Before the Adjournment certain requests were made to the Minister. Has he made a decision on the granting of statutory representation on the boards of harbour companies to chambers of commerce and the business community?
Harbours Bill, 1995: From the Seanad (Resumed).
Debate resumed on Seanad amendment No. 11:
Section 30: In page 28, after line 48, the following inserted:
"(7) The Minister shall, in selecting one or more persons to be appointed as a director or directors of a company (not being a director or directors to whom a preceding provision of this section applies), consult with——
(a) the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland (or any successor of it).
(b) the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (or any successor of it), and
such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate,
and each of the said persons may, following such consultation, recommend to the Minister that a particular person or persons be appointed as such a director or directors and the Minister shall consider such a recommendation.".
—(Minister of State at the Department of the Marine.)
Throughout the debate on this Bill I have been very receptive to amendments and suggestions made by all sides of the House on aspects of the legislation. The principles of the Bill are not in any way politically divisive. There was general agreement on all sides of the House about the desirability of introducing legislation to provide a commercial focus for our major ports. I was very happy to take on board many of the contributions and suggestions made by Members of this House and the Seanad, particularly as many Members who contributed have experience of membership of harbour boards. It is worth recalling that in the course of the debate on the legislation 77 amendments were made by the Dáil on Committee Stage and a further 41 on Report Stage——
And it is still not right.
——and 28 were made by the Seanad, many of them at the suggestion of bodies which are interested in port activity. In view of that I am disappointed at the tone of some of the debate today, particularly on this amendment. It seems to be based on a wish to dredge and trawl for some issue on which to create a political row.
Specifically the suggestion was made that the Government does not intend to provide for representation of business interests on the harbour companies, but nothing could be further from the truth. I repeatedly stated in this debate that the members to be appointed to the boards of harbour companies will be drawn from business and professional interests.
And party affiliates.
I reject the suggestion by Deputy Molloy that I have a bias against the business community and his attempt to paint an ideological caricature of a Democratic Left Minister.
The Minister is doing that every day.
I remind Deputy Molloy that it is an honour to pilot this Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas. It will establish ports as semi-State companies with a clear commercial focus. The aim is to increase trade and tourism through our ports and to reduce costs for port users so that business and industry can compete more effectively in the European market. I remind the Deputy also that I am responsible for port development and overseeing a programme of investment of £135 million in our ports aimed at improving facilities at ports for the benefit of business and industry and ensure they can compete more effectively and get better use from our ports.
Reference was made to what has been called vested interests. I did not invent the term "vested interests" in the context of harbours. That term was used by the review body when it examined the existing structures for the management and governance of our harbours. It considered the position where there are harbour authorities of up to 29 members, with appointments made by chambers of commerce, the Irish livestock trade, IBEC, the ICTU, shipping interests and so on.
The review body concluded that large representative boards of that kind were not conducive to the type of business ports must do in the competitive world in which they operate. It recommended that the boards should be significantly smaller than they are at present and that what it called "vested interests" should be excluded from being represented on the harbour boards.
The specific recommendation of excluding vested interests has not been accepted by the Government. There is nothing to prevent somebody involved in a company operating at a port being nominated to the board of that company, subject to the usual requirements about conflict of interests, declarations, etc. It is wrong to put forward the idea — as if it were an invention of mine — that because somebody was engaged in commercial activity at or near a port they were de facto excluded from representation on the port company. That practice will not be followed.
The principle at stake here, namely, the question of representation by the business community, is accepted by the Government and it has been repeated many times that the members of the port company will be drawn from the business and professional communities.
Deputy Molloy signalled his intention earlier to divide the House on this amendment but I remind him that the amendment establishes that principle clearly and provides for a system of formal consultation with a range of bodies, chambers of commerce and IBEC. As I indicated earlier, it also provides for the facility to extend the range of bodies which can be consulted to include, as appropriate, where a port has particular leisure interests, for example, the various bodies representing those interests. That is a reasonable proposition. It is clearly underlining in the legislation the Government's intention to ensure that the best people are appointed to manage and govern our port companies and that they have suitable commercial business experience and competence.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 43.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies Molloy and Callely.
