giving the Minister unlimited freedom to do as he likes with a harbour authority.
I also want to make the point in passing — and I have referred frequently here to the Westport Harbour Commissioners — and I know the Minister has responded to my reference in that regard as though I am not being quite serious. I am using the Westport Harbour Commissioners as an illustration the many points I have had to make. It is an interesting fact, as I said on Second Stage, that in the year 1853 the Imperial Parliament had time to introduce and to enact an Act for improving and maintaining the ports and harbours of Westport in County Mayo. Many similar Acts were introduced at that time by the Imperial Parliament dealing with harbours in these two islands and also dealing with railways. Much of the globe was red and the empire that we have varying views on in this House had many worries but they still had time to debate and to enact in legislative form, detailed provisions for a very small harbour on the west coast of Ireland.
That Act is illustrative of the time and ability to put into clear legislation a structure for the proper functioning of a small harbour. Whether it is out of a sense of our growing importance as a world power or out of a sense of our increasing worry about the exercise of democracy by mere Deputies and Senators or in the belief that Ministers should increasingly operate by order, it seems that we should now decide to give the Minister the power to wipe away at the stroke of a pen a statute enacted in 1853, a detailed statute and to substitute that instead with a ministerial order. I deplore that type of legislation. I deplore the giving to any Minister of unfettered power. I do not accept as an answer that the amendment proposed by the Minister is a reasonable response to that. It is for that reason I have proposed the amendment I have put before this House.
Just to conclude and recap on it, it is an amendment which accepts, on the one hand, that there may be reason why the Minister may need these powers, but, on the other hand, it is an amendment which puts a stop or stay or imposes parameters within which the Minister can exercise those powers. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment, or at least give an indication that he will consider it between now and Report Stage.
I share a very deep concern about the powers given to the Minister under section 15. As has been said, it is an extraordinarily strong power to give to a Minister and one which is, in my view, not in keeping with the democratic traditions which we must uphold in terms of the rights of the Seanad to scrutinise legislation which can have serious and large scale effects prior to the making of changes of any kind under this section.
There are two important points. One is the whole business of the excessive nature of power given to the Minister under section 15. The second is that the section, as I understand it, is primarily in this Bill which, as we know deals with the Shannon Estuary Authority, to give the Minister power to reconstitute Dublin Port and Docks Board. That is very much an objective which he has in mind and has said so publicly on many occasions, including on Second Stage in this House.
I believe that it is right that the Dublin Port and Docks Board should be reconstituted. Its composition at present is unwieldly and it includes a number of people about whom the question of conflict of interest would arise in terms of their manning the port authority, on the one hand, and being customers of the port on the other. It is, therefore, right that the Dublin Port and Docks Board should be reconstituted.
This is a major issue. Dublin Port deals with 40 per cent of the tonnage traffic into and out of this country. Any change in the composition of that board is a major matter of concern, not just to the people of Dublin, but to all of us nationally. I am very much concerned about the idea, as put down in section 15, that a change in the composition of the board can be made by ministerial order.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 attempt to get at the same point. One thing that concerns me is that if amendment No. 29 were passed, no change could take place in the composition of Dublin Port and Docks Board, for instance, except with the consent of the present board. There could be difficulty in getting that consent even though, objectively, it might be appropriate that Dublin Port and Docks Board be reconstituted.
On the question of amendment No. 30, I should like to ask Senator Durcan in the course of the discussion to clarify this matter for me. Does an inquiry, as set down in the 1946 Act, cover matters such as the re-analysing of what the appropriate form of Dublin Port and Docks Board might be in the future without implying any reasons which might normally lead to an inquiry into the affairs of a public body of this kind. Nobody is obviously suggesting difficulties of an improper nature within the port. We are talking about a policy matter. What is the appropriate composition of the port authority for Dublin?
If it is appropriate that such an inquiry would review from an analytical point of view, that is to say, an economic-democratic requirement point of view, the composition of a board for Dublin in the future which would be appropriate, than I would have no difficulty at all with Senator Durcan's amendment as being one which would go some distance to meet the concern I have.
I must say, in principle, the matter of reconstituting a board of an entity as significant and as large as Dublin Port should be dealt with by way of formal legislation. Even with the proviso of the inquiry, as suggested by Senator Durcan in amendment No. 30, even if added to that is amendment No. 31, as proposed by the Minister, I still think this is not adequate. Amendment No. 31 goes some distance in so far as a resolution to adopt the draft order would have to be passed by the Oireachtas prior to the order being made. It is not an annulling resolution but rather a more positive one. After that, there is the difficulty that we would not have the opportunity of suggesting changes. It would be straighforward for or against at that point.
In the case of the principal reconstitution, which the Minister has in mind, the Dublin Board, this should be done by way for formal legislation just as it is being done today in the case of the Shannon Estuary Authority. If it is the case that the holding of an inquiry would meet the economic and democratic analysis requirements which I have suggested, it is probable from section 164 (1) (i) of the 1946 Act that it would. If amendment No. 31 is added, then we will go some distance down the road towards attempting to bring under control the power the Minister seeks to give himself in this section. Even if both are added, it still is in some way short of what is required in terms of the reconstitution of a major port authority of the kind that is involved in Dublin. It would have been better if the Minister decided to bring in separate and specific legislation for the purpose of reconstituting the Dublin Port.
My concern for this arises from the fact that the Minister on Second Stage seemed to imply that he had in mind a two-tier authority structure for the port of Dublin similar to that provided in the Bill for the Shannon Estuary Port. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I am not at all sure that that is the right way to go about reconstituting Dublin Port. Therefore, I should like to see in section 15 if we can either agree together to look at the matter properly on Report Stage or at the very minimum have both of these amendments, Nos. 30 and 31, included.
The Minister would be wise to postpone his holidays until at least August as a result of this proposal. In my time in the House, I have seen many weird proposals from Ministers but this undoubtedly is the most weird that I have ever seen. I do not understand it. He has not properly explained to the House, no doubt he will when he gets an opportunity, as to the urgent necessity for this.
It is impossible to speak about the amendment without speaking about what is underlining that amendment. It is a good amendment but it does not go far enough. Of course, the idea of holding an inquiry as a preliminary to abolition of an authority or its amalgamation is a good idea. It is an option which the Minister should, obviously, retain to himself.
It is very often necessary, in order to explain to people fully with regard to the necessity for a course of action, that something like a public inquiry would be held in order that the factors which persuaded the Minister of the day to take action could be shared in so far as possible with the community. In those circumstances very often the community arrive at the same decision as the Minister.
What Senator Durcan proposes is to leave section 15 unamended with regard to the power being given to the Minister and merely to superimpose upon that section an additional requirement that a local inquiry should be held. I should like to explain to Senator Durcan why I consider that to be inadequate.
The Senator quite rightly referred to the shock he felt at the proposed abolition of the Westport Harbour Commissioners. I do not know how long the Cork Harbour Commissioners are in existence. It is something in the region of 250 years. I was a member of that body. To think that the Minister would consider in section 15 in its unamended form or, indeed, in its amended form, taking unto himself the power to abolish that authority and change in a very fundamental way its operation, is in my opinion, quite unacceptable.
The Minister may say that, of course, he has no intention of doing that. There are a number of answers. First, any Minister will not be a permanent fixture in that position. That is something we must always be conscious of in considering proposals and amendments which come before us. Second, I am quite sure that the Minister's Department, in pursuit of the Minister's policy, would use the power in section 15 as a threat for compliance by harbour commissioners throughout the country a threat that if they did not do so and so, the Minister would consider abolishing them or amalgamating them with some body or changing representation until he got a satisfactory answer.
