Amendment No. 26b is an alternative to amendment No. 26a and both may be discussed together, by agreement.
SECTION 37
I move amendment No. 26a:
In page 31, subsection (1) (a) (i), line 36, after "harbour master," to insert "who shall have the right to attend board meetings and take part in discussions.".
Under the proposed legislation, two positions must be filled in each port company, that of chief executive and harbour master. The role of the chief executive is defined, regulated and protected under existing company law. The role of harbour master is unique to the new port companies and is not correctly legislated for, the incumbents having both statutory and public safety responsibility and being subject to intense commercial pressure as the marine operation managers of the port. Harbour masters are named in recent safety and environmental legislation as being the competent local authority and as such are publicly responsible for administration of such legislation. The responsibility of the mix of statutory and commercial obligation is not reflected in the representation available at board level to harbour masters under the proposed legislation in all cases. The right of harbour masters to attend board meetings and enter discussions should be enshrined in legislation for the sole purpose of ensuring that board policy will not be in conflict with the statutory obligations of port companies. Harbour masters should not be board members as this would compromise their statutory role. It is for that reason I propose this amendment.
The section should be amended to provide for the harbour master's right to attend board meetings and to take part in discussions. A core business of a port is the safe arrival, stay and despatch of vessels to and from the waters of every port as well as the safe handling, storage and despatch of goods to and from ports. The qualification and experience, both commercial and technical, held by harbour masters is vital to the running of ports. The role of harbour masters is ever widening in ports, particularly where staff numbers are now declining and their input is necessary for all aspects of port business. I hope the Minister is in a position to agree to our amendment in this case and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Amendment No. 26b reads:
In page 31, subsection 1 (b), line 48, after "members." to insert "The Harbour Master shall have the right to attend board meetings and take part in discussions without voting rights."
This amendment would provide that the harbour master shall have the right to attend board meetings and to take part in discussions without having voting rights. We had a long discussion about the construction of the membership of the board. The Murphy report recommended that it should not be representational but despite that recommendation the Minister saw fit to give representation to local authorities.
This amendment would not provide representation for the harbour master in the sense that unlike other members of the board he would not have voting rights, he would merely have the right to attend harbour board meetings and take part in discussions. This is essential. As far as I am aware the harbour master always attended board meetings and was seen as an essential member of the board. He could quickly be consulted in regard to matters affecting the port which would come up at the meeting or on other occasions. The harbour master's expertise is an essential input into discussions and decision making at board level.
I do not know whether the Minister will accept these amendments, but if he is not disposed to accept them I suggest that the board should have the right to have the harbour master present if and when it so desires, in the same way as the board can have its solicitor present, or a consultant engineer can be asked to address a meeting on a specific issue. The role of the harbour master is unique. It is all embracing. He has a very wide range of responsibilities in relation to the management of the port, the movement of shipping pilotage and many other functions.
I hope the Minister will accept that it is more sensible to have the harbour master attend board meetings at all times, but not in a similar capacity to that of the director, merely for the purpose of keeping in touch with the policy of the board, giving an input into decision making, advising the board on matters and knowing exactly what policies the board is following on an ongoing basis.
EU legislation is also imposing serious responsibilities on harbour masters. They have to make judgments with regard to incoming and outgoing shipping, where it shall go and the safety of all port users. I hope the Minister will see the sense in my proposal. The difference between my amendment and Deputy Smith's is that my amendment states that the harbour master would not have voting rights. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. He will be aware there is strong feeling about this among harbour masters. Those of us who have been members of harbour boards agree this amendment is necessary.
I support the amendment. In some harbours, harbour masters attend board meetings. The harbour master in New Ross attends all meetings. We regard this as essential and it should be written into the Bill that the attendance of harbour masters at meetings should not be optional but essential. Will the Minister agree that board members, who do not have the same expertise, experience and knowledge of harbour masters might make unwise decisions without the assistance of the harbour master. No matter what business of the port is in hand or what issue is being discussed, the harbour master is involved. If a harbour master is notified of a decision he considers unworkable a special board meeting may have to be called to deal with it. From a common sense point of view the harbour master should be present. I ask the Minister to take this on board.
