Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995

SECTION 17.

Mr. M. Smith

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 21, subsection (3) (h), line 26, to delete "£250,000" and substitute "£1,000,000".

We are, in a sense, back where we started. On Second Stage I, and a number of my colleagues, referred to the borrowing limits this provision placed on the new harbour companies. Since then, we have reason for even greater concern because in a number of areas this Government, unwittingly or otherwise, seems to distrust semi-State companies.

We said on the last occasion that when we move into the commercial arena, where boards are appointed on the basis of their suitability and fitness for office and management and staff carry out their commercial mandate, we should not add layers of duplicating bureaucracy and insist on measures which will ultimately stifle initiative. This limitation would not enable some harbour authorities to buy a second-hand tug. There are lists of examples we could give of actions they would be required to take.

The provision should be increased from £250,000 to £1,000,000 to enable the new commercial companies to act with a certain amount of freedom. It is unnecessary to repeat the debate we had on section 15 where we pointed out to the Minister the necessity of creating that commercial freedom in as dramatic a way as possible. My proposal does not extend the demands unnecessarily. It is essential that we give a real sign of what we mean by commercial freedom and that we will not get involved in the day to day running to the extent which the proposal in the Bill would involve. The proposed provision would stifle the ability of companies to make their own decisions about purchases. That would be a nonsense, particularly for the larger port companies.

Mr. Costello

I have a great deal of sympathy for this amendment. The sum of £250,000 is not large in the context of Dublin Port and Docks Board and the new company being established there. It seems somewhat harsh that the £250,000 which is the aggregate amount standing invested requires both the approval of the Minister and the consent of the Minister for Finance, whereas in the case of the disposal of land, sales or the granting of a lease, simply notification is required. The sum of £250,000 seems an inordinately small amount for a major authority such as Dublin Port and some increase in that provision should be considered. In the context of the general policy to improve the commercial operation of the ports, it would be proper to indicate a considerably larger sum.

Mr. Gilmore

The purpose of the Bill is to provide the new port companies with the maximum amount of commercial freedom consistent with the requirements of public accountability. The case has been made that the proposed limit of £250,000 — which relates to the amount standing invested by the company, either by the purchase of shares or the provision of loans or guarantees in various undertakings other than the company's own subsidiaries — should be increased. I am prepared to accept that it is too low and I accept the amendment to increase it to £1,000,000.

Mr. M. Smith

That is a wise decision. Even an extension to Dún Laoghaire sewerage scheme would cost £500,000. These are areas in which no Minister for Finance wants to be involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 18 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.