I have no doubt that this would be the case. For example, one of the things that is suggested and which the Minister referred to on Second Stage, in speaking about the reconstitution of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, is that some form of levy should be put on the rest of the country to finance that.
I could imagine the pressure that would be put on local authorities if the Minister decided to proceed along those lines. The idea of giving such power to the Minister subject to the provision that a local inquiry would be held is far too serious a matter to be thrown in as an afterthought into a Bill, the primary purpose of which is to consider the re-organisation of the harbour operation in the Shannon area.
It is well known that the Minister would like to have included Foynes in this but he did not have agreement. It is only right and proper that he should come into this House and give proper explanations with regard to his views in relation to the Shannon area. I consider the other areas in the country no more important than that. When the time comes where it is necessary for any reason, whether it is Dublin Port and Docks Board or the Cork Harbour Commissioners or, indeed, the Westport Harbour Commissioners to make any changes, whether it be on the representation or on the scope and power of those authorities, it should be done by way of an Act of the Oireachtas.
I have very little faith in local inquiries. I have no faith in this proposal of the Minister which we will be discussing in that there should be an affirmative resolution of the House. Affirmative resolutions of the House in my experience are matters that are not taken seriously. They do not give an opportunity for the same kind of debate as one gets on the Committee stage of a Bill. It is rather like Second Stage in which the effectiveness of the Opposition from both sides of this House and the other House is restricted greatly by reason of the fact that one can only speak once. The Minister must recognise what he is proposing in section 15 and even in the amendment, and this is why I cannot support the amendment. I do not mind the amendment going in as part of a package but I could not support the amendment alone because section 15, as amended by this, would retain to the Minister a range of powers in relation to harbour authorities which I consider to be absolutely unacceptable.
The number and range of activities being covered by Ministerial orders now is quite frightening. The importance of the decisions is gradually increasing. There was a time when Ministerial orders related almost exclusively to things like the price of bread and butter and the control of prices under specific legislation. Now there are very fundamental decisions being taken by way of Ministerial order. I am dedicated in so far as I have any influence in that regard to restricting the growth of this power because it is the power of the executive. In fact it is the power of the civil servants; it effectively is not the power of the Executive. The Executive must recognise that there is a proper place in the Irish Constitution for the Houses of the Oireachtas and some far better system of monitoring this kind of powers must be introduced before I would agree to extend any further the range and, certainly, the scale of the powers at present enjoyed by the Minister in this regard.
It is true to say — and this is where I think the local inquiry helps a little bit and why as part of a package, I would not mind seeing it there — that part of the process of people governing themselves in a democracy is the healthy tension that should exist between the Executive and the Legislature and between both of those and the Judiciary. The use of Ministerial orders is an attempt to blunt that tension. As far as I am concerned, that is not acceptable. What the Minister has to realise is that it is not just good enough — and this is where Ministers sometimes make a mistake — for the Minister to make the right decision. In a democracy the Minister must persuade a significant portion of the people affected that the right decision is being taken. I know that this Minister and, indeed, the Minister who went before him and the Minister who will come after him will only do what he considers to be in the best interests of the country. It is part of the process of allowing people to develop a relationship and a maturity that you do not take unilateral decisions even ones which are correct; you persuade people of the correctness of you position and that is what the Minister is failing to do in this regard.
There is no possibility that the amalgamation or dissolution or reconstruction of a harbour authority would be accepted in any part of the country. What there is a possibility of is that the power contained in the Bill would be used by the Minister's Department and the successors of the Department, whatever its title, would be used to put pressure on harbour authorities to conform with Ministerial dictates.
The Minister is daft if he wants to run everything in the country. The country will not run that way. It is absolutely vital for the Minister to recognise that it is important that in matters like this the views of local people are taken into consideration and that they would be persuaded of the correctness of the action which he proposes to take.
Foynes is a good example of that. I might have one perspective on Foynes, a person from Clare might have another perspective, a person from Limerick might have another perspective, I know people from Kerry with another perspective. There should be sensible dialogue between the parties. The Minister has already indicated in the discussion on section 13 that he proposes that the matter would be done by agreement. That is the way the matter has to progress in reality. I know that the dissolution of harbour commissioners would not happen but what would happen is that the pressure we applied to harbour authorities would be disruptive of their efficient operation and I do not think it is in the best interests that this amendment on its own should be passed.
I will have more to say when we come to the section. While the amendment is certainly helpful if the Minister were to indicate that he was accepting this amendment — I will put it like this — then section 15, as amended, would be practically as unacceptable to me as section 15 unamended. For that reason I will listen with interest to what proposal the Minister has to change the legislation between this and Report Stage to meet what I think is a cross-party view. It is not an ideological view; it is just a view of legislators.
I put down this amendment when I read section 15 of the Bill. Nearly every second piece of legislation coming into this House has a section a bit like this in it, and it frightens me, to take powers from us and the people and give unto any Minister this kind of power. We have come to it already where the Bill is doing away with the Clarecastle Harbour Authority. It is happening already. As Senator Durcan said, this provision is appearing in more and more Bills and it is frightening. It was one of the first amendments I saw that I would have to put down because the Bill gives extraordinary powers. I accept that the Minister is trying to help with his amendment but we are doing away with the power that we should have. If we allow it, as Senator O'Leary said — and there is no party versus another — it is frightening. This is taking from us, as legislators, the power that should be left to us. To give it to any one individual Minister whether present or future, is wrong. Such a provision has been appearing to an increasing extent, in legislation in recent times. To abolish a harbour authority with the stroke of a pen is against everything democratic that we stand for. If we in the Seanad allow this type of legislation to go through there will be other people who will judge us as not doing the job that we were elected to do. It is extraordinary power. I accept that you could have a Minister who would not use it but you will have a Minister who will come and use it to the detriment of even small harbour authorities. There is a taste of it already in section 19. It was one of the first amendments I put down. It makes me shiver when I see this kind of power given to an individual. It does not matter what the trappings of Ministry are or how good Ministers are. Some people can take power and not use it but we have had Ministers who would not be a month in Cabinet until they were seen to be using that kind of power. I will oppose any legislation, while I am here, that gives that kind of power to any individual and his back-up team. It is wrong in a democracy that was hard fought for by the people of this nation.
Although I am in disagreement with the section nevertheless I see the reason for the section and I see the reasoning behind it. In the past harbour authorities have been more inclined to tell the Minister what to do than react to what he has said. They have been very slow to change. We have too many sleeping harbour authorities around the country. I am sure it was with this in mind that this section has been included. It could serve to keep harbour boards alert and on their toes, to recognise that if they were not producing they could be dissolved. No Minister would bring about sweeping change to that extent. Nevertheless it would be a threat that would ensure that harbour authorities would endeavour to function 100 per cent. It is a rather extreme measure and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the speakers who have opposed this vehemently. I believe that if any change were to take place it should only take place following the circulation of a parliamentary Bill having been given full consideration by both Houses. The reason for having the section included should not be totally overlooked. There should be some better monitoring system to ensure that harbour boards in the future will have to produce and they should know that there is somebody watching them. Senator O'Leary has claimed it will put pressure on harbour boards to come up with the results or else. Nevertheless there is a point to this. In the interests of democracy and in order to protect the institutions we have and in order to protect us against a Machiavellian type Minister, the powers for any change should be vested in both the Seanad and the Dáil.
