Normally I would not be very enthusiastic about setting up 12 new State companies, including one in Dún Laoghaire, as proposed in the legislation, but I accept the Minister's word that the overall effect will be to relax ministerial control. If that is the case, I can justify supporting the measure. My political philosophy is averse to the creation of State companies. I find it hard enough to suffer those in existence and normally I would find the creation of an additional 12 companies unacceptable.
I was a member of one of the existing harbour boards. Waterford Harbour Commissioners, for a number of years and I have a reasonable insight to the manner in which they functioned in the past. Their constitution is somewhat loose. It was interesting to be a board member as a wide range of interests were represented on those boards. It gave every business section of the community interested in shipping an opportunity to be represented, a democratic and desirable way to do business.
Under this legislation it has been decided to increase the number of board members from nine to 12 to facilitate local authority representatives. It is sad to relate that in my experience, and this may have been particular to the Waterford harbour board, generally the worst attenders were local authority members. I do not know if they receive expenses, I did not receive any although I had to travel 30 miles to meetings. It must have been difficult to make room for three local authority members on those boards when they were such poor attenders at board meetings in the past.
I notice that TDs and Senators are prohibited from being members of the new boards. I regard that as petty because a harbour board would be assisted by having a local TD, Senator or MEP on it. It would enable the board to have contact with national politics, Ministers and the European Union which provides a great deal of funding for developing and expanding harbours. I fail to see the logic of excluding Deputies, Senators and MEPs from membership of such boards.
I have always objected to the election or nomination of worker-directors to State boards. Under the Bill, depending on the size of the workforce in the harbour, a number of worker-directors must be appointed to the board. I do not favour the worker director-system as it tends to undermine the running of boards. Worker-directors believe they have an obligation to inform the workforce of developments and, while that may appear logical, in many cases companies must keep their strategies and plans close to their chests. It is difficult to run a company if people who attend board meetings inform others of the developments in the company. I will not accept the need for worker-director representation on State boards.
The idea of worker-director representation was mooted in the mid-1970s by a Labour Party member of the then coalition Government, but a serious mistake was made in making comparisons with similar boards on the Continent. Worker-directors are not appointed directly to boards on the Continent, they are appointed to a subcommittee which reports back to the board. Under this Bill worker-directors will be directly represented on boards and that is not acceptable, particularly in the context of major State companies. As Minister I had many State companies under my control one of which, the Sugar Company, faced difficulties and the presence of worker-directors on the board was more of a hindrance than a help in solving those difficulties. This is the forum in which to air such grievances. The worker-director system was not intended to mean direct representation. Trade secrets should remain behind doors and we should have confidence in those nominated to State boards.
The Minister stated that the Minister for the Marine will nominate the members of the board with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Once again the heavy hand of the Department of Finance will control the activities of another Department. Such a qualification is undesirable. If the legislation is introduced by the Minister for the Marine and the boards operate under his aegis, total control should rest with him. The recent trend of giving the Minister for Finance a veto on matters relevant to other Departments should be outlawed.
The Minister stated that existing harbour boards comprise representatives of local authorities, chambers of commerce, trade union interests, IBEC, the livestock trade, shipping and ministerial nominees. I worked with a number of trade union members who did excellent work on the Waterford Harbour Board. Rather than having worker-director representation, would it not be more acceptable to have direct trade union representation on such boards?
The livestock trade — the shipping of live animals to other countries — is a very contentious issue at present. This country is so heavily dependent on the export of live animals that it is imperative the matter is put in proper perspective and we ensure there is no undue cruelty to animals transported by sea. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in the past and almost weekly we read horrific stories in our newspapers about hundreds of cattle dying or being maimed en route to a country in the Middle East. Farmers depend to a large extent on the live animal trade, but the public are very aware of the cruelty it may involve. That trade will come under serious threat unless steps are taken to eliminate cruelty. I sound a note of caution in this regard. There is a danger that public reaction will become so strong it will be impossible to ship animals from the south of Ireland through the Gibraltar Straits which is an unsettled turbulent stretch of water. It is always going to be difficult to ship animals through that region without their incurring serious injuries or fatalities.
We shall have to examine this matter very carefully. Any reading of newspaper reports in recent months will have demonstrated that the farming organisations, shippers, the companies involved and the general public all are at loggerheads on this issue which will become even more contentious. Ultimately, it may mean that we will be allowed ship animals across the Irish Sea only from Rosslare to Fishguard, Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead or Greenore to Holyhead, the remainder of the journey being overland. This is a contentious issue which will become more so. I do not think people have fully faced up to or realised the degree of hostility among the general public about the type of activities which have been condoned and allowed take place over many years. I predict they will not be allowed continue.
This is a very emotional issue that must be addressed. Fine words, promises and threats thrown around like snuff at a wake will not allay public fears in this respect; some constructive measures and action are needed. The livestock trade must be saved, but the way we are going we will not save it. We are heading into a confrontation in which the livestock producers, shippers and dealers cannot win. One cannot fly in the face of the public since there are enormous cruelty problems involved. We shall have to devise a less damaging, less hurtful, much less cruel system.
Under the Bill I note that 11 ports will be transferred to the State in the form of port companies. Dún Laoghaire Harbour is already under the control of the Minister for the Marine, as are five other fishery harbours. I note that Dingle will be the sixth to come under his control.
In the latter part of the Minister's contribution he said there was a review being undertaken of the financing and control of these harbours. I ask the Minister of State to expedite finalisation of that review since some of these major fishery harbours are in a very poor state of repair. Dunmore East in my constituency, one of the six involved, is dreadfully under-financed. Considerable sections have already fallen or are in danger of falling into the sea and the harbour in great need of considerable extension. The Minister should speed up production of that review and, if necessary, introduce legislation so that we can discuss the problems in those six fishery harbours which provide thousands of jobs and which, if expanded, could provide additional jobs. There is no more appropriate sector within which the State can generate employment than these fishery harbours. It is a shocking state of affairs that such employment should be inhibited through our reluctance to repair or extend those harbours.