Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 7, 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.
Harbours Bill, 1986: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert—
"‘the Act of 1977' means the Workers Participation (State Enterprise) Act, 1977".
I will take this opportunity to speak also on the amendments Nos. 5, 7, 12 and 13 but may I clarify the procedure? In moving amendment No. 1 and debating the other amendments, do we decide on each individually or collectively?
We can have separate decisions.
The House will remember that during the Second and Committee Stage debates I made the point on a number of occasions that I was concerned at the lack of representation for the workforce and the labour force generally, on the Shannon Port Authority. I was also concerned that, given the composition of the authority it would be impossible to have any member representative of the workforce or the labour force generally appointed to the board of management under the procedures set down in section 5. I said that this appeared to be not in keeping with the spirit of legislation enacted in the Oireachtas since 1977 and certainly could be seen to be insulting to the labour movement and the workforce of the harbour Authority at Shannon in particular. I made the point that the matter is not of relevance to just the Shannon Ports Authority but could, given the content of the Minister's Second Stage speech, be relevant also to other port authorities who will come to be reconstituted under section 15 of the Bill. In these amendments I am attempting to increase the labour representation on the Shannon Ports Authority and to ensure through a further amendment that there will be labour representation on the board of management which, as we know from our previous debates, is perhaps the more important institution of the two in terms of the day-to-day functioning of the port area.
The amendments which I have put down are designed in the first instance to ensure that the labour force of the Shannon Ports Authority will have at least four labour members. I hasten to add at this stage, lest there be any misunderstanding, that I am not talking about Labour Party members but representatives of the workforce and the labour movement generally. There should be at least four such members on the Shannon Ports Authority who at present comprise 21 members and who under section 4 of the Bill offer the possibility of only two out of 21 members of the Shannon Ports Authority being representative of the labour movement.
Second, I want to ensure that in the board of management the workforce will have at least two representatives out of a total of nine as proposed in my amendment.
Those two suggestions must be seen by reasonable people to be reasonable proposals because in the case of the Shannon Ports Authority, if my amendment were to be enacted by the House the labour force would have only four representatives out of 23 which cannot be assumed to be in the least outrageous or indeed even novel in the context of public bodies throughout the country, and in the context of the board of management the labour force would have two members out of a total of nine, again not an outrageous or extraordinary suggestion. Indeed, the extraordinary aspect of the whole matter is that in drafting sections 4 and 5 the Minister chose to give so little representation to the workforce and labour movement on both the Authority and the board that that was in a sense insulting to that section of our national life.
These are appropriate suggestions in the case of the Shannon Ports Authority and they are even more appropriate in relation to the proposed reconstitution of the Dublin Port and Docks Board which the Minister has indicated he intends to carry out under section 15 of the Bill without much further delay. On the two previous Stages I said that I am not at all convinced that the format for the Shannon Ports Authority is necessarily appropriate for the Dublin Port and Docks Board as reconstituted but apart from that the representation I suggest — which is a minimal representation for the labour force — at the very least must be seen as being a minimum acceptable level of representation for the workforce in the context of any reconstruction of the Dublin Port and Docks Board.
I have gone, further in my amendments in suggesting that the procedure for appointing the labour representation, both on the port Authority and on the board of management of the port, should in time be provided for under the terms of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977. All of us who were involved in introducing that legislation in 1977 understood that the principle and strategy behind it were that it should be extended beyond the limited number of commercial semi-State bodies to whom it now applies and applied then to a whole series of other public bodies who acted in the commercial world. For this reason I have suggested in amendment No. 1 and other amendments that the representatives of the workforce or the labour movement on these two bodies should in time be elected under the terms of the 1977 Act but that in the meantime the four representatives who I am suggesting should be appointed to the ports Authority would be nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and that those four, in turn, would select from among themselves two members to go on the board of management.
I do not think that my proposals should be turned down by the Minister. On Committee Stage I raised the matter as to why the composition for the Shannon Ports Authority should be as proposed in section 4. We had a long debate at that stage about the geographical distribution of the eight local authority members who are to be appointed, but I made the point that beyond the question of a reasonable geographical distribution of the local authority members another point of fundamental significance in many ways was that of the 21 members proposed for the Authority in section 4, while the labour representation was to be two, the chambers of commerce — who in function, authority, representation and nature are a movable feast in the context of Irish society — would have representation equal to that of the workforce. Again, manufacturers, presumably in the region, would have an equal number to the labour side. Ship-owners apparently were to have an equal representation to the workforce. These three groups together would have three times the representation on this Authority that the workforce are to have under section 4.
On Committee Stage I asked why this composition was devised and the only answer I got was that this was an historical pattern for the composition of port authorities. Of course we know that roughly a similar pattern applies in relation to the Dublin Port and Docks Board but it is a pattern which does not make much sense. Even if one allows that it makes sense, the proportion of representation between labour and other interests in the port is, to say the least, inadequate. Equally, if we are to have a board of management of seven, as proposed in section 5, given the composition of the Authority there is no possibility whatsoever that a representative of the workforce could become part of that board of management. That is not just unfair and not in keeping with the trend in representation on public bodies since 1977 but is also a recipe for very serious difficulties in the operation of the port because Uncle Tom Cobbley and all will be on the board of management or at least have the potential to be on the board of management given the composition of the authority, whereas the workforce have no chance of being on it given the composition of the Authority. That is inappropriate and a recipe for very serious difficulties in regard to industrial relations. For that reason I would wish to see the amendments I suggested accepted by the Minister and the House.
I do not wish to go on at inordinate length on these matters because they have been discussed already. To date there has been no response from the Minister beyond saying on Committee Stage that he would bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Communications. We have heard nothing since and there are no amendments from the Minister for Communications or the Minister of State to try to meet the points I made. Those are the principal points. We must come to grips with the fact that the workforce is one of the major institutions in this society. The only way in which we will make significant progress as an economy is by attempting to involve the workforce more and more in the running of economic affairs both at the enterprise level or, in this case, at public bodies level and in general macro-economic policy making. We do not do this very well at any level in society now and as a consequence we are paying a very heavy price.
In looking at the composition of the port authority and the board of management which appear to be a model for other port authorities which may be either set up, reconstituted or amalgamated in the future we should try to get it right in this case so that if it is to be a model then it should be one with which we are happy. Having spoken on all these amendments together will I have an opportunity to speak at any other point on Report Stage on the amendments I have tabled?
There is no procedure whereby you can speak any further on these. There will be separate decisions. The amendment has to be seconded.
I second the amendment as it would be a shame not to. We should help each other in that regard. I support a substantial portion of Senator O'Mahony's remarks although I have one criticism.
Acting Chairman
Senator O'Mahony can conclude and speak on this group of amendments.
That is satisfactory, thank you.
It is right and proper to discuss the amendments because they raise very important and fundamental points about the nature of the future of harbour authorities, ports and docks boards or whatever they are called. There were some very good points and observations made by Senator O'Mahony in proposing this series of amendments. It is important that the labour movement in the widest sense should be adequately represented on these boards. I do not think that the two representatives which the Minister proposes is an adequate representation in view of the substantial number of other interests and the area from which they are drawn
Senator O'Mahony made a very valid point when dealing with the Shannon Port Authority. He said that there will be eight local authority members. It is proper that they should be there. I realise the special difficulties of that area, encompassing such a substantial number of important local authorities having to adequately represent all the various interests. There will be two chamber of commerce members, two manufacturers' members, two elected members and five nominated members. While recognising that it is open to the Minister to include some representatives of the labour movement among the nominated members, the two members of the labour movement which it is proposed to include under the provisions of section 4 (b) (iv) are not adequate.
The reality of the co-existence of the various forces which together make up a modern industrial country must recognise that labour has an important part to play in that. I agree that the thrust of what the Senator had to say, in particular that the number should be increased from two to four, represents a legitimate viewpoint which the Minister should give very serious consideration to acceding to, either now or before the matter is discussed in the Dáil. There is nothing wrong with a request that the labour representatives, however they are selected, should be increased from two to four. The representatives of the trade unions, organised and unorganised labour, are entitled to an adequate representation. I doubt if the two proposed under this heading are adequate.
It is reasonable for us to question whether the concept of worker participation as we know it under the auspices of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, is an appropriate method of having representatives of the wider labour and trade union movement, or an appropriate way to get representatives of labour on to boards in circumstances where the authorities or boards they are joining are essentially representative in character. It is right and proper that commercial enterprise, even though it might have a social function as well, like CIE, the ESB or Aer Lingus, should have a greater amount of worker participation, a better quality worker participation and a better system of ensuring a better quality of worker participation. Where I would slightly call into question the suitability of this particular framework is where the board which it is proposed the workers should join is itself essentially representative in character. Nobody would suggest that the workers employed by a county council should be able to select two of their number to become members of the county council because it is not appropriate to what one would call a representative type of organisation. In so far as it is proposed that port authorities in general, and particularly the Shannon Port Authority, should be an essentially representative group of people, I wonder whether worker participation in that context has any greater validity than worker participation in the context of workers being able to nominate two people to be members of the county council or indeed people who are working in Dáil Éireann being able to nominate two people to be members of Dáil Éireann. We should be careful to recognise that the formula of worker participation has limitations when one is dealing with bodies which are essentially representative in character. It is only on that aspect of the matter that I would find difficulty with the series of amendments about which we are now speaking.
The importance of the amendments is that they bring to the attention of the Minister the necessity for looking again at the scale of representation which he proposes to introduce in this new Authority representative of the labour movement in general, and also the importance of getting some other forum within that employment where the management and the workers can, in fact, make a real contribution to the running of the organisation and to its wellbeing. However, where port authorities, harbour boards or bodies in general are essentially representative in nature, the worker participation legislation which we have at present is an inappropriate formula. Having said that, I want to re-emphasise that the Senator has made a very valid point with regard to the number of labour members. The Minister should give that matter further consideration between this and the conclusion of the debate in this House on the one hand, or alternatively at least during the consideration of the measure in Dáil Éireann. This will be a large Authority and it is only reasonable to expect that in those circumstances a substantial number of the local authority members will be business people themselves; the Chamber of Commerce members will be business people; the manufacturer members will probably be business people. It is important that that is balanced in a proper way, and the increase in the numbers of labour members from two to four, which is one of the underlying thrusts of the amendments, is something we could usefully consider and which the Minister could usefully accede to during the course of this debate or alternatively when it goes to the other House.
I missed some of Senator O'Mahony's contribution, but from what I heard of it, it seems to agree with the case I have been making which is for greater representation of the labour force on the authorities. I have long held that there is a need for greater involvement by workers in the affairs of the organisations in which they are employed. I am satisfied that there will be fairly substantial worker involvement in the Shannon Ports Authority, if it develops as all of us want it to. Therefore Senator O'Mahony made a very reasonable case. Others have made cases in other directions at other stages of the debate and perhaps we will do likewise today. I therefore hope the Minister will give these arguments, made here in relation to many aspects of this Bill for the purpose of improvement, the consideration they deserve between now and the introduction of the Bill in the other House.
