Why are Members of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament disqualified from being on a harbour board? A number of the Members present, including the Chairman, have been members of harbour boards over the years. It is quite an educational experience. Deputies, Senators and MEPs have much to offer harbour boards. They know the content of legislation proposed in the Oireachtas and could enlighten the boards about it. It appears unduly restrictive to preclude Members of the Oireachtas from being members of harbour boards. If county councillors and members of corporations and urban councils can be members of harbour boards under this legislation, why disqualify Members of the Oireachtas?
SECTION 34.
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
We dealt with that adequately last week. It was tied into a number of amendments which were dealt with at length. The points made by Deputy Deasy were also made by almost all of the Members who spoke at last week's meeting and the Minister replied to them in great detail.
We did not discuss section 34 last week.
That is why I allowed the Deputy to make his point. If Deputy Molloy wishes to make a comment on section 34 he can do so. I was pointing out that we adequately dealt last week with the issue raised by Deputy Deasy.
We did not discuss this section last week. We did not reach section 34 until now and now is the time to bring it up. That was referred to in the course of the discussion last week. The Chairman allowed reference to this matter under another section but we are now dealing with section 34.
The Deputy is entitled to speak on any aspect of section 34.
Will the Minister explain the principle he is applying in this section? He has granted representation to local authorities on the harbour boards but he is making an exclusion order for Members of the Oireachtas. The only thing the Minister said last week which the uninitiated might accept as a reasonable explanation was that if the harbour company was examined by a committee of the Oireachtas there might be a case of dual membership. In such circumstances surely the same procedure would apply as in the case of a member of a harbour company who had a vested interest — he would simply absent himself from participation in the discussions and deliberations of that committee.
The Minister's point does not stand up. The basic question is still unanswered — if elected members of a local authority are granted the right to representation on harbour boards why should the member of the local authority be excluded if he happens to be a Member of the Oireachtas? There does not seem to be a logical reason for the Minister making such a distinction. If he barred all elected representatives from membership of harbour boards, one might understand. However, it is difficult to understand the justification for making this subtle distinction.
The Deputies were entitled to raise the matter under section 34 and I have allowed them to do so. However, this matter was raised in conjunction with other amendments relating to representation and the Minister more than adequately dealt with it. Nevertheless, since the matter has been raised, does the Minister wish to place his points on the record again?
Let us deal with the examples referred to by Deputy Molloy. Let us suppose that a TD is a member of the board of a port company and that the port company is brought before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Statesponmsored Bodies, of which that TD is also a member. Deputy Molloy says that in such a situation the TD would be in the same position as another member of the board who might have an interest, that he should declare his interest and absent himself. That applies to membership of the board. However, what happens with regard to membership of the committee where, for example, he might be required to vote on a recommendation or on a report relating to the investigation of that company? Deputy Molloy is aware that margins in the House are often very tight and there might be a whip or obligation on the member to participate. That is one situation where, clearly, a conflict of interest would arise.
A second example of where it would arise is seen in the two cases we discussed earlier. Deputy Smith asked me a question earlier about the tax and the municipal rates that applies to the port companies and whether this Bill will change them; it will not. It is not the function of this Bill to deal with tax and local authority rates, but suppose at some stage a Minister for Finance brought forward a Finance Bill which proposed certain changes in the tax regime of port companies, or a Minister for the Environment brought forward a proposal in relation to local authority rates and how they apply to port companies, clearly a Member of the House who is a director of a company affected by that legislation should find himself or herself with a conflict of interests.
The reason Members of the Oireachtas are excluded from directorship of these companies is that they are not similar to the old harbour commissioners. They are being established as commercial semi-State companies. It has been the practice that Members of the Dáil and the European Parliament are not eligible for appointment as directors of semi-State companies. It would be as inappropriate for a Member of Dáil Éireann to be a director of the Dublin port company, which governs the seaport of Dublin, as it would for a Member of Dáil Éireann to be a member of the board of Aer Rianta which is responsible for Dublin Airport.
Surely the proposed Ethics Bill would deal with the case the Minister gave of a Member of the Oireachtas being a member of the board under examination by a committee of the Oireachtas? The Ethics Bill lays down the ground rules in regard to vested interests and declaration of interests and, I am sure, adequately covers that situation. The Minister's explanation is weak.
