I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, to delete lines 19 and 20.
Harbours (Amendment) Bill, 2000: Committee and Remaining Stages. SECTION 1.
I want to apologise to the House for the inconvenience caused both to you, a Chathaoirligh, and to Members by having to put off the starting time for the debate. I was called to attend an important meeting, during which I was interrupted to attend a vote in the Dáil. I apologise sincerely for the fact that this session was delayed.
Thank you, Minister.
I wish to refer to an issue raised by Senator Manning on Second Stage, as to whether the Bill should be classified as a hybrid Bill and, therefore, dealt with under Standing Orders relevant to Private Business. While this is a matter which falls to be determined in accordance with standard procedures applicable to the implementation of Standing Orders, I would like to clarify the position in terms of the advice available to me. Under Standing Order 128, a hybrid Bill is defined as a public Bill, not being a Bill to confirm a provisional order, affecting private interests in such a way that if it were a private Bill it would, under Standing Orders relevant to private business, require parliamentary notice before its introduction. A private Bill is a Bill which is promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any person or locality, as distinct from measures of public policy.
I am advised that the Bill has not been regarded as hybrid if all the persons or bodies affected by it, and no others, belong to a category or class germane to the subject matter of the Bill. It is not the practice to treat as hybrid Bills dealing with matters of public policy whereby private rights over large areas or of whole classes are affected.
Having consulted with the Attorney General, I am advised that this is not a hybrid Bill. The Bill amends the Harbours Act, 1996, and as in the case of that Act, applies to the management, control, operation and development of a number of harbours, a defined class by reference to criteria germane to the subject matter of the Bill. Clearly, it does not affect private interests, that is, it does not affect private interests by promoting the particular interest or benefit of any person or locality. The Attorney General is satisfied that this is not a hybrid Bill and, accordingly, I would submit that it would be bad practice should it be so treated in the course of its passage through the Oireachtas. The Harbours Act, 1996, and the Harbours (Amendment) Bill, relate to measures of public policy and are dealt with, therefore, as public Bills.
I am conscious that a number of amendments have been tabled. As I do not wish to delay the House any further, I will deal directly with amendment No. 1. Section 1(2) provides that the Minister may, by order, where he is of the opinion that efficient and effective implementation of an order under subsection (1) so requires, provide that the number of directors of the transferee company shall not exceed five. The duration of any such order shall not exceed two years. The provisions in the main Act which relate to employee and local authority directives, section 30, and the chief executive as an ex officio director, section 36, are excluded for the period of the order.
The hallmark of the implementation structures provided for in this Bill is that they are designed to be simple, effective and non-divisive. It is of vital importance that the implementation board will have a short shelf-life and be tightly focused, and for this reason I have decided to keep the numbers low, with balanced representation from each company and an independent chairperson. It also has a clear-cut and focused remit and while one could argue for more or less members, it is my judgment that a board limited to five members will facilitate the orderly and speedy conduct of its business.
Among the tasks of the implementation board overseeing the unification process will be the close liaison with the company boards and their advisory boards. In order to ensure the smoothest possible transition to a new single port company structure the advisory boards, comprising the directors of two or more port companies being amalgamated, including the employee and local authority directors, will have a real and important role to fulfil in assisting the implementation board of the new company to pursue difficult decisions which are vital to its future success and the development of business at the port facilities. This arrangement maintains equal and balanced representation of the interests of each of the amalgamating companies while ensuring that vital focus on the part of the implementation board.
The implementation process should be completed within 12 to 18 months. As far as the proposed amalgamation of the Foynes Port Company and the Shannon Estuary Port Company is concerned, I hope the task can be completed within an even shorter timeframe. The normal board structure will then come back into play. Consequently, I do not intend to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 20, after "name" to insert "headquarters location".
As I stated, the headquarters of the new single port company for the Shannon Estuary will be located at Foynes. That is my view and it has been placed on the record. It has been communicated to both boards and I understand it has been accepted by both.