Senators O'Mahony and O'Leary argued in favour of four labour representatives. The present proposal is that there would be two labour members and six others apart from local authority members and nominated members — two Chamber of Commerce members, two manufacture members and two elected members who, if I understand it correctly, would be representatives of shipping interests. There is a certain imbalance there as there has been in other aspects of the representation.
I support the argument that has been made by Senator O'Mahony in relation to worker representation. I earnestly request the Minister to give consideration to the points made by Senator O'Mahony.
Lest the impression was given that we did not intend to support Senator O'Mahony, I want to put it on record now that we did. I would like to thank Senator Dooge and my own party for not taking this last week because I had a sad bereavement in my own family and would not have been able to attend. This may have been only part of the reason it was postponed. Nevertheless I want to convey my thanks to Professor Dooge and my own party.
I have been here all through the Second Stage of this Bill and all through the nine-hours Committee Stage and now through the Report Stage and I cannot understand where the Minister, Deputy Mitchell is. Yesterday he could be changing tyres on a 1928 Bentley but he has not yet appeared in this House for this very important legislation. I say this with absolute respect for the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon and I do not want in anyway to make him feel that he might not be an even better Minister than Deputy Mitchell. But I must say this because I have been in the House during every hour this Bill has been debated and I think the Minister should be here also. It would pay him better to stop changing 1928 Bentley tyres and come in here. It might be even better if he got a helicopter and threw in a few of the officials or the people who drafted this Bill and went down and saw what the Shannon Estuary is.
Having said that, I support the strong views of Senator O'Mahony. When one sees a composition in section 4 of this Bill where there are 21 members of a new Authority and only two members from the workforce, then that is definitely an imbalance. Maybe it will change with chats in the corridors during the summer months, which seems to be the new type of Government, and it will eventually arrive in the House, having been amended in the other House.
I support Senator O'Mahony's view that there should be more worker participation. What Senator O'Leary said is quite correct. Perhaps the way of selecting the persons who eventually sit on these authorities representing the workforce may not be correct, but that is their business. The whole composition of 21 members is wrong.
In addition to the point about imbalance relating to employee representation on the Authority, there are additional compelling arguments for including employees on the Authority. What is often forgotten or neglected, I think, is that there is considerable expertise among workforces in various enterprises, including public enterprise. I am convinced that if their expertise were usefully employed through board membership, they could make a very valuable contribution to policy making. Regrettably, Irish Shipping Limited are no longer with us. One cannot help thinking that, if there had been worker representation on the board of Irish Shipping Limited, that could have made a considerable contribution to their survival.
At this point, following examination of the operation of the Worker Participation State Enterprises Act, 1977, there is considerable evidence as to how these board members are working out in practice.
I shall make two points. First, the board members other than worker directors have been agreeably surprised with the very substantial and useful contribution that worker directors are making to policy making and, on the other hand — we know this from concrete evidence — the worker representatives have been, in turn, agreeably surprised at how well they have been accepted and their contributions have been acknowledged and the degree of co-operation that has been achieved between the traditional membership and the workers directors. There is considerable evidence of this and I am happy to say that the Department of Industrial Relations in UCD have conducted research into the operation of worker directors in practice on State boards. The worker director experiment is a welcome development and should certainly be extended to a considerable number of additional enterprises, at least in the public sector. The Minister for Labour has long since promised the extension of the Worker Participation Act, 1977, to an additional number of State enterprises and I hope that that motion will come before the House very soon. It is already overdue.
In support of Senator O'Mahony, the opportunity now is there to double the membership to four which, after all, is not asking too much given the membership composition especially in relation to what might be termed broadly employer interests on the proposed Authority.
I support Senator O'Mahony: there should be more worker representation on the Shannon Ports Authority. From my limited experience of industrial relations, when you give a say to workers, you will get a better return. This should prove successful. The workers must be recognised and get adequate representation for their needs. The Minister might object that the extra representation might make the Shannon Ports Authority, or the board of management too big. Senator O'Mahony's amendment, No. 7, would probably increase the board of management from seven to nine, but I do not see anything wrong with such an increase. They are to be appointed by an Authority and as stated in the Bill, there is no guarantee who would be the representatives on the board of management, whether they would represent the workers' interests or the manufacturers' interest. It would be only fair that the workers' and other interests should be represented and that there should be fair representation on the board of management. We should not be obsessed with the idea of keeping these boards, or the harbour Authority, small. If we feel that it would contribute to their success, we should not in any way be loth to make them bigger.
As regards the suggestion from Senator Honan that the Minister for Communications, Deputy Mitchell, should go down by helicopter and see the situation there, it is only right to put on record that I know of few examples where any Minister has carried out more thorough and exhaustive consultations with the various local interests than Minister Mitchell did in this case. Indeed, it was so impressive that I read into the records of this House the efforts he went to in seeking the views of all of the people in the particular area before embarking on the legislation.
The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, was referred to by Senators O'Mahony, O'Leary and Hillery. It provides for the appointment of worker directors to a number of semi-State bodies in the Schedule to that Act, for example, Aer Lingus, B & I and CIE. Of course, this Schedule can be extended. The primary responsibility for the functioning of that Act belongs to the Minister for Labour and I am not aware of any proposals at present for bringing harbour authorities within the scope of that Act. If that does emerge, it will be given consideration — any such proposal, naturally, would be given consideration by the Minister for Communications. As the primary responsibility is with the Minister for Labour, it would be inappropriate for me to introduce provisions materially affecting the methods and progress of implementation of the Act in this Bill.
Under the Harbours Act, 1946, labour representatives have two members each on the main authorities, while there are four Chamber of Commerce and elected members. In the present Bill, representation from all these organisations will number two members each, given the smaller size of the Authority. While it does not represent any increase in numbers as far as labour representatives are concerned, comparatively speaking it does better the situation. There is a reduction in the number of Chamber of Commerce members from four to two and the elected members also. There is a reduction in the overall size of the Authority, so comparitively speaking while it does not meet the wishes of Senators O'Mahony and O'Leary and the other Senators who spoke, it is an improvement in the situation which previously existed. We are not, however, endeavouring in this Bill to change the general structure of harbour authorities under existing legislation. I would not consider this an appropriate forum in which to attempt to change the entire structure. If an amendment were to be made to this Bill to increase the number of labour members it would, indeed, be a change of structure and while I am not disagreeing totally with the principle of the matter as expressed by the Senators, and persuasively done so by all of those who spoke, it will have to be considered in the context of an overall review of harbours legislation.
Any major change in the level of labour representation would have to be considered, having regard to the implications this would have in respect of other harbour authorities, especially the main harbour authorities at Cork, Dublin and Waterford. As I said, further consideration will be given to the points raised, but it should be done in the overall context rather than in the context of this legislation going before the House. I was asked by many Senators to take back many of the arguments made and I will do that. Consideration should be given in an overall review because of the knock-on effect this will have as far as other Bills are concerned.
Concern was expressed by Senators O'Mahony and O'Leary that there may be no labour representation on the board of management. In response, I must again advert to the fact that I do not want to limit the Authority to electing specific people to the board of management. It was in that context that I agreed to delete the restriction on the number of local authority members on the board of management. Regardless of the benefits which might accrue from having guaranteed participation of any particular sectional interest on the board, I want to enable the Authority to choose the most worthy people for the board and not to inhibit the choice in any way.
If each sectional interest were to be guaranteed permanent representation, a board of management could not work satisfactorily. It is understandable that each interest would like to see its own position fully protected, and, indeed, this has been the thrust of many of the contributions during the other Stages of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill, however, is to co-ordinate the various sectional interests for the overall good of the Shannon Estuary.
Great efforts have been made to get the appropriate balance in the membership of the authority. Certainly, as regards geographical location which will come up later in amendments concerning the local authority, it is impossible in a membership of 21, or, indeed, in any type of membership, to get the balance that will suit everyone. The Minister has got as near to it as possible. I am not disagreeing totally with the principle suggested in the various amendments as regards the labour representation but it would be best considered in the context of the whole format as far as the harbours are concerned. Under the circumstances it will not be possible for me to accept the amendment.
I should like to thank the Senators who spoke on these amendments. Without exception they spoke in favour of the general principles underlying them. Senator O'Leary had one reservation about those principles. He felt the election of the four members to the port Authority under the 1977 Act, as I proposed in my amendments, was not necessarily appropriate. He did not rule out the possibility that it might be the appropriate method to use. He made the point that it might not be the appropriate method because the Authority is intended to be a representational institution. There is truth in that but I suggest that representation for the workforce can best be achieved in that representational institution through their ability to elect their own representatives to participate in the Authority or, under the other amendment, to participate on the board.
May I give the House one reason beyond the reason of principle, why this is so? I have a lot of experience of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. Indeed, two years ago I was deeply involved in trying to suggest methods whereby that port could be turned around from the position of financial precariousness, to put it mildly, to a position where it might begin to grow and develop and become financially viable again. As I looked at that problem it became very clear to me that part of the reason at least was that there was not an adequate awareness on the part of the workforce in the port, which is varied and large, as to what the real problems were, what the forward planning was, and what role they were to play in the future.
It is precisely to overcome that kind of difficulty which exists not just in the port of Dublin but in all large public enterprises, that the Workers Participation Act, 1977, was put in place. While I understand the difficulties which Senator O'Leary raised about whether the additional numbers, which I proposed and with which he agrees, should be put in place either through nomination by, for example, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or through election under the 1977 Act, those fears do not seem to be well founded for the reasons I have given. The reality is that in any large enterprise — large ports now as in the past are large enterprises — the way one secures the co-operation of workforce in the future is by involving the workforce in decision making about the future. It is best, in my view, that the workforce be involved through direct representation under the 1977 Act rather than by the appointment through, for example, the Congress of Trade Unions, of persons who may not in all cases be familiar with the life of the authorities concerned, or the ports concerned or, indeed, have much experience in that area. Ports are very specialised places which require special skills at Authority level. While welcoming very much the support of the Senators who spoke, I should like in return to say to Senator O'Leary that his fears about the use of the 1977 Act in this case may not be well founded.
I was seriously disappointed with the reply of the Minister of State on behalf of the Minister. It is true to say that the 1977 Act is confined at present to a limited number of semi-State companies, but it is not true to say that the responsibility for deciding whether that Act should be extended to other public bodies should rest, necessarily, with the Minister for Labour. There is also the obligation on us where we think it right as an Oireachtas, or as one House of the Oireachtas, to extend the provisions of the 1977 Act to other institutions should we, the sovereign Oireachtas, decide to do it. It is precisely that that I am proposing, that, given the fact that we have this legislation before us that all of us who spoke believe that the worker representation should be increased, we should decide, irrespective of the view of the Minister for Labour of the day, that this is the best way to proceed. If the principle objection to the extension of the 1977 Act to this Bill is that the Minister for Labour has not been consulted and, therefore, had not been given the opportunity to give an opinion, then the fault does not lie with this House.