You are very hard to satisfy today, Deputy.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
Is there any provision on the determination of the levels of pay of officers of the company and compliance with the national pay policy? I am referring here to the provision which states that the general manager of the company shall continue as the chief executive of the new harbour authority. I raise the query in relation to the application of national pay policy in the new boards.
I am not entirely clear about the question Deputy Molloy is asking.
Is there any provision which requires the new harbour companies to comply with national pay policy? Where positions in these new semi-State companies are established and salaries set, what is the guideline for the level of salaries to apply?
There is provision for the application of national pay policy. It is dealt with in section 37 (2) which states:
Without prejudice to the requirements of section 39, a company, in determining the remuneration or allowances for expenses to be paid to members of its staff or the terms or conditions subject to which such members hold or are to hold their employment, shall have regard to Government or nationally agreed guidelines which are for the time being extant.
I will move an amendment at a later stage which makes it clear that under the subsection that applies in the case of the remuneration of chief executives and also in the case of remuneration of chief executives in the start up situation. In other words, the arrangement provided for is one whereby chief executives do not suffer any loss where they are continuing from the old harbour commissioners but, by the same token, there cannot be an arrangement whereby the new harbour companies could theoretically decide to be excessively generous with their chief executives outside of the confines of Government and nationally agreed pay policy.
I was very interested to hear Deputy Molloy's last intervention, because to my memory, up to November of 1985 Deputy Molloy, then a member of Fianna Fáil, could always be counted on to object very strenuously to the kind of provision that is in section 37 (2). I find the view he is now proposing very interesting. Ever since the first famous national wage agreement Fianna Fáil negotiated with the unions, Deputy Molloy's party — I do not know about Deputy Molloy himself because he does not always seem to be entirely in line with his party — has been extremely hostile to the idea of national wage agreements. I find it very curious that he seems to be applauding the insertion into this Bill of something he used to object to up to November 1985 and to which his party still, as far as I know, objects. Is ait an mac an tsaoil, as they say.
I wanted to address another aspect of the provisions of section 35 linked with the provisions in sections 36 and 37. As I understand it, one of the practical effects of section 35 will be that in certain ports, the person who is currently the harbour master of those ports will also be the chief executive of those ports. The combined effect of these provisions is that if somebody is chief executive today and it is one of the ports covered by this Bill, he remains the chief executive of that company after the Bill comes into operation.
In some cases, the chief executive of a certain number of ports today is also the harbour master. That will mean, quite sensibly, that when this Bill comes into effect, there will be a number of ports where the board will include as the chief executive, the person who is also the harbour master, and the board will therefore automatically have available to it as of right the advice of a qualified harbour master. However, for a number of other ports which are also affected by this Bill, that will not be the case, because the harbour master is not currently the chief executive of the port and where the harbour master is not currently the chief executive of the port, there is no necessity for him or her to in future be the chief executive and therefore a member of the board. For the foreseeable future, a number of ports will be run by boards which do not include a harbour master and there is no provision in this Bill for the advice of the Harbour Master to be available to the port authority.
One of the objectives of this Bill, an objective which I fully support is to make our ports commercial operations and to apply the disciplines of commercial life to them. That is perfectly in order. In doing that we have to take into account that there is a very substantial safety dimension to the operation of our ports. Many of our ports will have passing through them dangerous substances, substances that are difficult to handle. Some of our ports have their own natural quirks and the management of operations within the ports requires a certain amount of care and concern for safety. There is a legitimate fear that if we have boards operating to commercial criteria which do not include people with detailed knowledge of the physical business looked after by a harbour master, there may be an inclination on the part of some port authorities to cut corners in terms of safety and good practice — not because of any ill will but because they do not have available to them the advice of people whose training and professional activity centres around those aspects of the operation.
I ask the Minister of State to reflect on this and come back on Report Stage with a provision which would give us some assurance that the boards of all of these ports will automatically have available to them the advice of the harbour master when they are drawing up policy and practice for their ports. If we do not do that, we will miss an opportunity to assure both ourselves and the users of our ports that matters will be properly looked after.
Although that matter may not have been given specific or overt consideration in the prepartion of this Bill, it should, nevertheless, be considered at this stage. In the case of a certain number of ports, where the chief executive is currently also the harbour master, that concern will be looked after. I do not know whether it was intentional, but in certain other ports it will not be looked after and the Minister should take that element into account.