I made this determination because the headquarters should be located at the nerve centre of the new company's business. This is the location over which the new company will exert the most business influence in terms of facilities. At a meeting with me, the local community council in Foynes raised its serious concerns about the critical drop in the number of pupils attending schools locally. Centralisation of the headquarters in Foynes will help the village and the local community. It is the correct decision in my view.
The amendment addresses concerns raised by Senators and empowers the Minister, in adding to prescribing by order matters such as the company name, to provide also for the identification of the headquarters location which will be at Foynes in the case of the new Shannon and Foynes Port Company to which I have made a commitment. Regarding inserting a specific provision in the Bill that the new headquarters will be at Foynes, I am not convinced that this is necessary or in line with good legislative practice. Consequently, I commend the amendment to the House.
I welcome the amendment. As the Minister noted, he has said on a number of occasions that the operational headquarters will be located in Foynes. He also went on record regarding the name of the new port company. He has now gone a step further in case anybody doubted what he said. I never doubted his position, but it is a positive move that the Minister will be in a position as a result of the amendment to locate by order the operational headquarters in Foynes. He will then be in a position to name the new company the Shannon and Foynes Port Company.
While I accept the Minister's comments, the name should be enshrined in legislation. Ministers come and go and a Minister may not think the same as his or her predecessor. For this reason, the name should be enshrined in the Bill. This would prevent any changes being made subsequently.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, paragraph (c), line 15, to delete “or the harbour master”.
The amendment follows the argument I made in regard to the previous amendment about enshrining the name of the new company in the legislation. While I agree with the Minister, the Bill is not sufficiently specific. The chief executive should be the one person who controls the whole operation. This is why I propose the deletion of "or the harbour master" in line 20 on page 6.
Amendment No. 4 seeks the deletion of "or harbour master, respectively," in line 20 on page 6, while amendment No. 5 seeks to ensure the provision is in the singular and not the plural. If the singular is used in one part, it must be used throughout the section. I ask the House to accept the amendments to ensure the operation is streamlined and that there is one chief executive with total responsibility.
The section provides for staff transferring from one company to the other and for the continuation of the protections afforded under the Harbours Act, 1996, in relation to scales of pay and conditions of service. However, it provides that the statutory office holders of chief executive and harbour master of a transferor company are not required to be appointed as chief executive or harbour master of a new or transferee company.
It is clear that in a new single port company entity, only one chief executive officer and one harbour master can be in charge and responsible. There is no intention to undermine the employment protections given under the Harbours Act, 1996, or that staff members transferring from predecessor harbour authorities shall be brought to less beneficial conditions of service or remuneration than those to which they were subject immediately before vesting day of the new port companies. However, no business can be run effectively with two or three heads in charge. It would undermine the thrust towards unification of two or more companies if any elements were left separate in the technical, management, administrative or other areas.
In any event, under section 37(1)(b) of the Harbours Act, 1996, a harbour master can authorise a member of his staff to perform functions conferred on him or her by the Act. In discharging such a delegated function, the person to whom it is delegated assumes the full authority and powers of the harbour master under the Act. It would be a matter for the new Shannon and Foynes Port Company to decide how best to deploy the significant resource of six persons currently employed as harbour masters, deputies or assistants. Such delegated functions can be put in place in the interests of good governance and this has the benefit that it can be retracted as well as given to meet particular circumstances which vary from port to port. Flexibility is provided under existing harbours legislation.
Enshrining the amendments in the Bill would undermine the whole thrust of unification and help to maintain and encourage a separate empire mindset instead of a dynamic, unified new company operating on the same basis as competitors such as Dublin and Cork. As it stands, a harbour master may attend board meetings in accordance with the provisions of section 17(5) of the Harbours Act. This is unusual because, for example, this statutory provision does not apply to other senior professional staff of port companies, including the accountancy and engineering disciplines, all of which contribute equally to the efficient operation of ports.