The Minister of State also said that it is not the purpose of this Bill to change the structures governing all port authorities. He said it was a more limited Bill but we know that it is not a limited Bill at all. Section 15 confers on the Minister a very substantial power to reconstitute all port authorities or to amalgamate or disband them. That is a very sweeping power, indeed, which we have managed, with the co-operation of the Minister of State and I assume the Minister for Communications to limit in a substantive way by way of amendment on Committee Stage. This is the only Bill that will come before us in the foreseeable future which is of any consequence to the composition or constitution of the port authorities. I accept that there will be other transportation legislation in the future. I cannot see that there will be any other legislation dealing with the composition of port authorities, with their amalgamation, reconstitution of disbandment in the foreseeable future, given the powers conferred on the Minister of the day in section 15.
The Minister of State also said that the representation given to the workforce in section 4 is an improvement on the position under existing legislation relating to the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. I accept that it is an improvement but it is marginal. I cannot remember the figures involved but I think that the workforce will now have two out of 21 in direct representation compared with, I think, two out of 25 under the Limerick Harbour Commissioners Act. I accept, at token level, there has been a marginal improvement in the proportion of representation provided for the workforce under section 4 of this Bill. As the Minister of State appeared to agree, it is very marginal and does not take account of the views expressed by all of us in the course of this discussion.
The position remains entirely unsatisfactory from the point of view of employee representation. The proposals in section 4 for the composition of harbour authorities are discriminatory against the workforce. The composition of the board of management provided for under section 5 of the Bill is discriminatory to a degree which is quite extraordinary. Section 5 precludes, except under the most accidental circumstances, the possibility of representatives of the workforce becoming members of the board of management. That is an extraordinary suggestion to make at this time.
As I said, a great deal of time has been given by the House on the different stages of this debate to the balance of membership on a regional basis as between local authority members. That is as it should be if this is the format for the Authority which we are going to adopt. As the Minister of State said, the Minister in preparing this proposal spent a great deal of time considering how to get an appropriate regional distribution of representation among local authority members. I do not dispute that that was a complex question and one which would have taken up considerable time. I am not aware that the Minister for Communications, in preparing this legislation, spent even a tiny proportion of that time considering what the appropriate representation for the workforce would be. In so far as this matter was discussed, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, the representation for the workforce would only have been discussed in the context of trying to get right the representation for the local authority members on a distributional basis regionally and trying to get right the representation for the various commercial interests who will be represented on this authority. Representation for the workforce was strictly a residual matter. I object to that very strongly.
Some very welcome comments were made by Senator O'Leary and others. He did not note that there is no possibility under the Minister's proposals that there would be any labour representative on the board of management, except in the most accidental way where a member of a local authority might happen to be a Labour Party representative. That would be an indirect representation of the workforce. Nobody, including the Minister of State, has attempted to justify why representatives of the workforce or the labour movement generally should be excluded from the board of management. There has been no attempt to say why at least one of the seven board of management members should not be a representative of the employees. We know that the board of management will be the effective decision-making institution on a day to day basis in the proposed institutional arrangements for the ports.
I now have a choice as to whether to press these amendments or to accept the very limited commitment made by the Minister of State on behalf of the Minister to have the points made in these amendments considered between now and the introduction of this legislation in the Dáil. The commitment given by the Minister was a slim one to put it mildly. I can only hope it is the intention of the Minister of State to convey to the Minister for Communications, in stronger language than he conveyed it to us here today, that he is concerned to enact changes of the kind suggested in these amendments between now and the debate on the Bill in the Dáil. In those circumstances, given the very limited or least partial commitment on the part of the Minister of State, I am prepared to withdraw these amendments. I suggest, in the absence of agreement of some form between our political group, the Labour Party, and the Minister, that between now and the introduction of this Bill in the Dáil, the amendments should be put down again. I hope the kind of progress we made on other legislation over the last few months can be made on this Bill also. The important thing for the Minister of State to consider is that there is a will on the part of the Seanad to support these amendments. The fact that the Minister himself is not here today places all of us in difficulty, including the Minister of State. The reality is that we will continue to press these amendments during the course of the summer and, I have no doubt, in the autumn in the Dáil, should that have to be necessary.
I am extremely pleased that the Minister saw fit on Committee Stage to withdraw the original section 16, which dealt with the question of pay, and that he has been prepared to introduce a very substantial qualification of section 15 of the Bill, also on Committee Stage. These two developments indicate that we have been able to make progress on this Bill. I hope further progress can be made in the Dáil in the autumn.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related. Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 19, after "‘harbour authority'" to insert "where it firstly occurs".
These amendments are identical with amendments in my name on Committee Stage. These amendments were different from those with which Senator O'Mahony dealt in that they are not amendments of principle. Rather are they drafting amendments.
Section 4 of the Bill amends section 7 of the Harbours Act, 1946. Section 4 (a) of this Bill provides for the insertion in subsection 7 (1) of the 1946 Act, of certain words after the words "harbour authority" where those words appear in section 7 (1) of the 1946 Act. The problem is that the words "harbour authority" appear three times in section 7 (1) of the Harbours Act, 1946. I put down amendment No. 2 for the purpose of introducing an element of clarity into the amended subsection of the 1946 Act. I believe that the words "where it firstly occurs" should be specified to make it quite clear that the amendment to section 7 (1) of the 1946 Act is deemed to take effect immediately after the words "harbour authority" where they first appear, that is, in the first line of section 7 of the harbours Act, 1946. The words "harbour authority" appear in section 7 (1) (a) and again in section 7 (1) (b). It is for that reason that I move this amendment, in the hope that the Minister and his officials will have been able to appreciate better the point I was endeavouring to make on Committee Stage.
Amendment No. 3 is simply to provide for the inclusion of a table in the amended section. Again, this is a question of legislative clarity. The practice of introducing tables commenced in the mid seventies under the Attorney Generalship of Declan Costello. It is a practice which has continued principally in relation to Finance Bills. It is a wise practice in that it allows one to read legislation with greater ease and to understand and comprehend legislation without the necessity of having to resort to the parent Act. That is the reason I suggest that we introduce a table into this Bill. It is important — by virtue of the Minister's reference, throughout the debate in this House at Second Stage, on Committee Stage and this morning on Report Stage — that we have an all embracing review of the harbours, legislation at some future date. We have not had an all embracing review to date. This Bill is not intended to constitute such a review. It is meant to be an amending Bill. To lend clarity to the provisions of the Bill and greater comprehension to those trying to understand them I suggest the table be introduced.
I second the amendment.
Senator Durcan proposes a number of amendments which as he said, are of a technical nature which he hoped would help to clarify the position for those people reading the Bill. The Bill has been drafted by the parliamentary draftsman and approved by the Attorney General. The words which the various amendments seek to add are unnecessary from a legal viewpoint. I do not think there is any dispute on that. Nevertheless, I accept the good intent of what Senator Durcan is trying to achieve here. The best way to approach the matter would be by means of consolidating legislation. We have now the Harbours Acts of 1946, 1947, 1976 and this one. It will be necessary to introduce consolidating legislation in this area. Accordingly, I intend to leave the provisions of the bill, which Senator Durcan seeks to amend, as they are.
I can only express my extreme disappointment at the Minister's response. This Bill may have been prepared by the parliamentary draftsmen and approved by the Attorney General. But that does not render it a better Bill. Nor does it render it a Bill which is not in need of amendment for technical reasons. Frequently in the courts technical defects appear in legislation. There are technical defects in this section, of the nature I have mentioned. To make reference to consolidating the harbours legislation is not quite fair when there is no timescale set for that consolidation particularly when one remembers our practice of not producing any form of composite legislation. We have that form of legislation in relation to the Income Tax Acts only. If we had procedure whereby legislation could be produced in a composite form then one would not have the objections such as I have raised here today. But our Attorney General, parliamentary draftsmen and those who work with them do not deem it necessary to produce composite Acts in relation to all legislation passing through these Houses. I believe it is our job to produce the best possible legislation and the Minister's response today is one which leads us to produce the second best type.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I will reluctantly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 11 is consequential on amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 4 and 11 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, to delete lines 24 to 29 and substitute:
"(i) twelve local authority members as follows:
(a) two from Kerry County Council;
(b) three from Clare County Council;
(c) two from Limerick Corporation;
(d) two from Limerick County Council;
(e) one from Tipperary North Riding County Council;
(f) two from Kilrush Urban District Council, County Clare.".
Though my opening remarks a short while ago may have been somewhat sharp we now have a much better Bill than when this Bill was introduced in this House. I thank the Minister for the amendments he introduced, for his kindness to Senator Rory Kiely and me and for those amendments he accepted. On Report Stage we again have amendments dealing with the representation from the local authorities.
I must put again on record, regardless of whether it bores people, the points regarding the north bank and the mileage. This is Clare County Council's case. Of the total of 166 miles of estuary coastline, 93 miles is in County Clare, 37 miles in County Limerick and 36 miles in County Kerry. Kilrush has a fine natural harbour where major improvements could be carried out at a low cost. Their Castle Harbour has recently been leased to an importer who has purchased warehouses and is at present improving the harbour.
Senator Howard and I recently attended the meeting of the estuary advisory committee to the Clare County Council. It is an all-party advisory committee and we met in the famous courthouse in Ennis. All they are asking is that Clare gets common-sense representation. Senator Rory Kiely and I have amendments proposing two representatives for Kerry, three for Clare, two for Limerick Corporation, two for Limerick County Council, one for Tipperary North Riding and two for Kilrush. At the end of discussions Clare County Council or the persons sitting around that fine table would be prepared to settle even for four representatives from Clare County Council, Kilrush, SFADCo, Shannon and Clarecastle, because of recent important developments. I hope I took out of that meeting exactly what they would eventually ask and settle for. That is not in any way putting a gun to anybody's head because this legislation, improved as it is by this House — again proving the importance of the Seanad, on which I have strong views — will go to the other House in October and perhaps the Deputies will do better with the Minister for Communications, Deputy Jim Mitchell, when he appears there.
I would like advice from the Minister. I did ask him to come back to me on the question of the dues, where they were and what account they were in. We have an extraordinary situation in County Clare, even though we have a highly paid legal adviser to the said county council. I and persons like me and others who have served far longer are confused about whether Clare County Council is a harbour authority. I say it is. Other people with longer service than I also say Clare County Council is a harbour authority because they have accepted dues at certain ports and piers along the Clare coastline for a long time. Yet there is some delay from the Clare County Council's legal adviser in declaring whether Clare County Council is a harbour authority or not. I would ask the Minister to find that out for me. Persons who say it is not a harbour authority are contradicted by the fact that dues were collected in Kildysart and paid to Clare County Council. There is a Mr. O'Connell, who was harbour-master for a long time. I want to clarify these aspects before they go to the other House so that there will not be confusion at a later date.