I will defer to your guidance. I do not want to speak on the amendments but it appears to me that we have to discuss the section under the guise of a discussion on the amendments.
We are discussing the amendment.
In so far as the amendments do attempt to restrict the rather sweeping powers it is hard to separate the two things. I must say, having listened to the Minister's explanation on this on Second Stage, I found it a little bit disappointing because the implication was that this unnecessary place called the Oireachtas was a bit of an encumbrance to efficiency and we could get around it by having the Minister make orders about things which would improve our efficiency enormously. That particular piece of logic, if it was carried to a conclusion, would lead us into very strange territory. We need a better reason than that it will be more convenient to do it by ministerial order. There has to be evidence that the present situation does not work and evidence of a future need that justifies a dramatic shift. The Minister's amendment is welcome. I would at least appreciate something more detailed than: "Well, it is a good idea, lads. It will make life easier for us. We will be able to do all these wonderful things very quickly if we carry on as it is." We need more than that. I am a great believer in the role of the State in enterprise. That is not the same thing as assuming that all wisdom rests in the centre. That is not the same thing as a creative State role. Centralising all activities and centralising all powers is not the same as State enterprise. It is often mistaken for State enterprise. I would wish that on these amendments and on his own amendment and on the section the Minister would elaborate a good deal on the necessity for it in the light of past experience.
The only thing I want to add to what I had to say earlier in the discussion of this section is that I have had an opportunity to have a look at section 164 of the Harbours Act, 1946, which is the section of that Act which provides for the instituting of local inquiries. While I am quite happy to see the suggestion of Senator Durcan put into this section, I am not at all happy that it deals with the substantive matter that I raised. That is to say I do not think a local inquiry into the reconstitution of Dublin Port and Docks Board or the implementation of Dublin port and Dún Laoghaire port is the right way to go about things. What would happen in either of those cases is a matter of substantial national policy whereas I think a local inquiry concept is more to do with looking at either matters of malpractice or matters of maladministration or things of that kind.
While I would be happy enough to go along with the idea suggested in amendment No. 30, I do not think in the end it deals with the substantial question at issue here, and that is, parliament's right to scrutinise effectively proposals from the Executive on matters of major significance. I have no doubt that it is precisely the objective of reconstituting Dublin Port and Docks Board that prompted the Minister to include section 15 as it is very much to the forefront of his thinking at the moment. I am not saying he is wrong to think that this needs to be done as I have stated earlier, but to do it in this way presents a major problem. At the end of the day, even if the House accepted Senator Durcan's amendment and amendment No. 31 suggested by the Minister, the powers of the Oireachtas to scrutinise draft orders proposed by the Minister would be extraordinarily limited in the context of the procedure by way of resolution through the Oireachtas.
I am reverting more and more to adherence to the amendment that I put down in the first instance, that the section be opposed. If the Minister were to say during the course of his reply on the amendments before us, or in the course of his proposing amendment No. 31 which will be before us shortly, that he is prepared to have a substantive look at the matter again then the matter could be left to Report Stage. As it now stands it presents a serious problem. I am not sure that the provision of a local inquiry procedure, while good, will tackle the matter entirely.
I agree that the amendment I put forward does not altogether solve the problems which the section creates. The amendment is an attempt to resolve the problems in a democratic way, in a way that will give an input by the public, the harbour authorities and the local authorities. As the section stands, there is no need for an input by any of these bodies; the Minister can act arbitrarily without reference to anybody.
Senator O'Mahony has expressed reservations as to whether section 164, subsection (1) is a suitable vehicle. I would refer him again to the subsection of the section which he referred to, that is, section 164 (1) (i), which states:
The Minister may at any time direct that a local inquiry be held into ... any other matter whatsoever relating to a harbour authority in respect of which the Minister is of opinion that a local inquiry should be held.
This is broad enough to encompass the Dublin port situation that Senator O'Mahony mentioned. I agree with him in relation to the need which exists for restructuring of the existing authorities governing the Dublin port area that a local authority might not be the suitable solution. I would be unhappy if any restructuring were to take place there, other than legislatory.
What we are talking about is democracy: the power of this House and of the other House. That is the motivation behind the amendment I put down and also the amendment put down by Senators Honan and Kiely. I would be unhappy if that form of democratic right were taken away from us. I do not accept that the amendment proposed by the Minister, namely, amendment No. 31, gets away from that problem. As Senator O'Leary has stated, the debating of orders in the House is an unsatisfactory mechanism for dealing with problems of this nature. Members have the opportunity of speaking once and making in effect a Second Stage speech; Members do not have the opportunity of teasing out any problems which may arise in relation to the draft order. If the same parliamentary draftsmen are advising a Minister who presents legislation by way of order, as is presented by way of Bill, then the need for questioning will arise and I will be extremely unhappy.
As regards amendment No. 29 it is necessary to stress that it provides enabling powers only. I could not agree with both amendments which would effectively give a veto to the harbour authorities concerned and would make all progress extremely difficult, as was accepted by Senator O'Mahony in his contribution regarding upcoming changes.
I am aware of the general concern regarding the section. I accept that the powers given are extensive as they need to be for the purpose of reorganisation and reform. Accordingly, I am proposing a separate amendment in relation to orders made under the section which I trust will go a long way towards meeting the concerns. The amendment arises out of the contribution on Second Stage and is a considerable advancement.
Regarding amendment No. 30 I do not believe that the holding of a local inquiry into the question of restructuring a particular harbour authority is the appropriate mechanism. Harbours and so on are very much a national asset and the overall national good has to be taken into account in taking any decision in relation to them, not just the local interest. The powers contained in section 164 of the Harbours Act, 1946, are not wide enough to ensure that all of the national issues involved are addressed. The nation's harbours are a national asset as such and the whole complex of harbours has to be taken into consideration when being handled by Government.
I am satisfied that the amendments which I have proposed, that a draft order be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, even with the limitation of one contribution for a Member of the Dáil or a Member of the Seanad when it comes before the appropriate House, and that such order will not come into effect until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each House is a more appropriate mechanism than the holding of a local inquiry to ensure that all the relevant issues are addressed.
Senator O'Leary suggested that the powers contained in the section were a threat to compel harbour authorities to act in a certain way. The Minister's relations with the harbour authorities are laid down by statute. I cannot accept that the existence of powers in a section such as this could be used as envisaged by the Senator.
Senator O'Leary also suggested that the provision was inserted as an afterthought. I would refer him to the Green Paper on Transport published in November 1985 where it is clearly stated that amending legislation would be introduced to facilitate the reorganisation as it was considered desirable and necessary of the harbours and ports in the country.
It is important that this area has been tackled as many harbours that now exist have little commercial business as such. I am sure the authorities involved could conceive better ways of using harbours. Many of them have been turned into valuable amenity centres such as sporting and yachting centres, with a different kind of structure that might be required for those.
The proposal in my amendment to have the resolutions approving draft orders gives considerable and adequate scope for the Minister to persuade the Oireachtas that he is taking the correct course.
Senator Ryan wondered why these powers are required at all. The Green Paper on transport policy was published in November 1985. It refers to the size and membership of harbour authorities and it indicates the intention of the Minister to introduce amendments to harbour legislation to provide for the reconstitution of existing authorities and their replacement by smaller boards. There is a vast array of harbours with different degrees of prosperity or lack of prosperity, some of them where the whole activity has disappeared altogether.