Increasing the number of harbour masters in attendance at board meetings would only exacerbate this dichotomy. It is open to the board to require any member of the staff to be in attendance at a meeting, depending on the business being transacted. I contend that an identical argument could be put forward for a similar provision or exclusion to apply to the position of chief executive. It would be equally unacceptable.
I listened to the arguments put forward and I am not convinced that the amendment would serve any useful purpose. It would start a pre cedent where, if there were two harbour masters, there could be two chief executives. Undoubtedly, given the pressure I have been under from people in Limerick, I would have to go back on my decision to have one headquarters in Shannon. If I broke this principle, the headquarters would be split in two and that would run counter to the ethos of unification and one strong port company. Therefore, I do not intend to accept the amendments.
I endorse the Minister's comments. In any organisation where there is amalgamation or transfers, the staff carry all their entitlements in terms of pay and conditions but there must be one senior executive officer to run the show. I have experience of the City of Dublin VEC and I know it would be difficult to have a combination of factors where people would be moved from one area to another. It would not be possible to have two units of an organisation working in conflict. It would be a bad move to suggest that two authorities should be combined in one single unit because it would not work.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.–Paragraph 1(2) of the First Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, is hereby amended by the addition of 'A body established pursuant to the Harbours (Amendment) Act, 2000,'.".
The Office of the Attorney General advises me there is a provision in the Freedom of Information Act to allow for the addition of bodies to those already subject to the Act. This can be done by regulations made under that Act. In the circumstances, it would be more appropriate to have the port companies included by way of such regulations and not by provision contained in this Bill. I assure the Senators I have no difficulty in principle with any new body becoming subject to the Freedom of Information Act. My Department will liaise with the Department of Finance to arrange for the port companies to be included in appropriate regulations made under this Bill. Consequently, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.–The First Schedule to the Ombudsman Act, 1980, is hereby amended by the addition of 'A body established pursuant to the Harbours (Amendment) Act, 2000,'.".
I understand the Department of Finance is in the process of drafting amendments to the Ombudsman Bill. I am advised by the Attorney General that it would be more appropriate to that Bill. I have no problem in principle with the port companies being subject to the Ombudsman Act. I propose to talk to the Department of Finance again, so it is not necessary to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.–Limerick County Council shall nominate 3 local authorities members to be directors of the new port company.".
I do not propose to accept any amendment which alters in any manner the provisions of section 30(6) of the Harbours Act, 1996. This section provides that the Minister shall appoint three members of a prescribed local authority or local authorities to be each a director of a company. Local authorities are prescribed by regulation as it stands. The appointment of three local authority nominated directors is a matter to be determined upon the formation of a new port company. The amendment proposed which seeks to allocate full local authority nominated directors representation to the local authority named is unbalanced and lacking in inclusivity. Consequently, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
As a member of Limerick County Council, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to and congratulate those members of the council who have acted as members and chairpersons of Foynes Harbour Trustees and Foynes Port Company for many years. Two such members and some of my colleagues on Limerick County Council are present today in the Visitors Gallery. It is fitting and proper to pay tribute to all those who brought Foynes Port to its present healthy state.
Acting Chairman
I remind the Senator it is not in order to mention people in the Visitors Gallery.
I endorse the points made by Senator Cregan.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that as the premier body in the region Limerick County Council should have the power to nominate the directors. For that reason, I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I appreciate the Senator's point but the difficulty is there are other local authorities in the area. If I accept an amendment which deals solely with the interests of one local authority, I could face difficulties with the others. Perhaps we will consider the issue again in the other House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, line 11, to delete "not".
I have amended section 3 of the Harbours Act, 1996, to allow that the order in relation to the amalgamation of Foynes Port Company and Shannon Estuary Port Company will not be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, that is, that the principle and technicalities of the proposed amalgamation of these two companies shall not require further approval from the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is no justification to insist that the Oireachtas, having considered all the issues relevant to the amalgamation proposal, shall again consider the matter by virtue of a requirement to consider a ministerial order laid before each House. Consequently, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.–(1)The name of the amalgamated Foynes Port Company and the Shannon Estuary Ports Company shall be The Foynes and Shannon Estuary Port Company.