As regards the end part of section 4 (b) this is what we voted on at Committee Stage. This is really dynamite because the Minister may by regulations specify the manner in which the local authority members are appointed. That is a crazy provision in a Bill. Not alone is he going to decide but the local authorities are only getting eight representatives on the new Authority of 21. There will be 13 representatives of other bodies. The Minister by regulation is going to specify the manner in which the local authority members will be appointed. This is the section we voted on and we were beaten. I presume we will vote on it again today. It is all right for somebody else to decide who the 13 other members will be, but the authorities of the region in Kerry, Tipperary, Limerick and Clare have to be dictated to by the Minister. Eight is not sufficient, but now the Minister is going to dictate how those eight are elected. That is not democracy at all. I want to clarify why there will be a vote on it. It is not one party against another. It is just wrong. I would equally say it was wrong if a Fianna Fáil Minister was bringing it in. That is crazy power, as indeed we have in a later section of this legislation.
I welcomed this Bill. I recently saw the following quote: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is; to believe with certainty we must begin with doubting." That is how I feel about this Bill. That is how this Authority might finish up. However, some part of it may do good for the whole area and indeed for the nation. The Shannon Estuary does not belong to Clare or Kerry; nor does it belong to Limerick, as some geniuses in Limerick think it does. I am not talking about the county council or about Senator Rory Kiely; I am talking about the man who had the greatest input into this Bill. He is not a member of this party.
I want to correct an impression given by young Senators when they were speaking on Second and Committee Stages. I had my young days in the Seanad, too. Other senior Senators at the time, like the present Minister for Education, Deputy Cooney, educated me. It would be best for me to correct the impression given that I found out only when this Bill came into this House that the Shannon had two banks, a north bank and a south bank. I would like to tell Senator Deenihan and his colleagues that I sailed every inch of the Shannon and I know every port and pier of the Shannon. I was well aware that the Shannon had two banks long before this Bill came into this House. Senator Deenihan was probably in short pants in Kerry when I was sailing the Shannon.
That is a good while ago.
I do not mind. I want to be quite clear and let everybody here be quite clear. I will make one admission — Senator Howard may support me on this — perhaps the people and the senior officials in Clare may not have paid enough attention to this part of Clare. They allowed certain people in the Limerick Harbour Authority to get far too much power and far too much scope over the years. I picked up an interesting document during the week where the RDO, who are supposed to be a regional organisation, practically left out the Clare coastline.
Senators may worry that Fianna Fáil — because we have the majority on councils — will only allow Fianna Fáil persons to serve on authorities. I want to put it on the record of this House that Fianna Fáil put Shannon Airport there, Fianna Fáil kept Shannon Airport there but we never gave a big job to a Fianna Fáil man because all the top jobs went to Fine Gael men in Shannon. It would be wrong for people to think that because we are looking for more representation for the local authority that we are not big enough to give other parties representation if it makes the Authority a better one for the whole area and the nation. I speak from experience; I know Shannon Airport. New and young councillors and new and young Senators have an idea that because we have the majority on county councils and on elected authorities as a result of the last local elections that we are going to grab all. That is wrong. I live and I serve in an area where we did not behave like that but that cannot be said for some of the Ministers or the Coalition Government.
I know that Limerick and Kerry are well able to look after themselves. I ask the Minister to allow us four members instead of two. Even if the county council are only going to get one, even if Kilrush is only going to get one, I ask that SFADCo be given one member and also Clare Castle because of recent developments. I ask that Clare should get four members. I know that the other elected people from the other constituencies will look after their areas. The constituencies I talk about are also my electorate but from the very beginning I believed this Bill was wrong. I thank the Minister and his officials for the Government amendments he brought in but I ask him to take back to Minister Mitchell my strong views on the matter. If they are acted upon, the Bill will be a better measure. I must ask that we vote on 4 (b). It is dynamite. It is not leaving any democratic right to the local authorities even to nominate their own persons without dictation or naming them by a Minister. For present and future Ministers that is too much power.
I second the amendment.
I am surprised first of all that Senator Honan has this amendment down. The membership and composition of the Authority was discussed at length on Committee Stage and that was the place for any changes to take place. I am disappointed with her parochialism. To borrow a phrase from herself, she must be joking when she mentions that there should be five from County Clare, three from Clare County Council and two from Kilrush Urban District Council. I have nothing against County Clare, but she cannot be serious in disproportionate representation she advocates here today.
In my own amendment on Committee Stage I pointed out that if there were three from County Kerry, three from County Clare and three from Limerick — that included two from Limerick Corporation and one from Limerick city — the Authority would be far more representative. I also pointed out that that would not affect the overall composition and the overall number of members of the proposed harbour board which was 21.
I made my views clear why I felt it was the right decision to have a 21-member board and to have a board of management. I also pointed out that it was important that each county should be represented on the board of management to ensure that local authorities, if they were excluded, would not feel left out in the cold. I would like to make that point to the Minister. I know the Minister accepted that at least three of the management board would be local authority members. Again, I would have preferred if it could have been stressed that at least one of them would be from each county or that each county would have one representative on the board of management. I still stress that aspect. The proposal in this amendment is far too unwieldy and I think it could not be accepted.
I should like the guidance of the Chair. I am very concerned at the provision in section (b). Do we speak on the amendments and on the section subsequently?
Only on the amendment. We are taking amendment No. 11 and amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 4 and 11 are to be discussed together.
May we speak on the section?
No. This is Report Stage. We have already completed Committee Stage.
I had an amendment on Committee Stage which I wanted to table again but I was told it was negatived because it was voted on. It was to delete section 4 (b).
As the amendment was defeated on Committee Stage, it cannot be put down for Report Stage.
May I refer to——
The Senator may only discuss the amendments on the paper.
We do not speak on any section on Report Stage, even if there is an amendment?
No. We can have a general discussion on Fifth Stage.
I accept the Chair's ruling. As regards the amendment, as was mentioned already today and on Second and Committee Stages there are two banks to the river, the south and the north banks, I am from the south bank. It might seem strange that I am looking for extra representation for the north side, but section 3 states:
The power, functions, duties, assets, rights and liabilities of
(a) the Limerick Harbour Commissioners;
(b) the council of the urban district of Kilrush, and
(c) the Clarecastle Pier Trustees ... shall ... be transferred to the Authority.
I feel that since, because of section 3, the power, functions, duties, assets, rights and liabilities of the Kilrush Urban District Council are being transferred to the Shannon Ports Authority, they should be entitled to some representation other than from Clare County Council. At present, Tipperary (North Riding) County Council have the right to nominate a member to the Limerick Harbour Commission and they should have the right to nominate a member to the Shannon Ports Authority. As I mentioned already, this will probably mean increasing the number of members of the Authority but we should not be reluctant to do this.
The Minister is obsessed with keeping the size of the Authority to 21 members, but if increasing it would contribute to its success we should not be reluctant to make this move. I believe that Kilrush, with their experience in harbour operations, and Tipperary, through their contribution to the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, would make major contributions to the success of the Authority and they should be given the right to nominate a member, if not two members, to the Harbour Ports Authority. Senator Honan and I are anxious, that that membership be increased by two to ensure that these bodies would have representation on the board.
I want to speak on amendment No. 4 and in particular, to dwell on the parts which apply to County Clare, indeed, to the northern bank of the Shannon. May I compliment Senator Kiely on his generosity and understanding of the need for balanced representation for the northern side of the river? He was only being logical when he said that if the Kilrush Harbour Authority, in the form of a council of the district of Kilrush are abolished in conjunction with the Limerick Harbour Authority and the Clarecastle Pier Trustees, it follows that if the Limerick Harbour Authority are considered to deserve representation on the new ports Authority through the two corporation members, the same should hold good for the other two harbour authorities which are being disbanded under the legislation. Three harbour authorities listed in section 3 are being disbanded — the Limerick Harbour Authority, the harbour authority in Kilrush in the form of a council of the urban district of Kilrush and Clarecastle Pier Trustees.
Senator Honan referred to a meeting which took place in the courthouse in Ennis last Friday evening. I was present at that meeting which represented the interests in County Clare directly affected by the proposals in this legislation. Members of Clare County Council and the Kilrush Urban District Council were present. The primary purpose of the people on the Clare side of the river is to ensure that there is progress and development on the river. When they revert to the question of representation, their concern is that unless the balance of representation is right, you will not get development of the type or scale necessary to make the most of this great natural resource we have in the Shannon Estuary.
The people at that meeting were quite adamant that the representation being granted on the northern bank in the shape of two members of the Clare County Council out of a total Authority of 21 was totally inadequate. It was put quite clearly that Kilrush as a harbour authority being disbanded under this legislation is, on any basis of justice or morality entitled in its own right to direct representation on the Authority. I support and share that view. Views were also expressed that the town of Shannon with its substantial oil jetty, also has a legitimate claim to representation. It is unquestioned that the Shannon Development Company should and must have a role on the Authority in view of their performance and their track record in industrial development in the mid-western area.
One of the matters that has worried many of us since the publication of this measure is that because of a wrong balance of representation there would be undue influence in the new port Authority by a group of people who have not distinguished themselves in port or river development over the past 20 years. To complicate that problem, it appears that the two best development agencies on both sides of the river are not participants in the new Authority, one by right and the other by choice — the Shannon Development Company on the northern side and Foynes Harbour Commissioners on the southern side. Therefore there is that lingering fear that, if you exclude those whose record in the field of development and progress is excellent, you are restricting the expertise, the experience and the success which these bodies have acquired over the past number of years. The Minister is not making these crucial elements available for the new Authority, particularly in relation to their development role on the estuary.
The Clarecastle Harbour Trustees as a result of a recent deal with private enterprise in Clarecastle appear now to be promoting the beginning of what could be a very successful programme of development for Clarecastle, the Fergus and the Shannon and there is a fear among the people of Clarecastle, due to their disbandment under this legislation furthered by the fact that there is no provision for them to have direct representation on the new ports Authority, that their justifiable expectations in the arrangements they have now made may not be realised to the degree that they would like for the sake of their community and for the sake of that part of County Clare. Therefore, as Clarecastle are the third authority being disbanded by section 3 of the Bill, they have a legitimate claim, as the Limerick Harbour Commissioners have, to representation on the board. Also, there are reasons for believing that Clare County Council are a harbour authority in their own right and, while the opinion of counsel has not yet come to hand, I have no doubt that by the time this legislation arrives in the other House that opinion will be available then. Therefore, if Clare County Council are conclusively shown to be a harbour authority in their own right, the Minister must without question consider that the representation as proposed in this Bill is totally imbalanced and needs to be rectified in favour of the north bank.