The Green Paper also mentions the possibility of grouping harbours. The Department are constantly receiving requests for grant aiding the work on harbours in one way or another, perhaps receiving a similar request from another harbour virtually down the road. Certainly, the development of two harbours side by side can very often be a waste of badly needed resources and counterproductive to the good order of the harbours throughout the country. In addition, the Government have already decided, in the context of devolution to local authorities, that harbours which now cater for little or no commercial traffic should be handed over to the local authority. It seems appropriate that the Harbours Bill should contain the necessary enabling provisions in relation to these matters.
Opposition has been expressed by most if not all Senators regarding the power available to the Minister under section 15 of the Bill. The powers enshrined in this section are enabling powers which will permit the re-organisation of the harbour authorities scheduled to the Harbours Act, 1946, in line with Government policy as outlined in the Green Paper. It goes without saying that there is absolutely no intention on the Minister's part to use these powers in specific cases without appropriate consultation. As was very clearly pointed out by Senator O'Leary, it would be nonsensical to proceed on other lines.
I have naturally gauged the opinions expressed across the House on all sides and I will be reporting those matters to the Minister. I have no doubt that he will take a good look at them before the Report Stage. In addition to my report to him he will also have available to him the record of the House, which will convey the emphasis given by all of the Senators in different ways to the particular section. I will be bringing that to his attention.
I want to thank the Minister for his closing remarks when he said that he will be reporting to the Minister the comments of various Senators and indeed the nature of the amendment put forward in the name of Senator Honan and Senator Kiely on the one part and myself on the other part and, I presume, his own ministerial amendment. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment as an act of good faith in the Minister's proper communication of my concerns in this matter to the Minister. I trust he will do likewise in relation to section 31 as we are to have a separate Report Stage. I am sure Senator Honan might withdraw her amendment and leave the Bill as it stands pending Report Stage.
I would not count on it.
Senator Ryan's remark was very appropriate. He said he would not count on my withdrawing my amendment. I have voiced my strongest opposition to this type of power. I do not ask for guarantees because there is no such thing as guarantees from a Government to members of the Opposition, nor have we the right to ask for them. But, I would ask the Minister of State to speak to the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, on this issue. I see this as being undemocratic and wrong giving too much power to one individual. It worries me deeply and it was one of the first amendments I put down. I ask the Minister before Report Stage to think deeply on this. The reason I spoke again at length on this issue is that Deputy Nealon could be the first Minister to stop this kind of insertion in legislation. Nearly every second Bill coming in here is giving unto a Minister this type of power. It is undemocratic. Whether or not it is unconstitutional is another day's work. Some people can take power and not abuse it. The Minister's amendment does not lift my worry. In the early stage I had decided to ask for the deletion of this section because of my deep worries. If it helps now and if I can have not a promise but perhaps a comment from the Minister, I will leave it to Report Stage but I must come back to it again. We will have to stop Ministers coming in and giving unto other Ministers this type of power in future legislators.
The Minister is to be congratulated for his positive approach to the House. He always has a positive approach to the House. He is one of the few Ministers who has. I hope he will never need the House in any way — I am confident that he will not — other than to help him to pass this and other legislation.
It would be wise if the Minister would look at the matter between this and Report Stage. Having said that, in case anyone should misinterpret what I said, the Minister's amendment — which I do not propose to discuss now — is helpful. I congratulate him on it. It makes a bad situation slightly less bad. That situation must be recognised and due regard and due credit must be given to the Minister for that. If the Minister would have a look at the situation regarding section 15, bearing in mind what Senator Honan and Senator Durcan have said, I will be very happy to aid and assist in so far as the House's aid and assistance is necessary in the withdrawal of these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 27, after "may" to insert "after the holding of a local inquiry pursuant to section 164 of the Act of 1946, and having regard to the report of the said inquiry,".
Acting Chairman
Is amendment No. 30 withdrawn?
There is one essential difference between amendment No. 30 and amendment No. 31. Amendment No. 30 has the purpose of giving power to the relevant harbour authority which will be affected by the ministeial order. Amendment No 31 on the other hand leaves the power entirely with the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, in view of the Minister's commitment to look at the matter between now and Report Stage and on the basis that the Minister is concerned that harbour authorities should be consulted in some way before they may be arbitrarily abolished I will withdraw, with reluctance, amendment No. 30.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government Amendment No. 31:
In page 8, to delete lines 21 to 27, and to substitute the following:
"(4) Where the Minister proposes to make an order under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
Even at the proposal stage of this amendment I am conscious of the reservations already expressed on it in advance by Senators. In the case of section 13 in order to take account of the concern voiced by Senators in relation to the use of these powers I have drafted this amendment which provides that before an order is made under section 50 it will be necessary for a draft order to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving of the draft will have to be passed by each House in advance of that order being made.
I am satisfied that this amendment will allay some of the fears of the Senators with regard to this section. It is a major advance. It brings any particular order before the Dáil and Seanad by way of resolution and discussion. I hope it will entirely allay the fears of Senators. Having heard the debate I am quite conscious of the fact that the amendment does not achieve that objective entirely. Obviously, the major contribution of the Senators so far is conveying their reaction to this issue. I hope the amendment will be accepted. While some Senators were semi-critical of it, everyone has regarded it as a considerable advance.
I join with Senator O'Leary in thanking the Minister for the positive attitude he is adopting towards the suggestions coming from Members. This is the way legislation should be dealt with particularly in Seanad Éireann where we have more time and less pressure on us and therefore have an obligation to try to see to it as far as we can that legislation that passes through from here is good legislation.
I would like to welcome this amendment from the Minister. It goes some distance down the road towards meeting the points raised concerning the excessive powers in the original section 15 which were given to the Minister. I also welcome his commitment to us that he and the Minister for Communications will have a look at the entire section again between now and Report Stage to see if they can meet the substantive concerns which we have. I will indicate the scale of the problem in the hope that it will be of some assistance to the Minister.
The practical problem facing us is that section 15 is in the Bill primarily to provide the opportunity to reconstitute Dublin Port and Docks Board. There may well be other considerations behind section 15. In the Green Paper on Transport Policy which was published last year there is a statement in paragraph 6 (28) as follows:
The Government has decided that legislation should be prepared for the reconstitution of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The management structure for the new Dublin Port Authority, as well as for Cork, Waterford and the new Shannon Ports Authority will be a two tier structure, modelled on the lines of the division of responsibilities in local authorities between executive and reserved functions.
That section from the Green Paper on Transport Policy states that there would be legislation introduced to reconstitute Dublin Port and Docks Board. It appears that any reconstitution that might be necessary in other boards including the Shannon Port Authority would be dealt with after the Dublin reconstitution was enacted in legislation. What has happened is something different. What has happened is that the Minister has decided to constitute the Shannon Estuary Authority and to try to deal with Dublin in the process.
The practical problem that would arise is that, if at some point in the near future the Minister introduces a draft order to reconstitute Dublin Port and Docks Board or possibly both to reconstitute the board and to amalgamate it with Dún Laoghaire which is another idea being publicly discussed recently, all of us would agree that that would be a major decision or a major set of decisions given the national significance of this port, I hope I am not being parochial. I have grave reservations about the two-tier system. It may be possible for the Minister to convince me otherwise. I did not feel any great sense of authority in criticising it unduly in the case of the Shannon proposal, but the form of reconstruction is of great significance. We would have been faced with a problem of being able to do nothing in the end except to speak and then to vote either for or against a particular formula. Either way that would not have been satisfactory.