EU directives directly indicate the power and authority of harbour masters within harbours. It now appears from a European perspective they are gaining more attention and a higher profile. From this point of view too, they should be asked to attend all board meetings.
There are few harbour meetings certain aspects of which would not impact on a harbour master's role. I sympathise with Deputy Molloy's amendment which states that a harbour master would not have voting rights. Under the old Harbours Act a harbour master did not have to attend board meetings. However, a tradition was established whereby the harbour masters of most harbours attended board meetings, even though there was no compulsion on them to do so. This was in cognisance of the important role they played. I hope some accommodation can be found with regard to this issue. Harbour masters should attend meetings when matters are discussed which impinge on their role within harbours. I hope the Minister will consider this.
While under the Harbours Act, 1946 harbour masters do not have a statutory right to attend harbour authority board meetings, the practice is that they attend such meetings. I recognise the important role of the harbour master in safety matters within his area of jurisdiction and his technical knowledge and expertise in all aspects of port operations. The position of harbour master has been somewhat enhanced in relation to safety matters by the provisions of this Bill. I understand why harbour masters would wish to and why they should attend board meetings, particularly where discussions relating to navigational and safety matters are concerned.
However, I cannot accept the amendments tabled by Deputy Smith and Deputy Molloy to provide that harbour masters would have the right to attend board meetings and take part in discussions. Such an amendment could give rise to similar requests from other senior staff of harbour authorities, such as the financial controllers of a port company, the law agent and the collector of rates. I accept that decisions taken at board level will impinge on the harbour master's role but the same could be said about other senior staff.
It will be a matter for the new boards to decide whether harbour masters should be invited to full board meetings or parts of them for the purposes of giving technical advice. I would expect the new boards to act responsibly in this regard and to take due account of any advice, technical or otherwise, given by harbour masters as part of their normal deliberations on board meeting agenda items. There was a great deal of discussion on previous sections about giving freedom to the new boards. It seems to me to be a fundamental freedom of boards to decide what senior staff should be present at board meetings. I have no reason to believe the practice which has existed until now, whereby harbour masters attended board meetings and participated in discussions, particularly in relation to their own areas of expertise, will change.
I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's response on this amendment. He is completely wrong in making a comparison between harbour masters and law agents or financial controllers. Harbour masters have specific responsibilities in relation to navigational safety, in the general environmental area and under the terms of this Bill. It is improper to equate them with other officers and other types of responsibilities. The more these companies are driven into a commercial arena the more necessary it is to ensure we combine commercial enterprise and development with ensuring that proper safety standards are adhered to in all cases. The way to do this is to have the people with responsibility present at meetings playing an effective role, although they would not have voting rights. The Minister should change his mind. His best argument was that the board may have difficulty deciding who it should invite to a meeting and that, as has been the practice in the past, the board would have due regard to whatever technical or other advice it would receive from the harbour master. Since, as the Minister admits, that has been the practice in the great majority of cases, most of those present who have served on harbour boards realise the importance of the presence of harbour masters. All we are doing is copperfastening that in legislation in a context where the pressure for commercial development will be stronger and the need for safety all the greater.
I am shocked the Minister has not accepted this proposal. Given the reasons offered I cannot believe he can ignore what has been proposed. As a member of a board for some time and as its current chairman, I know how essential it is to have the input of the harbour master. Some 90 per cent of the issues discussed at board meetings have to be handled there and then or eventually by the harbour master and his advice is sought on all those matters. It is difficult to understand why the Minister cannot accept the amendments. None of the reasons for rejecting them is sufficiently strong. What would happen can be equated to the Minister attending this meeting without his officials; we all accept he is on top of his job but during the course of this debate he will have to ask for advice. In the interests of practicality, I ask him to accept the proposal.