The amendment proposes a certain breakdown of representation and I will not complain about the two for County Kerry. In relation to the three for Clare County Council the feeling that emerged from the meeting last Friday night — it has been referred to already by Senator Honan — is that, while we would like to see the representation referred to here on Committee Stage, we are talking about adequate representation from the northern side of the river and, if it is divided between Kilrush, Clare County Council, Shannon and Clarecastle, that is acceptable. Once we get the additional representation that ensures that the interests on the northern side of the river are preserved in the decision making process within the Shannon Ports Authority and then we will be satisfied.
An expectation emerged from the discussion last Friday night that Foynes would come in at some stage to the new Shannon Ports Authority, and, indeed, there is provision for that. Of course, should that develop nobody, including the Minister, expects that the Foynes Harbour Authority will disband and come into the new ports authority unless they get direct representation on that ports authority.
Taking all these points into account, an argument is still raging in relation to what is regarded as an imbalance of representation on the proposed ports authority.
I have no great argument against the question of representation for North Tipperary except that if we consider North Tipperary we should perhaps argue that the area of jurisdiction should go as far as Killaloe. If we leave it as proposed in the Bill, no great argument can be made for the North Tipperary representation, but I am not opposed to it. It would, simply perhaps, help to maintain a certain balance that we are all striving to maintain within this legislation.
I, too, give the Bill a qualified welcome. We are now discussing the proportion of representation on the proposed Authority. Earlier in the debate the Minister of State said that Senators may feel that Limerick is over-represented — I certainly share the view that Limerick is over-represented — but he went on to argue that at present most of the estuary is under the control of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. This leads me to my main criticism, which, of course, has been made by others, that the representation as proposed attempts to preserve the status quo. It does not give fair representation to the north side of the estuary which, as Senator Honan has illustrated, accounts for over half the territory involved and over which Clare County Council currently have jurisdiction. This disproportionately large role given to Limerick is underlined further by the fact that berthing fees paid by shipping lines for the use of harbour facilities at Tarbert Island and Moneypoint go to Limerick Harbour Commissioners. Limerick is 50 miles up river, and that authority have not invested anything in the development of the harbour facilities at Tarbert and Moneypoint.
Surely fair play would demand that docking fees in respect of Moneypoint should go to Clare County Council to help improve infrastructual development such as roads and communications in that area of Clare. The same should hold for Tarbert, with fees going to Kerry County Council for similar purposes. Clare County Council have had to bear the cost of maintaining the roads and the environment in the wake of the construction of a major power station at Moneypoint. This maintenance work, of course, has cost a great amount of money and the docking fees for ships at Moneypoint would make a valuable and justifiable contribution to the necessary expenditure in which Clare County Council have had to engage.
It is evident that our amendment seeks to improve representation for Clare. Kilrush has been mentioned specifically. I have a special interest in Kilrush, not least because I have considerable local knowledge of the area. My mother is a native of Kilrush and my late grandfather, John O'Dwyer of Kilrush, was a member of Kilrush Urban District Council and Clare County Council for many years. Therefore, I know the people involved in operating the pier at Kilrush and they have a detailed knowledge of it and a comprehensive understanding of the estuary as a whole and its potential. As we have talked about the contribution worker-directors can make to the running of enterprises, we should also be alert and sensitive to the fact that people who know the local position and have experience on the ground can contribute very effectively, not alone to the development of Kilrush Harbour, but to the entire estuary, which, in turn, would be a contribution to the development of the country as a whole. The Shannon Estuary is a major national resource. I share the view that has already been expressed that Kilrush in its own right, given its history and the expertise of the people who are involved in operating the pier, should have representation on the new Authority.
Senator Honan and Senator Howard have joined together across the floor in making the case for Clarecastle and Shannon. In relation to Shannon, obviously we all want to see the Shannon Estuary contribute to industrial and other types of development. Shannon as an entity, and SFADCo in particular, have gained many years of extremely valuable experience in development, especially industrial development, and that in itself is a success story. Therefore a considerable amount of expertise is available in Shannon, which makes the case even stronger for representation for Shannon on the Authority.
At the more general level, the Bill represents on the theme of development a lost opportunity for the estuary which is a national asset. After 20 years of consultation and discussion the Bill is a major disappointment. I regret that it is little more than a policing agency for the collection of revenue rather than a development agency, a role it could serve. Having said that could I appeal on grounds of equity to the Minister to take on board our seriously argued case for a representation for at least four members for County Clare in the new Shannon Ports Authority?
On the specific question asked by Senator Honan and dealt with later by Senator Howard as to whether Clare County Council are a harbour authority, without attempting to give the definitive legal position, the position is that it is not a harbour authority under the meaning of the Harbours Act, 1946, which has a schedule and lists the various harbour authorities under it. For instance, Kilrush is listed. There is some basis for the beliefs the legal adviser may have in Clare County Council about the position of Clare County Council in this respect and I have been seeking to find out the basis. Kildysart Pier was transferred to the grand jury of County Clare by an order from the Commissioners of Public Works of 16 December 1886 and Querin Pier transferred to the grand jury of County Clare by order of 16 December 1886. This transferred certain rights and powers on them as regards those areas and they remain with Clare County Council. It is possible, therefore, that that may have been the basis for the belief.
There is no end to the possible permutations of the kind of representation one might get on the size of the proposed Authority. Having listened to all Members — there were conflicting views depending on what geographical location the speaker came from — the option the Minister has chosen gives the most even spread of representation providing equal representation from the county councils of Clare, Kerry and Limerick as well as Limerick Corporation. The counties of Clare and Kerry may feel that Limerick is over-represented but it should be borne in mind that at present most of the estuary is under the control of Limerick Harbour Commissioners and that any change in this situation is an improvement for those counties in terms of having a voice in affairs.
This Bill goes further in giving those with a legitimate interest in the estuary as fair a representation as can be devised in the circumstances. Having said that I accept that there is no system which would be totally acceptable to everyone. For instance, bodies such as Kilrush Urban District Council, Clarecastle Pier Trustees, Shannon Town Commissioners and Ballylongford Development Association have sought direct representation on the Authority. It is not possible to give direct representation to all these groups, otherwise one would have a totally unwieldy authority. It is generally accepted that an authority of 21 is about the optimum size. The fairest way is to confine representations to four main local authorities who have power to select their representatives from within those smaller groups.
The Minister can also redress any imbalance which he may perceive from among his own five nominees. In this regard he has said that he will pay particular attention to Kilrush Urban District Council. As regards Tipperary North Riding which is the concern of Senator Kiely and Senator Honan, I should point out that the local authority have one representative appointed to Limerick Harbour Commissioners. This appointment was made by way of ministerial order under section 8 of the Harbours Act, 1946, in recognition specifically of financial assistance which had been afforded some years ago to the commissioners by the local authority — Tipperary North Riding. Accordingly, Tipperary North Riding was not among the original local authority members on the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. It would be inappropriate to include them in the original membership of the Shannon Ports Authority especially in the context of the overall reduction in local authority membership within the new Authority.
Senator Honan expressed opposition before to the provision in lines 35 to 41 on page 4 relating to the power enabling the Minister to make regulations specifying the manner in which the local authority members are appointed to the Authority. The House divided on that provision. The four local authorities who are the appointing bodies cover a very large geographical area including areas which are quite remote from the estuary. Local authority members from the remote areas could not possibly have the same interest in the development of the estuary as those from electoral areas bordering on the estuary. The enabling powers in paragraph (b) accordingly enable the Minister to devise a system whereby only those local authority members with a legitimate interest would have the right to appoint local authority members. It goes without saying that regulations under this paragraph would only be made after the fullest consultation. The situation will be monitored closely to see if a clear need arises for such regulations. This is in the overall interest of the estuary. Subject to any regulations which may be made under the section, the appointment of the local authority members to the Shannon Ports Authority will be carried out in accordance with the procedures under the relevant local government section.
Senator Hillery referred to the possibilities of dues from Moneypoint for road development. Section 119 of the Harbours Act, 1946, provides that the revenue of a harbour authority shall be used for purposes related to the harbour itself. It would not be possible to use harbour revenue for general local authority purposes such as road development. Senator Hillery also referred to his disappointment with the Bill, that it was not a more vital instrument for the development of the area, but we have put the structure on the ground. It will form the foundation from which a dynamic ports authority can do precisely what Senator Hillery is saying and particularly with the two-tier structure which will be more effective in modern conditions. I hope that what Senator Hillery has in mind will come from this, because the potential is there. The legal structure that we are now in the course of putting into operation will allow the movement he wishes.
Not an inch has been given. We have eight groups for which I asked for representation. Like other Senators, I put a lot of work into this and all I can do is my best. Clare County Council, Kerry County Council, Limerick County Council, Limerick Corporation, Kilrush, Clarecastle and SFADCo constitute seven places. From the beginning I tried not to be parochial, although I was accused by a Senator not now in the Chamber of being such.
I had to come in here to make a case for more representation of elected local authority persons on this body. I repeat this again today. County councillors are elected by the people and understand what is needed in their areas. Out of 21 members the Minister sees fit to elect only eight. I totally support also Senator O'Mahony's views that workers should have greater representation on this Authority. When the Bill goes to the Dáil I hope that there will be further discussion on this. I am not saying that the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, is not au fait with the amount of discussion the Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell, had with the people this legislation will affect directly. However, I do not know of any discussion the Minister had with the Clare authorities and by that I mean those elected by the people of Clare to both the Oireachtas and the county councils. They sought to have a deputation received in this House when this Bill was printed, because they had not been consulted. If there was consultation with senior officials from the Department, two senior officials from Clare, without the elected members, then that was wrong. We criticise the newspapers and the media for knocking the elected representatives of this nation. I cannot understand why we have Ministers accepting advice from senior officials of Departments, thus creating the greatest knockers of all when they are knocking the elected people whose advice should be more often listened to.
The Minister is responsible for the Department, not the officials.
Thank you. The Minister is a fair operator. I do not mean the Minister here present but the missing Minister. He talked to people it suited him to talk to. But I still say that the local authorities have not sufficient representation on this Authority. I again want to state that I object to having the board within the Authority. I said this on Second Stage and again on Committee Stage. I see this board as being the boys with the power. They are the boys who will dictate while I am here, codding myself, looking for greater representation for the local authority members, and while Senator O'Mahony is looking for greater representation for the workers. But it is the seven boys at the luncheons and meals with the wine who will dictate what will be done on the Shannon Estuary. I have seen it happen; I have never been in on it.
The Senator might be in on this one, wine and all.