I can see that a power of positive affirmation for changes by way of draft order and resolution in the Houses of the Oireachtas might be a suitable and adequate way to deal with some forms of reconstitution or amalgamations of harbour authorities where we are talking about relatively small ones. When we are talking of a manor authority, such as the Dublin Port and Docks Board, then the ability of the Oireachtas simply to vote for or against the draft order after minimal discussion is unsatisfactory. I recognise that in the end of the day we could simply vote it down, but that does not carry us very far.
Without offering any particular solution to the Minister other than that section 15 be deleted, which is what I have proposed in my amendment under this section, it might be helpful to the Minister to bear in mind the kind of considerations that I have given him in relation to the primary purpose of section 15 which is the reconstitution of Dublin Port and Docks Board.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I took the opportunity of the earlier discussion to express my views on section 15. The fact that I am not going to make a long speech does not mean that I have changed my views on it. In view of the undertaking he gave us to look at the matter I am quite happy to leave it until Report Stage to see what results we get.
I have withdrawn amendment No. 29 on section 15 in my name and that of Senator Kiely, but I ask the Minister to remember that I am neither convinced nor happy with this section we are about to pass. I will be back again on Report Stage on this matter for the reasons I have given twice already.
I too will withdraw my opposition to this section on the understanding that the Minister will consider the matter again.
I am intrigued by the transfer of assets of a dissolved harbour authority which is proposed in section 15 (2) (b) which states:
In the case of the dissolution of a harbour authority..., the transfer of assets and liabilities of such dissolved harbour authority to such local authority or other body as the Minister, with the approval of the Government, may specify;
What other body? It is not the sort of normal enabling section to build in regulations of a very limited nature? It refers to the transfer of assets. Some of the harbour authorities as in Cork and Dublin have enormous assets. What sort of other body has the Minister in mind? There is a possible hint of transfer to the private sector involved here; I do not know whether this is intended. Who are these other bodies to whom assets could be transferred? It seems extraordinary that something as substantial as a transfer of substantial assets which presumably will have been financed in some cases by the taxpayer can be transferred without any reference in detail to either House of the Oireachtas.
The answer in general terms is that it would be a question of handing over to local authorities. It is a fact that some harbours, which were commercial harbours at the time of getting a harbour authority or harbour board or commissioners, catered for fishing rather than amenity traffic. It seems appropriate that these should be handed over to the Department of Forestry and Fisheries rather than to the local authorities. These are aspects that will be pursued. For a harbour which has become an amenity harbour the more appropriate authority might be the local authority. In the case of a harbour which has become a fishery area and because its commericial activity declined and which caused it to have commissioners in the past, the appropriate people to deal with it in the future would be the Department of Fisheries. They deal with a number of harbours at the moment, as Senators are aware.
I welcome the Minister's statement in relation to section 15 (2) (b). It is wise that the Oireachtas should give power to the Minister in the case of the dissolution of a harbour authority to allow their property to be handed over to such other body. There are many small harbours in this country which are no longer used for commercial purposes but within which substantial leisure or fishing activities are carried on. Therefore, it is important that this type of provision should exist.
I want at the same time to express my opposition to the broad thrust of section 15 which I indicated when speaking on the various amendments. The stability of the section is spelt out when one realises that we spent a long time today dealing with section 4 of the Bill which prescribes the membership of the new authority and yet, the statutory provision we discussed this morning, and again this afternoon is now a provision which can be amended by ministerial order. The Minister should be introducing a very simple one section Act to give himself power to do anything in relation to harbours by way of order and allow that order to be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The other point I would like to make and to which the Minister might respond is that in the light of the amended section 15 it would appear that section 13 is superfluous because the powers which the Bill confers on the Minister by virtue of section 13 which deals with the dissolution of the Foynes Harbour Trustees would appear to me to be powers which he now has by virtue of section 15. If I have misconstrued the sections I would be obliged if the Minister would guide me on that point.
Section 13, as amended, states that:
Where the Minister proposes to make an order under this section, a draft of the order should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
I do not know if sections 13 and 15 are exclusive.
Section 13 gives the Minister power to provide for the dissolution of the Foynes Harbour Trustees. Section 15 gives the Minister the greater power to provide for the dissolution, reconstitution or amalgamation of a harbour authority. In the light of section 15 is section 13 not superfluous? If section 13 is superfluous could it be removed from this Bill on Report Stage to make the Bill a little less bulky?
That is a point I will consider as well as all the legal implications of it to see if the Bill can be improved in that way but there may be connotations there.
Senator Durcan has raised this point. In fairness to Senator Kiely he accepted the Minister's amendment to section 13 in absolute and total good faith. He was quite happy leaving the House that section 13 as amended by the Minister was safe for Foynes Harbour Trustees. If the amendment to section 15 changes that we will have a day's discussion on Report Stage. Both Senator Kiely and I were happy with section 13 but now we find that our attitude may be different. It can be discussed on Report Stage.
I am saying that section 13 would appear to be superfluous. The powers that it confers are there now by virtue of section 15.
There will be absolutely no question of a diminution of the provisions of section 13. If we have two sections representing the same thing, in the interest of good tidy legislation it would be wise to examine it. We can see some of the difficulties that may arise straightaway. It will depend on what is decided in relation to section 15, but section 13 is not yet redundant.
I was afraid to say this because I thought I was missing something but I am glad Senator Durcan said it first. I do not understand why the House spent most of this afternoon talking about the membership of the Foynes authority when it now appears that section 15 tells us that the section on which many of my colleagues spent most of the day is superfluous because it would be superseded by the Minister's powers under section 15. The logic of it all has been lost on me. Until Senator Durcan got up and said so I thought it was I who was at fault. I now have a strong suspicion that it is the legislation that is at fault.
Section 15 gives the Minister vast powers in relation to the membership of any authority, including Foynes Harbour Trustees and the new Shannon Ports Authority. We spent a long time debating the constitution of the new Shannon Ports Authority and yet the Minister may, by order, change the membership of that Authority. That is the basic and fundamental objection I have to section 15. It is a subtle section inserted in this Act and makes most of the Bill redundant: that is why I said somewhat facetiously, that perhaps the appropriate Bill — in view of the general thrust of this legislation — should have been a one section Bill providing that a Minister may, by Order, provide for harbours in any way he wishes and that such orders be placed bofore the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 are alternatives and may be discussed together.
Government Amendment No. 32:
In page 8, to delete lines 30 to 52, and to substitute the following:
41A. A harbour authority shall pay to its chief officer (whether that officer is described as Chief Officer or otherwise) such remuneration and allowance as the harbour authority, with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, shall determine.
On Second Stage a number of Senators objected to the provisions of section 16. While I feel some of the objections were a little bit exaggerated, I have nevertheless taken cognisance of the strength of opinion which prevails on this matter. This amendment, therefore, will bring harbour authorities into line with similar provisions in existing legislation in relation to a number of commercial semi-State companies. The amendment is modelled on the British & Irish Steam Packet Company Limited (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1976, and I believe it will be acceptable to Members of the House. It is in response to the contributions made on Second Stage. It is an example of the manner in which the Minister is anxious and willing to take cognisance of points well made. I hope this amendment will be acceptable.
I welcome this amendment which has the effect of radically modifying section 16 (1) and deleting subsection (2). As I said on Second Stage, the provision, particularly that contained in section 16 (2), is bad policy. It is best that matters to do with remuneration in public bodies be left to the normal negotiating machinery which is in place. As the Minister said, it is a provision which has appeared in a number of Bills recently and, happily, has been taken out of all of them. I welcome the fact that it is taken out of this Bill as well.