In consultation with the representatives of harbour masters, not alone in individual ports but collectively, I requested them to make a submission to the Committee which was duly circulated by the Clerk some weeks ago to the Members.
We have a list of new amendments and this matter which has been raised by Deputy Dukes will come directly under section 37 where I have an amendment similar to that in the name of Deputy Molloy, although it does not seem to have been circulated yet. Do you want to debate this matter now or wait until section 37 which specifically relates to the matter? This is the end of our third day on Committee Stage and we have managed to work towards getting agreement without being purely political and I regret Deputy Dukes earlier intervention.
Are the Deputies politicians or are they not?
I was here a few days before the Deputy.
I know that Deputy Molloy is quite capable of defending his own corner. I ask Deputy Dukes to keep in mind the points made very rightly by Deputy Smith but it would be more appropriate if I made those points from the Chair.
On a point of order, is a Member of this Committee, who is an elected politician and a Member of a parliamentary assembly, when talking about the politics of a measure before us not entitled to make a political point? If that is the case we might as well all pack up and go home. If Deputy Smith is so sensitive——
Since we are going into a debate, the Deputy is entitled to rake up anything he likes if he is that kind of politician.
——about being reminded that Deputy Molloy was once a member and supporter of his party and that he seems to still support some of the daftness perpetrated by Deputy Smith's party, then I am sorry for him.
I will adjudicate on that. I am asking Members for their co-operation. We have had a very productive discussion over the last number of sessions on this Bill and I do not want any personal remarks made, no matter how well intentioned they may be.
I will not refer to the previous controversy. I wish to focus primarily on the measure to which Deputy Dukes referred, which is the aspect of safety and the attendance of harbour masters on the boards of the newly constituted ports.
I sm sorry to interject, but Deputy Smith asked a question which should be answered before we proceed.
There are two amendments to section 37 dealing specifically with the question of whether harbour masters would be present without voting rights and participate in discussions at harbour company meetings because of their specific functions and legal responsibilities. I merely asked whether you were taking those amendments at this stage or if we would wait until we came to section 37.
That is a very important point because since last night 83 amendments have been tabled, which is a substantial number in such a short space of time. I suggest, bearing in mind the point made by Deputy Smith, that after we deal with section 36 we adjourn until the morning because the supporting documentation has just arrived and I have not had an opportunity to study it. Members may not have had adequate time to study the 83 amendments tabled since yesterday and the Minister of State has to leave at 4.45 p.m. I suggest that we adjourn until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow to give Members an opportunity to study the effects of the proposed amendments. Is that agreed? Agreed.
That is a very important change. I do not think I can be here at that time as I have other business to attend to. I also wish to express my appreciation to the committee for their co-operation with my substituting for Deputy Gregory.
Is it an oversight to not have the harbour masters on the boards? Experience to date indicates that without their presence some serious safety provisions will not be possible to uphold. This has been the experience in Balbriggan and Skerries harbours where, without a harbour master in a full time position at the decision making level, people leave boats without the necessary controls which causes major safety problems for other harbour users. I would not like to see that happen in larger harbours because the proper harbour master representation was not there at decision making level.
Before we proceed further, in fairness to Deputy Smith who has tabled an amendment on this, I ask the Minister of State not to reply at this stage but to reply in the context of Deputy Smith's amendment and to note the points made by Deputy Sargent. I have not seen the text of the amendment yet. I am sure Deputy Sargent will accept that.
I understood that we were on section 35. The amendment is to section 37, which we are not discussing yet. We have agreed to postpone the discussion. Lest silence be deemed assent, I wish to say that I do not agree with the unfortunate and inaccurate remarks made by Deputy Dukes. I find them quite extraordinary and I do not know why he interjected. I note that Deputy Dukes has not proposed an amendment which would apply his principle — which he said he would pursue on all legislation introduced in Leinster House — that he would not agree to a regulation coming into force unless it was voted by the Dáil. We await his amendment in that regard.
The Bill is well put together in that regard. I have no complaints about that.
I will declare a draw and ask the committee if section 35 is agreed to.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
The Committee adjourned at 3.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14 September 1995.