No. I will not. The idea of the board within the Authority is wrong, whoever thought of it. There will be conflict and trouble and the board will have the power and not the Authority where all these people should have the say. We even had to ask them to have a monthly meeting. The missing Minister saw fit to have only six meetings in the year just to tell the people out there what the seven bosses had done on the board, in the inner sanctum. I know well whose brainchild this Bill was. I know who the Minister consulted and I am disappointed. I have done my best. I have put a lot of work into this Bill. I hope that some of the things I have said might be reflected on before it is passed by the Dáil. I think that the representation, the number of elected people, is still wrong. The only thing we did achieve is that there will be local authority representatives on the board whereas there will not be worker participation on the board and that board could be increased. But there is another day and I suppose legislation has been repealed before.
I am not being parochial as Senator Deenihan said. But I am deeply concerned about this issue. I always held the view, which was held by Derry before me, that one Authority would be the making of the Shannon Estuary. He understood the estuary and knew it well and I do not think he would agree to that composition if he were here today. Certainly the last piece of section 4 (b) is dynamite.
I want to ask a question arising out of the Minister's reply. I am glad that the Minister clarified what he has in mind in the context of 4 (b). There is a lot of merit in what he said as to those local authority representatives elected in electoral areas adjacent to the Shannon Estuary being best equipped to provide local advice and expertise. I would like further elaboration from the Minister by way of an assurance that, in making the regulations specifying the manner in which the local authority members are appointed, such regulations would not extend to the political party composition of the local authority members and that such would be left to the councils themselves to decide.
It is not the intention to extend to the political element of it at all. It will be kept under review to see if the need arises at all.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Belton, Luke.
- Browne, John.
- Connor, John.
- Daly, Jack.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durcan, Patrick.
- Ferris, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Lennon, Joseph.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Leary, Seán.
- O'Mahony, Flor.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- Ellis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
Tellers: Tá: Senators Belton and Harte; Níl: Senators Kiely and W. Ryan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, to delete lines 9 to 24.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove section 13 entirely from the Bill. I am seeking to remove what I regard as legislative verbiage and I hope the Minister concurs with my reaction to section 13. I react in this way bearing in mind the contents of section 15. That section, which we discussed at length on Second Stage and was the subject of amendments on Committee Stage, gives the Minister power to dissolve, reconstitute or amalgamate, as he may consider necessary, a harbour authority by order. It was amended in this House in a realistic way, already referred to by Senator O'Mahony on Committee Stage. The amendment was to the effect that a draft order under the section should first be debated in the House.
My objection to section 13 can only be made in the light of the existence of section 15 and, bearing in mind the existence of section 15, section 13 is totally unnecessary. It seems to me that Foynes Harbour Trustees may be dissolved by the Minister, exercising his draconian powers under section 15, subject to the laying of a draft order before the Houses for resolution. Therefore, section 13 is absolutely unnecessary. Indeed, if one reads section 13, one will see that in essence the powers conferred upon the Minister in relation to the Foynes Harbour Trustees are similar to the powers conferred upon the Minister in relation to other harbour authorities. The Minister is smiling to himself and he may catch me out by saying that the Foynes Harbour Trustees are not specified in the Schedule to the 1946 Act. I may be made to feel foolish, but if that is the case I suggest to the Minister that, in ease of those who have to find their way through this complex legislation, a further amendment to the Schedule of the 1946 Act should be introduced rather than introducing this entirely new section 13.
I know the Bill is in measure concerned with the Shannon Estuary and that the Foynes Harbour Trustees are being gently teased along the way to total assimilation with the new Shannon Ports Authority, but the Minister can exercise his powers in achieving that end under section 15. The only reason I have put down this amendment is in ease of those who have to read legislation. It seems to me that the object of Ministers is to make legislation as confusing as possible for the general public, so that none but the most skilful and intrepid explorer can find his way around the complex legislation emanating from Ministers. I am trying to simplify legislation for those who will have to consider it. We can simplify the Bill by removing one section which appears to be unnecessary.
I second the amendment. I tabled the amendments to this section on Committee Stage and even suggested that the section be deleted. I accepted the Minister's amendment on Committee Stage, in regard to section 13 (4) which reads: "Where the Minister proposes to make an order under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House". Like Senator Durcan, I wonder if the section is necessary. The Minister, in drafting the Bill, included this section so that he could dissolve the Foynes Harbour Trustees and transfer their functions and powers to the Shannon Ports Authority. The Foynes Harbour Trustees have been very successful. The increase in the number of ships unloading in Foynes in recent years has boosted employment in the area. Any body which is successful, such as the Foynes Harbour Trustees, should be allowed to continue on that successful note without interference.
I should like to hear the Minister's reply to Senator Durcan's proposal that the section be deleted. If the Minister accepts amendment No. 8 the independence of Foynes will be copper fastened. I cannot see any reason for including it. If Foynes Authority feel like becoming part of the Shannon Port Authority they should be allowed do do so of their own free will and when they think it will benefit the Authority and Foynes.
The Government decided, in relation to the Shannon Ports Authority, that the Authority should be established excluding Foynes initially. However, the legislation enables Foynes to be included at a later date. It is the ambition of most people that it should be possible for Foynes to join without any coercion when it is found to be the most desirable thing to do. The main purpose of the Bill is the establishment of the Shannon Ports Authority. Section 13 provides especially for the possible future amalgamation of Foynes with the Authority and with no other body. It would be totally inappropriate not to make specific provision in relation to Foynes Harbour Trustees in the context of a Bill which is dealing with the port Authority for the Shannon Estuary.
In the run up to the publication of the Bill it was not possible to have Foynes included and it is appropriate that it should be included here. This provision will ensure that Foynes may become part of the Shannon Ports Authority and no other body. I know there is considerable substance in the arguments Senator Durcan has put forward, but it is a useful provision that will not make the reading of the Bill any more difficult. It shows clearly the intent and the hope — I accept that legislation is not the appropriate place for expressing hopes or aspirations — that Foynes will one day become part of the Shannon Ports Authority. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that section 13 should stand.
I should like to express disappointment at the Minister's response. The Minister accepts, on the one hand, that there is substance behind the argument I have put forward, but, on the other hand, he is allowing this legislation to get muddier and muddier. It is a pity that the Oireachtas is used for producing very grey, very muddy and, indeed, increasingly incomprehensible legislation. That is what we are doing today in producing this type of Bill. That is my objection to the inclusion of section 13 and that is why I put down this amendment. As I said in relation to an earlier amendment, I have not put down any amendments to deal with the principles underlying this Bill. This is merely a drafting amendment. It seems now that Foynes can be dissolved by the Minister, either in the exercise of his specific powers under section 13 of the Bill or in the exercise of his general powers under section 15 of the Bill. My objection to section 13 is, to state it again, the duplication. This section is not necessary. It is a pity that we are going to make this Bill one section longer when we could achieve the same purpose just as well, if not better, by having one section less in the Bill. With those words I reluctantly and with a certain feeling of legislative constipation withdraw the section.
Mr. Kiely rose.
Acting Chairman
This is Report Stage and Members can only speak once on Report Stage. Since the mover of the amendment has replied I am afraid the discussion on this section is concluded.
Could I insist that the amendment be moved?
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I withdrew the amendment indicating the basis upon which it was being withdrawn, namely with a feeling of legislative constipation.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed?
No.
Question put: "That leave be granted to withdraw the amendment."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Belton, Luke.
- Browne, John.
- Connor, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Daly, Jack.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durcan, Patrick.
- Lennon, Joseph.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Leary, Seán.
- O'Mahony, Flor.
- Quealy, Michael A.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- Ellis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Smith, Michael.
Tellers: Tá: Senators Belton and Harte; Níl: Senators W. Ryan and Kiely.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, lines 27 and 28, to delete "‘sixty' were substitued for ‘thirty'" and substitute "‘sixty linear miles' were substituted for ‘thirty miles'".
This is an amendment to section 14 of the Bill which has the effect of amending section 19 of the Principal Act. Section 19 of the Principal Act specifies seven circumstances within which a person may be disqualified from being appointed, elected, nominated or being a member of a harbour authority. One of those circumstances is specified in section 19 (1) (c) of the Harbours Act of 1946 which provides as follows:
A person shall be disqualified for being appointed, elected or nominated or being a member of a harbour authority if——
(c) except in the case of being appointed or being a local authority member, the place where he ordinarily resides is more than thirty miles from the principal office of the harbour authority.
In this Bill in relation to the Shannon Ports Authority the Minister proposes to extend that distance to 60 miles. The question was raised on Second and Committee Stages as to how one would measure those 60 miles. I think it was Senator Honan who raised the question of whether it should be measured as the bird flies. Various comments were made as to precisely how one would measure the 60 miles. Concern was expressed that in so far as residence of a member of the Authority is concerned, residence should be reasonably within the area of the Shannon Ports Authority. In response to questioning on this point on Committee Stage the Minister said it would be 60 linear miles. The purpose of this amendment is simply to give greater clarity to the Bill. There are already a number of grey areas. There are already areas of duplication in this Bill. We are attempting simply to provide better legislation. The purpose of this amendment is to follow the words used by the Minister on Committee Stage. In the interests of clarification I would hope that the Minister will not depart from the words he used on Committee Stage.
It is seldom that Senator Durcan and I are on the same wavelength. I spoke on Second and Committee Stages about miles — 30 miles and 60 miles. Senator Durcan has talked about rendering Bills more clearly understood. Now we have a new phrase: 60 linear miles, which will warrant some explanation. The world is sufficiently confused at present without bringing in new kinds of miles. If I recall correctly, I asked what kinds of miles these were. Somebody in response waved their hands in a particular direction. I asked that the headquarters of this Authority be located at Shannon Airport. I do not want it located in headquarters already tabbed for that purpose in Limerick city, a building bearing a reserve sign. My fear would be that the people who will eventually comprise the Authority may be located further away, whether in ordinary miles as I understand them or in the new miles as mentioned in Senator Durcan's amendment. I am concerned that whoever may be lucky enough to be elected as members of the Authority will be located within striking distance of their meeting place.
Section 19 (1) (c) of the 1946 Harbours Act provides, as Senator Durcan pointed out, that elected or nominated members of the Harbour Authority must ordinarily reside within 30 miles of its principal office. The reason the Minister inserted section 14 in this Bill was to extend the distance to 60 miles, given the great size of the estuary. Amendment No. 9 proposes the insertion of the word "linear" into this section. As I explained on Committee Stage, the reference to section 19 (1) (c) of the 1946 Act relates to radial distance, not distance by road or otherwise. The very fact that it is not qualified in the 1946 Harbours Acts means that no other interpretation can be put on it. If it were to be constructed as meaning distance by road — and if that is what we had in mind here — then we would have to insert it and the Bill would have to say so specifically. The premise on which the Senator has based this amendment is somewhat flawed on this occasion. I cannot see any necessity for the amendment.