Does Government Amendment No. 32 to section 16, end with the words "with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, shall determine". Is subsection (2) gone?
It is radically amended.
I compliment the Minister and I was remiss in not doing so before now. From following the debate on the monitor during the day and now in the House it is definitely worth recording that if all legislation were dealt with in the way this Bill has been dealt with in a reasonably constructive manner and people felt they are being listened to, the Houses of the Oireachtas would be what they are supposed to be — the places where policy decisions are taken and where people work out intelligently what has to be done.
I welcome the Government amendment. It takes us back from the position which was tending to surface in legislation recently and I do not think it would be good for either the workforce or Government. It would make it very difficult for management to manage, apart from the imposition it might impose on the workforce.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 8, to delete lines 36 to 52.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 8, to delete lines 38 to 52.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 9, paragraph (a), in the third column of Part I to the Schedule inserted, to delete "The Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland" and substitute:
"(i) Chambers of Commerce in County Clare.
(ii) Chambers of Commerce in Counties Limerick and Kerry.".
I want to avoid repeating points I made on earlier stages of the debate but two of the seats on the Shannon Harbour Authority will be filled if this Bill stands unaltered by the votes of the Association of the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland. I accept the provision of the 60 radial miles.
We learn something every day.
I have learned that despite all my calculations the Minister is confident that the 60 radial miles could include part of his constituency. This brings me to the kernel of my argument — the chamber of commerce representing the business interest of the region. They are the people who are best qualified and most capable of appointing representation to the estuarial Authority. Taking the Minister's 60 radial miles as a guideline of reaching his constituency, we could have the rather absurd situation of, say, the Tubbercurry Chamber of Commerce, not alone voting and deciding who would be the representative on the chamber of commerce and the estuarial Authority, but, in practice, electing one of their own members. I give Tubbercurry as an example because it happens to be a town in the Minister's constituency.
What argument can be advanced that the Buncrana Chamber of Commerce, the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce, the Wexford Chamber of Commerce or the Skibbereen Chamber of Commerce — I am going around the four corners of the island — have a knowledge and interest that is greater than the interests of the chambers of commerce that are located in the region directly affected by the development of the estuarial Authority? The electorate for the chamber of commerce members on the Shannon Estuarial Authority should not be the Association of the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland, but should be the chambers of commerce of the counties in the mid-west region — Counties Clare, Limerick and Kerry. These counties have already been identified as being qualified to elect local authority members to the estuarial Authority. It is the business interests in these counties that are most directly involved in the progress of the estuarial Authority. Consequently, it is the chambers of commerce in these counties that should have a right to elect representatives onto the estuarial Authority.
On the question of ensuring a balance of representation on both sides of the river, one nominee from the chamber of commerce on the estuarial Authority should come from County Clare or the northern bank of the river in recognition of its 92 miles of coastline and the tremendous potential that lies there. The other representative should be elected from the chamber of commerce of the county that constitutes the southern bank which is shorter by 20 miles.
Therefore, the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that, first of all, the business interests in the area constitute the electorate to the chamber of commerce. Secondly, there would be a balanced representation from the business interests in the area by ensuring that one representative is elected by the chamber of commerce in County Clare representing the northern bank and that the other representative is elected by the chamber of commerce on the southern side of the bank, namely in Counties Limerick and Kerry.
I support Senator Howard's amendment. I have first-hand experience of the efficiency of the chambers of commerce in Clare and in the region generally. North Tipperary is also included in it. A frightening new term was used here this evening about miles which I never heard of before. The question that went through my mind was, if those miles were included in the Bill, where would the chamber of commerce representatives come from?
I support Senator Howard. The members of chambers of commerce are mature, solid business people who give time and are dedicated to their counties. They are not fly-by-nights. They will not be in the Authority to look after themselves. I am sure the Minister will give them representation on the Authority.
I have no hang up about private enterprise and State enterprise. I do not see any division at all such as other people see and which some people create at times. These chamber of commerce representatives which Senator Howard and I speak about create employment. Their heart is in the right place. They wish to make the Authority work. The Clare and Limerick Chambers of Commerce work very closely together. It would be untruthful of me to say I know how great the input of the Kerry Chamber of Commerce is to the commercial working of the mid-west region. I support Senator Howard's amendment. He mentioned Limerick and Clare. They will elect their representatives to the Authority in a proper manner.
Sitting suspended at 8.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.45 p.m.
The new Shannon Ports Authority will have charge of the whole estuary. It will not be a narrow body. The National Organisation of the Association of Chambers of Commerce is the body best suited to nominate representatives who are best equipped to serve on the Authority. I expect its nominees will be actively involved in the region. We have to have somebody or organisation to nominate the appropriate representatives and it is up to the association to devise its own system. I have no doubt that its nominees will come from the appropriate area. If we did not have that body, there might be considerable difficulty in arranging matters because there are many chambers of commerce of varying sizes and representing various economic and population strengths.
I can now give the information to the Seanad that the harbour dues arising from Moneypoint and Tarbert go into the Limerick harbour board revenue in the same way as other dues arising within their jurisdiction. The total dues arising from Moneypoint and Tarbert for 1985 was £263,000. For 1986 it is estimated at £270,000. The total in dues from Moneypoint alone since it was opened 18 months ago is £250,000. I am not aware, despite what two Senators said, of the existence of a joint fund. The accounts of Limerick Harbour Commissioners are audited in the ordinary way by the local government auditors.
The Association of Chambers of Commerce is the appropriate body to nominate the two chambers of commerce members. Otherwise extraordinary difficulties could arise. I am extremely concerned to eliminate if possible or to diminish to a great extent, inter-county rivalry or the inter-bank rivalry. It is neither necessary nor desirable to limit the association's choice. It should be left open to the body to appoint the two most worthy people to the Authority. I have absolutely no doubt that the association will have regard to the various legitimate interests in the estuary when choosing its nominees.
I regret that I cannot accept this amendment. I believe that opting for the association of chambers of commerce in the long run will be found to be the wisest course. As a representative body for all of the associations they will take into consideration the various claims, legitimate and spurious, that may be put forward by chambers of commerce in the general area. I have outlined some of the difficulties that could exist but I am sorry in the circumstances that I cannot accept the amendment.
I am dissapointed with the Minister of State's reply. I have a feeling that the association was inserted without the consideration that its inclusion should have received. It was something that was included in previous legislation. Having inserted it, there is a certain duty to defend it. The Minister of State's contribution was a very able defence of what was originally a poor decision.
I will not pursue the issue further at this stage except to make the point that I hope that what has been said both before the Minister of State's reply and subsequently will be taken account of in common with other aspects of the legislation that we have discussed tonight. Some of us, at least, feel that the association has not the competence to select the right people for the area and that a more confined electorate from within the chambers of commerce would do a more effective job in selecting the best people. Having made these points I am prepared to leave it at that until Report Stage but I retain the option to come back to it.
In his reply, the Minister of State said it was the obvious parent body to cover all the chambers of commerce in the region. I accept that there are many chambers of commerce in the mid-western region. I would not accept that the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland would probably eventually decide automatically to put their president on this Authority. That is Senator Howard's worry. I do not mean the present president but that it would be the president——
Of the day.