Question declared carried.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:
Section 37: In page 32, subsection (1) (b), line 8, after "other", "suitably qualified" inserted.
This amendment, which was tabled by Senator Fitzgerald in the Seanad, was agreed to. It provides that the harbour master in delegating any of his powers or functions shall ensure that such powers or functions are delegated only to suitably qualified persons.
Question put and agreed to.
As amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 are related they may be discussed together.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:
Section 41: In page 34, subsection 1 (1), line 50, and in page 35, line 1, "a member of the staff of the company" deleted and "each person" substituted.
It was brought to my attention that it was unclear whether section 41 as passed by Dáil Éireann applied to retired persons in receipt of pensions from harbour authorities. I thought existing harbour authority pensioners were protected under sections 96 and 12 (1) (a) (i), but I accept those sections are vague and unsatisfactory. I undertook to clarify the matter and did so on Committee Stage in the Seanad.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that port companies continue to pay pensions to retired employees. Amendment No. 14 is a technical amendment inserted on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. I commend the amendment to the House.
I welcome the Minister's decision. Will he indicate how he proposes to deal with the arrears of pension payments in ports, including the £55 million in Dublin Port?
The Minister guaranteed that retired employees would be adequately catered for and this provision puts that beyond doubt. It would be incomprehensible if the position of former employees was altered dramatically because of this exercise when all the other aspects of workers' conditions are adequately protected. The matter has been put beyond doubt in statutory terms and I support the amendment.
I support the amendment.
Cork Port has a pension fund of £13.6 million which needs to be increased to approximately £19 million. Dublin Port does not have a pension fund, but a fund of approximately £50 million is needed. A total of £32 million is required to fulfil past liability and approximately £18 million for future liabilty. Limerick Port has a fund of £1.3 million which needs to be increased to approximately £2 million. Waterford Port does not have a fund, but one of about £4 million is needed. The position in the other ports varies. In many cases insurance type schemes operate which have been provided for in the legislation.
Pensioners and employees of harbour boards need not be concerned about their pensions, they will be paid. This amendment provides belt and braces security for retired harbour company workers. Irrespective of what happens their pensions will be paid.
The question of how funds will be established is not as clear cut. A firm of consultants has examined the financial positions of the various ports and published a report on the matter. At departmental level we are discussing with the various port companies the requirements they will have to meet to establish pension funds. While the legislation provides a guarantee that if worse comes to worst the State will pay the pensions, it has been made clear to port companies that the responsibility for establishing pension funds rests with them. We expect the companies to ensure they can establish the necessary funds. I am confident they can do this because, due to the growth in the economy, port activity is increasing rapidly and their trading positions are improving.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14:
Section 41: In page 35, lines 4 to 9, subparagraph (i) deleted and the following subparagraph substituted:
"(i) immediately before the relevant vesting day was a member of the staff of the former harbour authority of the harbour of a company (being a company in relation to which a scheme referred to in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) is continued in force under that paragraph) but was not participating in such a scheme, or".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15:
Section 41: In page 35, subsection (1) (c) (i), line 23, after "its staff", "and other persons" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 16:
Section 41: In page 36, line 5, subsection (1) (d), after "staff", "and other persons" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 17:
Section 45: In page 41, lines 36 and 37, after "considers", ", after consultation with the Commissioners of Irish Lights," inserted.
Section 45 provides that a port company shall place and maintain buoys and lights of such type and at such points in its harbour as from time to time it considers necessary. Buoys and lights are essential aids to safe navigation and it has been the practice in most harbours that the Commissioners of Irish Lights are consulted by port authorities before new lights or buoys are installed.
As it is now 4.30 I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That in respect of each of the Seanad amendments undisposed of, other than Seanad amendments Nos. 19 and 24, the Seanad amendment is hereby agreed to in Committee, that the amendments set down by the Minister for the Marine in lieu of Seanad amendments and not disposed of are hereby agreed to in Committee, agreement to the amendments is accordingly reported to the House, and that the Dáil hereby agrees with the Committee in its report."
Question put and declared carried.