I simply put down the amendment in ease of the Minister following his own comments on Committee Stage when he appeared to accept that there was need for clarification. I am somewhat moved by the Minister's response in this regard. I seek leave and if given it will withdraw this amendment.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, to delete lines 29 to 45 and in page 8, to delete lines 1 to 24.
At this stage we are only wasting our time speaking at length about powers given to Ministers or asking that any amendment on the clár before us should have any responsible reply, with all due respect to the Minister. The power in section 15 is very serious. I understand there was some change made on this section. I am not going to exhaust myself any further on it. I have moved my amendment but there will be no vote. I still have my worries about the power in section 15 of this amended Bill.
On Second Stage of the Bill and in the course of the Committee Stage debate Senators from all sides of the House expressed their serious concern at the rather sweeping nature of the powers given to the Minister under section 15. The section gives the power to the Minister to dissolve, reconstitute or amalgamate harbour authorities by order and that, of course, is a very sweeping power indeed.
I said during the course of both the previous Stages that the most immediate effect of this section would be to give the Minister the power to reconstitute the Dublin Port and Docks Board, since he has indicated on a number of occasions that it is his intention to do so. As I said at the earlier Stages also, any proposal to reconstitute the organisation of the port of Dublin, which organisation is not in itself undesirable, should be a subject for serious deliberation on the part of the Oireachtas, given the importance of the port in the nation's economic and social life. I would have thought that any suggestion the Minister might have to reconstitute an economic entity of that size should come before the Oireachtas in the form of legislation or a legislative proposal. In section 15 as originally drafted there was power whereby any order made by the Minister under the section would be subject to review by the Oireachtas within 21 days of its being tabled. As we know, this is a rather negative power of scrutiny for the Oireachtas.
In the course of the Committee Stage the Minister in response to suggestions from all sides of the House put in a provision whereby any order which he might wish to make under section 15 would have to be approved in the first instance by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is a step forward certainly from the initial provision. I must say, despite the fact that I have no intention of pressing the matter any further today, that it still remains a sweeping provision. It is one that causes all of us concern, even in its qualified form now. The effect of it, even as qualified, is that should the Minister table an order before the Oireachtas and seek a resolution from both Houses of the Oireachtas, for example, to reconstitute the Dublin Port and Docks Board or to both reconstitute it and amalgamate it with other harbours on the eastern seaboard area, the only opportunity that the Members will have will be to make one speech each on the topic when the resolution comes before the Houses. We will not have the opportunity to scrutinise in detail and to seek amendment to the order. We will simply have the option of saying "yes" or "no" and that seems to be unsatisfactory, given the scale of what might be proposed in relation to Dublin port.
While I accept entirely that there is need to do something to reconstitute the organisation of Dublin port, this is not the right way to go about it. It would have been better to have developed legislation which, for example, would have dealt with both Shannon Port Authority and Dublin Port and Docks Board in the same Bill if necessary. Everybody agrees that these are the two largest ones which stand to be dealt with in the short term. We have not been able to make very much progress on this matter. I hope, as in the case of the suggestions I made this morning about representation of the Shannon Ports Authority and the board of management of that port, that between now and the time the Bill reaches the Dáil the Minister will have had time to take account of the valid and non-contentious suggestions that were made on both of these latter matters. By taking account of what has been said and by introducing amendments to meet what is in effect the general will of the Seanad, the Bill as finally enacted would be an improved Bill on the one we have.
I would agree with Senator Honan and Senator Hillery that this section 15 definitely gives a sweeping power to the Minister, as does section 13. The Minister did go part of the way by introducing a new subsection under which a draft of an order will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and will not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each House. However, it is obvious that when the Minister lays such an order before the Houses of the Oireachtas he knows it will be approved because of the majority in both Houses.
Subsection (4) of section 13 and subsection (4) of section 15 are only "window dressing" because a Minister if he is under pressure from Members of the Oireachtas within a special area who want to dissolve the Foynes Harbour trustees or the Dublin Port and Docks Board can just ask the Cabinet of the day and it can be approved. They might think they were acting in the best interests but it might not eventually work out in the best interests of the locality. These things can be done for sectional or personal reasons. No harbour board should be dissolved under section 13 without the consent of the body itself. That is a right that they are entitled to and it should be in some way enshrined in both section 13 and section 15. There are sweeping powers in these sections. I am not saying that they would be used wrongly, but there is a danger that because of sectional or personal interests the powers in these sections might be misused.
It is true that the Minister has gone some way towards meeting the concerns of the Members by amending this section where he provides that where the Minister proposes to make an order under this section a draft of the order shall be laid before each House. That, of course, is welcome. It adds to the control the Houses have over the legislation. At the same time I want to join with other Senators in expressing my disquiet about the sweeping powers, as we see them, outlined in the relevant subsection of the Bill. Perhaps I could conclude by asking the Minister why section 15 (2) (b) has to be so powerfully and finally worded? Can he not find it possible to go some way towards us in allowing the Authority that might be dissolved in the future a direct say in that decision?
I support everything that has been said here. I do not take this section in isolation from what appears to be the thrust of Government policy in a variety of new Bills which have been introduced into this House. All of them in turn have contained a section which gives very deliberately quite excessive powers to the Minister of the day. I see this as a further tier in the over-centralisation of policy-making in the country. It leads to paralysis, over-interference, and it cuts back on the initiative which can be displayed in the regions and by local authorities of one kind and another.
It is all very fine for the Government of the day or the Minister of the day to have power in aggregate, to have power as to how funds are dispersed in a general way, but where it comes down to the absolute nitty-gritty of too much domination, too much interference, it has a paralytic effect. Whatever the arguments for and against giving powers to Ministers of the day, I can say from some small personal experience that one of the great problems facing every Minister now is the crippling burden of minutia laid on his desk without giving him full opportunity to deal with overall policy on national and international matters. Passing legislation of this kind is adding further to the necessity for political and ministerial interference with the day-to-day running and management of authorities around the country. Changes have to be made, rationalisation and matters of that kind have to be taken in hand, but when there is a serious matter like this the power to do it by order should not reside with the Minister.
The powers enshrined in this section are enabling powers which would permit the reorganisation of the harbour authorities Schedule to the Harbours Act, 1946, in line with the Government policy as outlined in the Green Paper on Transport Policy which was published in November 1985. I accept that the enabling powers under section 15 are wide, as was said by many of the Senators now and on Committee Stage.
It is the intention not to use these powers in specific cases without total and absolute consultation in advance. It would be nonsensical to attempt to do it otherwise. As Senators have pointed out, the amendment which I have introduced requiring a draft order be laid before each House of the Oireachtas which will be subject to resolution approving of the draft prior to its being made, will provide an adequate safeguard against abuse of the powers. I know full well that it has not gone all the way, or even gone remotely as far as many of the Senators who spoke would like to see it going but it is a very powerful safeguard in this respect.
On a point of accuracy, the Minister said that I drew attention to the draft order. I saw it as an improvement but I certainly did not see it as an adequate safeguard. I think the Minister ascribed that term to me, which is not correct.
If I did that I had no intention of doing so. What I said was that it went part of the way but that I knew it did not go nearly all of the way the Senators required. I was making that point as regards all Senators who spoke on this aspect. I said I believe it provides an adequate safeguard. That was my opinion and I certainly had no intention of ascribing that to any of the Senators who have just contributed. Otherwise it would be obvious I was not listening to what was being said. The point was made very emphatically to me and I was recognising the fact that what we had done, which I described as adequate, was not being accepted as adequate by the Senators in their contributions.
On another point Senator Hillery made, the Government have already decided in the context of devolution to local authorities that harbours that now cater for little or no commercial traffic should be handed over to local authorities. It is intended that this decision be catered for in the present Bill and section 15 also makes provision towards that end.
Senators referred to section 15 (2) (b) which they said was strongly worded. If the consent was required then it would be giving a total veto to the particular Authority and progress could not be made that is required in this matter. What is being attempted to do with all the harbours is to give us a better and more up-to-date system as far as they are concerned. There is a general acceptance all round — although I know there is a disagreement on this point about the sweeping powers — that something must be done about the harbours, both the larger ones and also the smaller ones which are of no further commercial use. Perhaps they can be better looked after by the local authority for amenity purposes. The present system is cumbersome and unwieldy because the Authorities in some of these cases were set up for dealing with commercial traffic that no longer exists.
Laying the draft order before each House of the Oireachtas will I believe provide adequate safeguards. On the other hand, I must note what Senators have said and I will bring it to the attention of the Minister.
Section 15 (b) has too much power. Section 15 (3) states, "The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section...". Before the Minister concluded he made reference to giving power back to local authorities. I do not know why this Bill needs section 15. There is massive power here and Senator Smith, who for a short while was a junior Minister, referred to that. No Minister is capable of watching everything go through his Department. We talk about decentralisation. Why is this kind of power in section 15 needed for this new Authority and why does the Minister have to hold this kind of power? If the Minister is happy with the composition of the Authority, why does he require the kind of powers as set out in section 15. Section 15 (2) (b), (3) and (4) gives massive power to any Minister. Senators Hillery, Smith and Kiely referred to this. I know Ministers have vast workloads but if we have faith in this Authority why do we need this section? As I said on Second and Committee Stages, the Minister could have brought in the Harbours Bill, 1986, with just this one section, section 15 which sweeps everything aside. I do not have Senator Durcan's legal mind, and maybe I am not reading this section properly, but I have asked other opinions on that section and I find the ministerial power in it frightening. As I said before, and I am going to repeat it, there are people who are capable of being Ministers and not abusing power when they get their seals of office, but there are people who do abuse their power.
I hope this Authority will be what we all hope. As Senator O'Mahony said earlier, there is all-party agreement in this House on the kind of Authority we want but the powers given to a Minister under this Bill scare me, and that is why I say again that I am worried about giving this type of power to one person. If the Minister holds the responsibility, he also holds the power under section 15. The change at the end does not change my mind or my deep worries about it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
On a point of order, I am open to your correction, but I understood that I might have the opportunity to move, without debate, amendment No. 13.
Do you wish to move amendment No. 13?
Yes. I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"19.—The labour members to be appointed under section 4 of this Act shall be nominated for appointment by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, to delete lines 18 to 20.
I have said it all before and I am sure the Minister has noted my remarks. There is a new body of trustees at Clarecastle and I would ask the Minister to convey my views that Clarecastle should have representation on the Authority. Clarecastle has a future. If we are sincere about job creation we should remember that there is great potential for job creation in Clarecastle. Today, there is an input by private investment in property and barges in Clarecastle of roughly £180,000. By today's standards, in a small constituency like Clare that is a big commitment. You have been a businessman a long time, a Chathaoirligh, and you understand finances much better than I do. Clarecastle will not have even one representative on the new Authority. I do not know where it will end. I am not putting this to a vote but I must make this case. I know Deputies from other counties will look after their people when this Bill goes to the Dáil. I have been at Clarecastle pier, I have gone out on a boat and I have seen the dredging being done. As I said on Second Stage, Kilrush, Kildysart and Moneypoint, should be taken into consideration when ministerial appointments are being made.