That the president holding the presidency of the day and another would be the two persons representing the chambers of commerce on the Authority. That would be a dreadful mistake. If what the Minister of State was saying was that he had to get an overall body to decide how these two people would be elected from the chambers of commerce, I am quite sure that the chambers of commerce in the region plus the chambers of commerce in Kerry are well able to do that between themselves and to democratically elect two people who will do their best for the Authority. I have watched the top brass in the chambers of commerce at national level for a long number of years and it would be a major mistake if the current president of the Association of The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland automatically took his place on this new Authority. Such a move would immediately create tension in the region. As Senator Howard knows, there are people serving on existing chambers of commerce in the region who know the Shannon backwards and who would be a tremendous asset in making this work. This is as important an appointment as the earlier ones that were mentioned today. Like Senator Howard, I ask the Minister of State to look at it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 9, line 25, to delete "10th", and to substitute "16th".
This is very much a technical amendment which is necessary to take account of the fact that the Harbours Act, 1976, was signed by the President and came into operation on 16 March 1976 and not on 10 March 1976.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
This section refers to the Castle Pier Act, 1933. There are names on it which are quite familiar to me. Only one of those former trustees is alive and well. There are other names of people some of whom are gone and some of whom are not so well. I am deeply worried about the repealing of the Clare Castle Pier Act, 1933. I am also confused because I understand that a new body was set up on Monday, 8 November, 1982, before Mr. Justice Barron, under proceedings in the High Court in the matter of the Shannon Act, 1885, in the matter of the Clare Castle Pier Act, 1933, in the matter of the trustees of Clare Castle Pier in the matter of section 25 of the Trustees Act and in the matter of an application by James G. McInerney. I understand that is a new body, Trustees of Clare Castle, created through the High Court. On it you have names such as John Power, Brian McMahon, Donal Carey and Sylvester Barrett and it was provided that they be appointed as additional trustees to the Clare Castle Piers in lieu of the persons named in the subschedule of the Clare Castle Pier Act, 1933, all of whom are now deceased.
I do not understand how a Minister can come into this House with legislation and abolish the Clare Castle Trustees because that was a High Court decision of November, 1982. The trustees have appointed a fully qualified harbour master. Development has gone ahead and barges are now coming up to Clare Castle. The new body have bought adjoining land and building at a cost of £80,000 to £100,000. I do not understand how a Minister can repeal that Act and do away with this new body, if that is what this section means. I have other documents but I do not want to drag on the debate because we are here all day on this legislation. But there is deep concern in Clare Castle and among the Trustees of the Clare Castle Pier. They are confused. Several parts of today's legislation involved the abolition of organisations. This is why I fought a while ago about giving any Minister certain powers.
The Minister for Communication also met the trustees. Over 12 months ago I understand the Minister talked to four persons from this new body. They say they have had no word from him since. I would be interested to hear the Minister's reply to that. There is a business person who intends using the Clare Castle pier. Others are involved there. I am making a case for this pier — it is only down the road from where I live — because it will give employment. It would be dangerous for any Minister to do anything which would be detrimental to employment. Senator Howard is well aware of the employer I am speaking about. That person is prepared to spend money. Clare Castle pier has been there for a long time. It may be said that it was not used but Clare Castle has been used, perhaps not to the extent that it should have been, but there is information showing that it has been in use.
As a politician in the area I am deeply concerned about Clare Castle. My husband, Derry, had long associations with this body. Indeed, his late father was one of the early trustees, the former Senator T.V. Honan. For sentimental reasons alone I could not let this Bill go through without intervening in this matter. But I have strong views also that the business people who are now involved will do nothing but good for Clare Castle and for the pier.
The Act of 1933 in the Schedule names the nine trustees. There were two Honans on that body of 1933. I was impressed on being brought up to date with the amount of money involved, the commitment and the business people who are now dealing with this pier. In fact I would be the last person to threaten — I dare not bring in that kind of note into the proceedings this evening after such a long and successful day — but I mention this to the Minister because I know the capacity of the people involved. If the Minister does away with the Clare Castle Trustees I do not think he will be spoken to in the nice tones I am now using. Far tougher language would be used in another place.
I have to put it on record that this body is accredited by the High Court. Perhaps I do not understand but I was talking to a lawyer yesterday who said that this matter is very serious. I was not seeking his advice, I was speaking to him because he is involved. I could not let section 19 pass without putting on record my views about Clare Castle at a time when we are talking about creating jobs and not about doing away with them.
I will endeavour not to repeat a number of the points Senator Honan has raised. I think she has been very fair in her contribution in relation to certain difficulties which may arise regarding the Clare Castle pier.
Perhaps at this hour of the night some of us are not in the best form for going into very great depth on this issue. Nonetheless, because of certain matters of which I am aware and which I feel are in need of clarification I will endeavour to put before the Minister a number of issues which exist in relation to the proposal to repeal the Clare Castle Pier Act, 1933 and the implications which may arise from that.
When we consider section 19 we must also have regard to sections 3 and 12. In section 3 it is proposed to transfer the powers, functions, duties, rights and liabilities of Limerick Harbour Commissioners, the Urban District Council of Kilrush and the Clare Castle Piers Trustees. We select from amongst the list of what is going to be transferred the powers, duties and the rights. Section 12 deals with a continuation of existing orders by-laws, et cetera. We bear in mind that there are powers, duties and by-laws involved. I would like the Minister to tell us what exactly is the effect of section 19. Are we repealing the Act or are we repealing the court decision? Is the court decision dependent on the Act so that when we repeal the Act we repeal the court decision also?
Senator Honan referred to the appointment of a harbour master in Clare Castle and I am informed that he is the most highly-qualified harbour master operating in the Shannon Estuary. As Senator Honan said, barges are now operating on the river. Dredging has taken place there and the final stage of clearing the channel, which involves the removal of a rock formation far down the channel, will probably be taken care of very shortly — I am talking in terms of days or certainly weeks.
Land and buildings have been developed along the harbour but most important is the fact that that harbour has been leased by the trustees to a Clare shipping company for a period of years. Therefore, no doubt they have leased to that shipping company their powers, duties and rights. What is the effect of the existing orders and by-laws as regards section 12 because the Clare Castle Pier Trustees have certain towage rights and certain pilotage rights not alone on the River Fergus where the Clare Castle Pier is situated but also on the River Shannon. These rights are now leased to the shipping company, the shipping company that are refused similar opportunities or rights by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners to operate where pilotage or towage is concerned on the Shannon. By leasing the Clare Castle Harbour and by acquiring the rights and duties this company has acquired right both on the River Fergus and the Shannon Estuary that it was refused by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. If we are transferring the powers, duties, rights, the by-laws et cetera in sections 3 and 12, there is doubt but that the shipping company have now acquired the rights of pilotage and towage on both the Fergus and Shannon Estuary and they will, no doubt, insist on retaining these and operating them.
Finally, the village of Clare Castle comprises as go-ahead a community group as I know of in the county and I am sure outside it in respect of development and various other things. They are a very determined community where the interest of their village is concerned and they are satisfied that with the developments that have taken place in relation to the pier and harbour and particularly with the potential that the new leasing arrangement offers, employment and commercial activity in the harbour area will grow substantially and quickly. Therefore, I want to be sure that nothing in this legislation will restrict the opportunities of the community of Clare Castle, the people or the shipping company who have certain rights there now, to operate to their maximum potential.
I respect the interest and knowledge of Senators Honan and Howard on this because of the locality and their association with it and also, in the case of Senator Honan, because of her long family association with the Clare Castle Pier.