I am also disappointed with the Minister's response and I hope it is not too late for him to reconsider his answer. A member from the Minister's party sits at Cabinet although he is not a Cabinet member, so the Minister should have a full understanding of the principle involved here. If he had consulted the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte about the role a person can play in being at a meeting without the same authority as the others present, he would probably have given a more sympathetic response than he has so far. This displays a complete lack of understanding on the part of the Minister and the officials advising him — although this may be his own idea — as to what happens at harbour board meetings. If the Minister does not agree to this proposal and a harbour master is not present at board meetings, an enormous number of matters will be referred to the harbour master and decisions will be postponed until his opinion is received. This proposal attempts to give statutory effect to something which has proved beneficial in practice. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this; no aspect of the work of the harbour board impinges as much on the responsibilities of the harbour master as this proposal that he should be present to give full advice to the board at all times. To equate the harbour master's role with that of the legal adviser or the accountant shows a complete lack of understanding of the type of business discussed at harbour board meetings. In my experience as a member of a harbour board the legal and financial advisers were only brought in on rare occasions for major matters but the harbour master was continually consulted during each board meeting. If he is not there to give that advice on an ongoing basis, he will have to be consulted because of his statutory role and the work of the board will be seriously impeded.
The Minister should recognise that what has built up in practice has proven to be an efficient way to run harbour boards. In order to give statutory effect to that, the amendment should be accepted to allow the harbour master to attend, not as a full voting member of the board, merely as a recognition of how essential it is that he is present at these discussions with his advice readily available. The Minister in his approach is taking a retrograde step because it completely ignores the value members place on the harbour master's attendance. I ask him to reconsider it, or even to consult Deputy Rabbitte to see how this role works out, as I am sure he would have great sympathy for this amendment.
To listen to the last few contributions one would think there was a provision to prohibit or prevent harbour masters from attending board meetings and participating in discussions. There is no such prohibition or attempt to prevent such attendance or participation or to depart from the normal practice up to now, which is that harbour masters attend board meetings. I expect the new companies and boards, when established, will as a matter of course have the harbour masters present to discuss matters which are appropriate to them. There may be occasions when the company is discussing a matter which has nothing to do with the harbour master's duties and it may not be entirely necessary that he be present for those discussions. In practice, I envisage the harbour master will be present at board meetings and I expect the companies to arrange that, as is the case at the moment.
I do not know how the idea has developed that harbour masters will be excluded from board meetings by the new companies or that the practice up to now will somehow be changed when they come into existence; and therefore it is necessary to include in the primary legislation the requirement that the harbour master attend board meetings. I came into this session believing that it was not necessary to include that in the legislation. However, a strong case has been made — I am not sure if Deputy Molloy's analogy is the most appropriate, but from what I hear, if we followed that example the harbour master would be running the company.
The Minister has changed his mind on this.
They now call Deputy Rabbitte the Cabinet servant. I have not heard from him for a long time.
I am prepared to give further consideration to what has been said. I ask the Members to withdraw the amendments to enable me to reflect further on the matter between now and Report Stage.
I am happy to do that but I am not sure I can be too optimistic on the basis of the rather neat twist the Minister gave in his earlier reply saying one would think there was a provision to exclude harbour masters. There are many provisions in this Bill to give statutory effect to matters which are not anything like as important as this one. We do not question the Minister's right to do that. The Minister should not reconsider this matter in that frame of mind. If, however, the latter part of what he said more accurately indicates the way he will address it, I am perfectly happy to withdraw and wait. However, I would like to believe at this stage that the earlier remarks the Minister made will not dominate his reflections.
Thank you for your co-operation. You have been so persuasive that you have obviously changed the Minister's mind.
I am delighted not to press my amendment on this occasion. It is the first indication we have had during the course of this debate that the Minister is listening. I am very encouraged and hope the Bill will continue——
How many amendments have I accepted?
I hope the Minister will see the sense in this suggestion and agree to it. If not, we will have to return with an amendment on Report Stage. I take a different view than Deputy Smith. I am more optimistic that the Minister will see the good commercial sense in this for the efficient operation of the new companies and how essential it is to have the harbour master present. The harbour master now plays a vital role in the business that harbours undertake and which these new boards will undertake with additional responsibility being placed upon them. I am encouraged by the Minister's response and I look forward to him bringing forward a comprehensive amendment to achieve this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 26b not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 32, subsection (2), line 3, after "staff" to insert ", including the chief executive,".
This amendment is to clarify and put beyond any doubt that this subsection, which we discussed yesterday and deals with the application of Government pay policy and national pay agreements, applies to all staff members of a port company including the chief executive.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
Section 38 agreed to.