(2) The administration and operational headquarters of the Foynes and Shannon Estuary Port Company shall be located in Foynes, Co. Limerick.".
This amendment seeks to insert a new section in the Bill.
Section 1(3)(a)(ii) provides that the name of the new port company can be prescribed by the making of a ministerial order. KPMG consultants recommended in their report, after a comprehensive public consultation process,that the name of the new company shall be the Shannon and Foynes Port Company. I have an open mind on this. The name should reflect the regional composition of the ports in the Shannon Estuary. In terms of actual tonnage, the Shannon Estuary Port Company has a multiple of eight times that of Foynes.
I would like the implementation board to decide on the name of the new company. I hope a consensus will emerge on a name which is not skewed in either direction but on what commends confidence, reflects the commercial realities and is in the interests of the region. In other words, we need a name which best serves the commercial needs of the new company. This amendment does not appear to suggest that. The House has already accepted an amendment to section 1 which relates to the location of the headquarters. Consequently, I do not propose to accept this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.–Section 12 of the Harbours Act, 1996 is hereby amended by the addition in subsection (1)(d) after 'environment,' of 'in particular by carrying out environmental impact assessments of such activities, and to have due regard to the consequences of such activities on tourism,'.”.
An environmental impact assessment has been integrated into various Irish development consent systems through the European Communities regulations of 1989 to 1999. Projects needing environmental impact assessment are listed in the First Schedule of the EIA regulations. The EIA regulations amend the governing harbours and planning legislation and provide for an environmental impact assessment. All relevant development proposals within that consent system are required to undergo environmental impact assessment. A consent application for such development must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement which is a statement of the likely significant environmental impacts, good and bad, of the proposal. The competent authority, in its consideration of an application, must carry out an EIA of the proposal based, among other things, on information contained in the environmental impact statement. Consequently, as the port companies and harbour authorities are already obliged to comply with the full EIA regulation requirements as prescribed by the EU and enshrined in natural law, I do not propose to accept this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 8, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
7.–Section 35 of the Harbours Act, 1996, is amended–
(a)in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) by the insertion of ‘or a new company' after ‘Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company',
(b)by the substitution of the following for subsection (3):
‘(3)The first chief executive of a new company and each subsequent chief executive of a company or new company shall be appointed and may be removed from office by the other directors of the company concerned after consultation with the Minister.',
and
(c)in subsection (5) by the insertion of ‘or a new company' after ‘Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company'.
and the said paragraph (a) and the said subsection (5), as so amended, are set out in the Table to this section.
TABLE
(a)The first chief executive of a company (other than Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company or a new company) shall be—
(i)if functions in relation to the company's harbour stood vested before the relevant vesting day in a harbour authority specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Act of 1946, the person who was on the day prior to the said day the General Manager of that harbour authority, or
(ii) if functions in relation to the company's harbour stood vested before the relevant vesting day in a harbour authority specified in Part II of the said Schedule, the person who was on the day prior to the said day the secretary of that harbour authority.
(5)Save in the case of the first chief executive of a company (other than Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company or a new company), the chief executive of a company shall hold office upon and subject to such terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances) as may be determined by the directors of the company with the consent of the Minister given with the approval of the Minister for Finance.".
This amendment addresses the appointment of the first chief executive of the new company. It addresses a possible deficiency in the Bill as circulated for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the directors of the new company can have power of appointment and removal of the chief executive officer, following consultation with the Minister. Such consultation is presently the norm under the 1996 Harbours Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7 deleted.
Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Senators for their contributions today and for their co-operation in getting this legislation quickly through the House. As I emphasised on Second Stage, this is important legislation for the Shannon Estuary, the mid-west and the whole western region. As a Galway man I consider the Bill to have as much significance for Galway as it has for Foynes and Limerick because much of the business of the west coast will now begin to come through Foynes in particular. That is something I will encourage. I had a telephone call this morning from a Dutch industrialist asking me questions about the possibility of setting up a major facility in Foynes.
I have no doubt that we will see immediate and significant development in the Foynes region as a result of this legislation, which is a long time coming. It has a sad history and I hope we move forward now in a positive way. I intend to conclude some further proposals in the Dáil debate but we can now see a new era of development in the Foynes-Limerick region. The new port company will be a driving force for economic development along the west coast and into the south-west. We need to improve other infrastructure. Obviously we have got to build the major roadway and we need by-passes in Limerick; they are now being built in places like Newmarket-on-Fergus, Clarecastle, Ennis and Gort. Development like those projects are of major significance. Knock Airport and Foynes will become major developments in air and sea and will bring about the kind of development that all political parties want – decentralisation, the development of the spatial policies that are now the buzz word and getting major development out of Dublin and into the west and the south-west.
I will not put through these Houses more important legislation than this Bill, whether I am weeks, months or a year or two in this Department. I thank the Senators. I appreciate the concerns of some people but I assure them we want to proceed on the basis of partnership and trust and not doing anybody any harm. We are trying to do good for everybody. I thank my own staff in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources for the efficient way in which they got this legislation together. We have set a record in the sense that we have completed in this House the first part of the legislation, which was produced quickly arising from a report produced by a firm of consultants, and I sincerely hope we can complete the second part of the legislation in the Dáil before the summer recess and allow this new company to be set up and get on with the development work that we all want to see happen.
I thank the Minister for his courtesy in dealing with Senators on this important legislation. I am sure the amalgamation will do nothing but good for the entire mid-west region. Anything that will divert traffic from the eastern part of the country has to be commended. We all know that the ports on the east coast are very congested in terms of traffic and that the movement of goods in the State has to go from west to east, south to east or whatever.
I had minor reservations about some aspects of this legislation but I am glad the Minister will consider some of the amendments when the legislation goes before the Lower House. I hope that in the time available to him to reflect on it that he may change his views on some aspects of those amendments. I am delighted that the Bill has passed through the House and that we were mostly in agreement with the broad thrust of the Bill. In the context of commercial activity and for the greater good of the mid-west region, this amalgamation could prove to be a watershed.
I would like to be associated with the comments of Senator Caffrey. I thank the Minister and his officials for the efficient manner in which they dealt with this business over the past few days. I also thank Senator Caffrey and the other members of the Opposition for their co-operation. This report landed on the Minister's desk shortly after his appointment as Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. He said he would act swiftly on it, and he did that. The legislation was produced, it has had a safe passage through this House and I hope it will have a safe passage through the other House in the not too distant future. It is important that should happen before the recess as there are implications for Foynes, financially and otherwise, if that is not the case. I appeal to everybody concerned to ensure that does happen.
The Minister said on a number of occasions that everybody would be winners and that there would be no losers. I sincerely hope that when the Bill has passed through both Houses, that will be the case and everybody can work together for the good of Foynes and of west Limerick.
I would like to be associated with the remarks made here and compliment the Minister and his Department on the speedy passage of the Bill through the House. I would like to see the Bill being passed by the Dáil before the recess because, as the Minister said, this is something that should have happened many years ago. I was a member of one of the boards for almost 17 years and I can see huge potential on the Shannon Estuary. I would like to be associated with the comments about Foynes and the surrounding area of Limerick but downstream of the Shannon in the Tarbert, Ballylongford and Kerry area there are 400 by 600 acres of State land waiting to be developed. I am delighted to hear the news that a company is already interested in setting up a business along there. The Shannon Estuary has huge potential.
I look forward to the enactment of this Bill before the end of this session and compliment everybody involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
Mr. Cregan
At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday next.
The Seanad adjourned at 3p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 June 2000.