At the outset it is important to say that the ownership of the pier is vested in the Office of Public Works and they agree to having the pier taken over by both Shannon port authorities. I understand that the Minister has had a meeting with the Clare Castle Trustees to discuss this point. The alternative would be to leave Clare Castle Pier out of this new exciting development on the estuary. The Bill has been prepared by the parliamentary draftsman and, as always, was checked very thoroughly by the Attorney General, the Government's adviser on these matters, and the provisions of the Bill in relation to the Clare Castle Pier are in order from a legal point of view. The views expressed by the Senators seem to imply that the Clare Castle Pier should not form part of the proposed Shannon Ports Authority but I cannot accept such proposal. If what Senator Howard has said in so far as the various commitments of the Clare Castle Pier Trustees is correct then obviously this falls to be taken over by the Shannon Ports Authority under section 3.
As requested by Senator Honan, I will explain the background to the Clare Castle Pier. The Clare Castle Pier Act, 1933, appointed nine persons to be trustees of the Clare Castle Pier and validated acts done previously by persons who purported to be trustees. This legislation was enacted and it transpired that in 1932 some of the persons appointed from time to time to fill the vacancies had not been appointed in accordance with the statutory procedure, that was, an order of 16 December 1886 made by the Office of Public Works under the Shannon Act of 1885. This required the appointments to be made at special meetings at which not less than five trustees would be present. That was the necessity for the retrospective validation incorporated in the Clare Castle Pier Act, 1933. In answer to Senator Howard, yes, the Clare Castle Pier Act, 1933 is being repealed through this section. A similar situation arose in 1965 when five of the trustees appointed by the Clare Castle Trustees had died in the meantime and had not been replaced. The vacancies could not validly be filled in accordance with the statutory requirements by the remaining four trustees. Then there was the 1982 court order which appointed nine persons to act as trustees on Clare Castle Pier. The trustees at the present time are Deputy Donal Carey, Deputy Sylvester Barrett, Joe Moloney, Miss Margaret Power, John Power, James McInerney and Brian McMahon. Although they are responsible for Clare Castle Pier, ownership is actually vested in the Office of Public Works.
This overall development that has taken place will, I believe without having the intimate knowledge that the Senators have, far from in any way curtailing developments in that area, turn out to be of benefit. The ownership of the Clare Castle Pier is vested in the Office of Public Works and they agree to having this pier taken over by the proposed Shannon Ports Authority. Bringing all this under one umbrella and having the Authority organised in the manner we have discussed, should make possible further development of all the facilities that exist at Clare Castle Pier. I foresee that this Bill, when we have finally got it through the Houses of the Oireachtas will introduce a new dynamism into the ports area. We have heard down the years of the enormous possibilities that exist if ports are properly regulated. It may not suit everyone but we are going a good distance along the line to organise the Shannon ports area, which is an essential factor.
Would the Minister of State ask the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, to write to some member of the new body of trustees of Clare Castle Pier because they are of the opinion that this Bill confirms that they will be caught by the scruff of the neck and dragged in whether they want to come or not. Surely the new trustees, because of the court order of 8 November, 1982, have some say in whether they should be involved or not? I talked to two of the trustees yesterday evening. It is 12 months since they were in contact with the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, and they have had no communication from him since. It would be a good exercise if somebody in the Minister's Department contacted some of the trustees. There is one of them in the Minister's party, Deputy Carey. The Minister should talk to them because they are confused about this legislation. I do not think that the talking that will be done by them, whatever about Deputy Carey, will be without impact. They have a plan for Clare Castle; they know where they are going. They have appointed a fully qualified harbour master, the only person in the Shannon Estuary concept including Limerick Harbour Commissioners, with the proper qualifications needed for the Shannon Estuary.
If somebody suggests that this happened because of the impending legislation, that is untrue. As Senator Howard knows, people who were prepared to put their money where their mouths are, have been trying for some time to get this pier in Clare Castle back in action. It was a port that supported many a family in the area in tougher times. There were moves in respect of the pier long before this Harbours Bill was introduced. It is an example of lack of communication; people in the atmosphere of today's Ireland seem to be low in the order of priority. These people have invested money. They have bought a very expensive property at the pier in Clare Castle. They will not make money out of this for a long time. I can see only good results and jobs coming from their efforts.
Clare Castle is an extraordinary place. I will put on the record something I said last night and Deputy Carey can read it with enjoyment. If you are a TD in Clare Castle, as he is, you are sitting on about 2,500 votes that would not budge across the line to anybody else. I say that of a village that has extraordinary loyalty to their serving representative. I mean that because Deputy Barrett was there and is not living there any longer. The atmosphere has been very good here and to bring this home to people when I am talking in a different atmosphere and a different environment, I may mention the event held there last Sunday evening in recognition of the colossal job done on the local church voluntarily. We have an atmosphere and loyalty in Clare Castle that are gone from much of the rest of Ireland. It would be dangerous and bad if the Minister did not follow up my remarks and those of Senator Howard this evening because two of the new trustees told me yesterday evening that they have had no communication with the Minister, Deputy Mitchell for the past 12 months. He is aware of the problem — maybe he is not, but the two trustees — not Deputies — told me that. They would not have said it otherwise. I am stating it now only because the House is quiet; if the Press were here I would not say it. It would be a good exercise if the Minister remembered my remarks and Senator Howard's with regard to Clare Castle Pier.
I will be pleased to take up the suggestion of communicating.
There may have been a misunderstanding. The Minister said that he felt we might be advocating that Clare Castle remain outside. I would be very disappointed if it came to the point that Clare Castle would remain outside because — I have mentioned Foynes and SFADCo as inspiring, enterprising organisations — I would put Clare Castle into the same bracket. I would see participation in the estuary as necessary to give impetus and drive to the development. That was not what I was concerned about.
In relation to the Minister's statement that the pier at Clare Castle is owned by the Office of Public Works, that may be, but we do not in any part of the Bill provide in specific terms for the transfer of the Office of Public Works property in Clare Castle. It is, however, spelled out in section 3 (3) that we are transferring amongst other things the powers, duties and rights of the Clare Castle Pier Trustees. Perhaps I am not clear about the implications of the terminology used. To what extent the words "Clare Castle Pier Trustees", encompass the Office of Public Works, I do not know but I am concerned that we are transferring to the new Authority the powers, the duties and the rights of the Clare Castle Pier Trustees. Within those rights we are transferring, to the best of my knowledge, certain pilotage and certain towage rights of the Fergus Estuary and the Shannon Estuary. I want to ensure that these rights, where they are being enjoyed and by whom they are enjoyed, will not be diluted within the new Authority. That is what I am getting at.
Whatever legally established rights exist, naturally, will be taken account of when the transfer takes place.
Will they continue in existence?
Obviously, they will have to because of the legal duration. Nothing could be enacted in legislation that is superior to those rights, if they have gone into them in a proper legal fashion. This is something that is going to arise with the other areas going in under the Shannon Ports Authority as well. I do not think it is unique to Clare Castle.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
It is suggested that the next stage be taken on Wednesday, 2 July.
Could we have some agreement on this. I do not know if I will be here next week. Indeed, if it was not for the Harbours Bill I would not be here today for personal reasons. This side of the House request that the Bill be ordered for Wednesday, but we may not take it until Thursday, 3 July, if the Minister can manage that.
I do not think that is any problem. The intention is to order it for Wednesday, 2 July so as to allow flexibility. It is not intended necessarily to take it next Wednesday but, obviously, the views of the other side of the House will have to be taken into account in taking the Report Stage of a Bill like this. The Senator's views will be conveyed and I am sure there will be no difficulty.
I should like to thank the Acting Leader of the House.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2 July 1985.