We discussed this matter on Committee Stage. I obtained clarification from the Minister in relation to the Clarecastle Harbour Trustees. Under section 3 the powers, duties, functions, assets, rights and liabilities as of now vested in the Clarecastle Pier Trustees will transfer in their entirety to the new ports Authority. The effect of this will be to ensure that the developments that have now commenced as a joint venture between the pier authorities in Clarecastle and private enterprise will continue unaffected within the new ports Authority. I obtained that assurance from the Minister and I am grateful for it. Bearing in mind that two of the Clarecastle Harbour Trustees are Members of the other House, I am content to let this section wait until it is discussed there, and with their immediate involvement, I will let it rest with their judgment. Having got the assurances from the Minister that the arrangements, the rights, the liabilities, the duties and responsibilities that prevail at Clarecastle and are within the powers of the present trustees will transfer in their entirety to the new ports Authority, I am satisfied to leave it to the judgment of the other House whether this section should stand.
The case for Clarecastle has been strongly made by both Senators Honan and Howard. The Minister will, of course, have time to think further about the contents of the Bill between now and the autumn when it comes before the Dáil. He has already promised, in respect of several sections discussed here today, to give serious consideration to the strongly held views of the Members of this House, and I hope that in adhering to that promise he will give due consideration to representation in Clare, which includes Clarecastle, on the Authority.
The overall purpose of this Bill is really to set the scene for all-round progress and development in the area and, while I cannot claim to have the local knowledge that the Senators have and have expressed in expressing their fears about Clarecastle, I hope that the all-round benefits will be shared by Clarecastle as well as the other areas and that we will have benefits flowing to Clarecastle rather than any diminution of them. The effect of the section we are dealing with is that responsibility for Clarecastle Pier is being transferred from one public body to another. Because the trustees will have no further function in relation to the pier it is necessary to provide for the repeal of the 1933 Act, as is being done now. A difficulty arose previously about the legal situation arising from the High Court order of November 1982 appointing certain persons to act as trustees of Clarecastle Pier. That matter has since been discussed with the Attorney General and there is no difficulty in that respect.
Are the two trustees gone or did they survive?
The trustees on the day of the establishment of the Shannon Ports Authority——
Are gone?
Section 19 of the Bill provides for the repeal of the Clarecastle Pier Act on the establishment of the Shannon Ports Authority.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to make a few general points as we conclude our discussion on this Bill which now will go to the Dáil. The discussions that we have had here on one very long day and indeed, in today's performance which must be considered a mini-marathon, and on Second Stage which took up some time also, have shown the capacity of this House to go through a measure such as this in detail, establish its weaknesses, point them out, raise them with the Minister and seek improvements. We have got improvements from the Minister and for that I thank him.
The Minister, the Seanad and other parties have the same objective: to ensure that this national resource, which is the Shannon Estuary, is developed in a manner that will give the greatest possible return to the nation. To achieve that we must get the right people at the helm and the right balance — I regret that I am bringing back this term again — in the constitution of the Authority and on the board of management that may emerge from them.
As the other House is now in recess, the Minister and his Department will have from now until the autumn to consider the arguments and the points that have been put forward in this debate here and to ponder on them carefully. The Minister for Communications and the Minister of State will see that the points made and the arguments advanced here contain issues that have not yet been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned and that will need to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned to ensure a proper outcome. I expect that some more changes will be made in the Bill, certainly with regard to representation, the constitution of the Authority and perhaps also of the board of management.
I conclude by saying that I believe that this House did well in its examination of this Bill. It leaves the House a much better document than it was when it was introduced here. Let us hope that the other House will continue the good work we have begun here.
I agree with Senator Howard that this Bill was very widely discussed in this House on Second Stage. Committee Stage and today on Report Stage. It was disappointing that this House today decided to refer another Bill to the Joint Committee on Legislation. We are very capable of dealing with Bills here in this House, as this Bill relating to the Shannon Ports Authority has proved. We all hope that this Bill will meet its objectives, which are the development of the Shannon Estuary in which other bodies are involved also, more ships using the ports and eventually more employment being created. I see nothing in the Bill that will create immediate employment, and that is disappointing. The dissolving of some port authorities will, if anything, reduce employment in the Shannon Estuary. However, I hope that personnel with knowledge of management will be on the new Shannon Ports Authority and the management committee.
On Committee Stage I moved an amendment to section 4 to delete subsection (1a) (b) which provides that:
The Minister may by regulations specify the manner in which the local authority members are appointed....
I tried to raise that earlier in the day but the Cathaoirleach told me I could not do so. I respect the Cathaoirleach at all times and I bow to his ruling on it. Subsequently, the manner in which the Minister can regulate the appointment or the election of local authority members to the Shannon Ports Authority was mentioned. Members of local authorities are elected by the people and they should command respect and high standing. Some people are inclined to disparage them. The paragraph I have mentioned undermines their standing and status. As elected representaives they are fit to make appointments themselves in what manner they see fit. I think that members of local authorities, for whom I have great respect, are discriminated against in this Bill.
I moved an amendment to section 5 and the Minister met me half way on it be removing a provision limiting representation on the board of management to only two elected members of local authorities. However, there is no provision whereby any member of a local authority will be on the board of management as applies in the case of a representative from the workforce. This is discriminatory so far as elected members of local authorities are concerned.
Section 5 (2) (d) of the Bill proposes that three members of the Authority shall be elected by the Authority. I tabled an amendment on Committee Stage which I withdrew in favour of the Minister's suggestion that he would delete another section which said that not more than two elected members of a local authority could be on the Shannon Ports Authority. Now, it is proposed that three members of the Authority shall be elected by the Authority, two of whom shall be elected members of local authorities. They deserve that recognition in view of the fact that they have gone before the people and been elected to these authorities.
The Minister of State said that the Minister thought it necessary to make regulations to ensure that these authorities when appointing their members to the Shannon Ports Authority would ensure that they would be from electoral areas nearest to the Shannon. I am very familiar with Limerick County Council who appoint members to Limerick Harbour Commission and Foynes Harbour Trustees. They always act in the best interests of authorities and appoint members who contribute to the success of those bodies. As far as Foynes Harbour Authority are concerned their members come from the electoral areas of Newcastle West and Rathkeale. Members are never appointed, as was suggested by the Minister when he was defending the inclusion of this subsection, from the Kilmallock or Bruff areas, they are always from the adjacent local authority electoral areas. We should have confidence in the elected members of local authorities and let them mind their own business. We should not specify the manner in which local authority members are appointed.
I appeal to the Minister of State in his discussions with the Minister for Communications to introduce amendments in the Dáil to rectify the anomaly of discrimination against members of local authorities. I am concerned also about sections 13 and 15. I know the Minister came part of the way by amending the section to include subsection (4) but it is not sufficient because the ministerial powers in both those sections are excessive. Power can be abused. I would be disappointed if the Government appointed a Minister who would abuse power, but there is always that danger. It happened before and it could happen again. I should also like to ask the Minister to have a look at the dangerous and sweeping powers which the Minister has in these two sections and to amend them in the Dáil where the Bill will be discussed before the Christmas recess.
Now that we are at the conclusion of this debate I should like to warmly thank the Minister for his long hours and patience with us. The Bill leaving this House is much better, but I am sorry that more of the amendments were not carried. However, contributions in this House by all Senators will help the Minister, the Minister of State and his officials to be prepared for the debate in the other House. When they see the composition of the representation they should be as big as Ministers to whom I referred earlier on today when there were senior appointments to be given at Shannon under former Taoisigh like Seán Lemass and others.
This is an Authority which would create tremendous employment if it was evenly balanced and if politics could be kept out of it. I do not see why this could not be done because we have already taken the Bill in this House — a House often decried for not playing the role the Constitution intended it to play. It always floors me when I hear people, from Ministers down, who have served long years in politics decrying the Seanad. They might be glad in future years to serve here and might think differently when they leave it.
I ask the Minister of State to ask the Minister to rectify — if there is a gap in representation — the composition of the elected people to this Authority. I ask for representation for Clare, Kilrush, North Tipperary, Kerry and Limerick city and county. The long hours given to the legislation in this House show the determination and commitment of the people of the west which is often underestimated when legislation is being drafted.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the long hours they spent in this House and for the amendments accepted. I also warmly thank the Cathaoirleach for the hours that I did not occupy the Chair as Leas-Chathaoirleach when I should have while this legislation was going through.
I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister of State for his patience regarding this Bill. He was most accommodating. While the Bill is not what we would all wish it to be, it is now a better Bill than it was when it came into this House.
We should look at the Bill now in view of the overall effect that the proposed new harbour Authority will have on the region. If the Bill is interpreted in the right spirit, I see no reason this Authority should not be very effective in promoting the whole region of the Shannon and ensuring the future of the area. The potential of the Shannon Estuary was well articulated here by various speakers and I am convinced that there are major opportunities here if they are given a chance.
Again, I would like to mention the whole aspect of representation. Certainly, I would like to see more representatives from Kerry, and I am sure the Clare people feel the same. Nevertheless, the whole spirit of this Bill should go beyond just representation for the reasons I stated at the beginning. I feel that if the proposed harbour Authority was larger it would take away from the dynamism of the Authority. It will be far more effective as the small cohesive unit that I expect it will be.
I would like especially to welcome the concept of a board of management. I feel that this will be the boilerhouse and the driving force of the Authority. While I sincerely hope that each local authority area will be represented on the board of management to ensure that Clare, Limerick and Kerry will feel that they are involved in the decision-making, nevertheless I feel that this board of management will have the overall interests of the area at heart. This legislation has been awaited since the late fifties and it is historical that it is now coming through. I am disappointed that Foynes is not involved, but I feel that, if the new harbour Authority can prove itself, if it shows that it has potential and that there are prospects for the area, Foynes will then consider it prudent to come into it.
It will be evident from what I have said during the debate today that my reservations and worries focus primarily on representation and on the lack of a direction in connection with industrial development contained in the Bill. With regard to representation as being fully teased out now as far as this House is concerned, I hope the Minister, given the months that will be available to reflect further on it, will give that degree of serious consideration that we consider necessary to the Clare representation as well as to Kerry, Limerick and North Tipperary. As a Clareman, my primary interest focuses on that county.
With regard to the development aspect, the Minister is optimistic that today's Bill will provide a structure that will act as a catalyst for development in the future. I hope he is right. I would like to have seen more of the developmental aspect in this Bill. The development aspect is of key importance, given the most pressing economic and social problem in the country, namely, unemployment. I hope the Minister, in his concluding remarks, will give us an assurance that all the points which have been genuinely held and not met in the course of the debate will be seriously considered during the summer.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister for one thing in particular, namely, the fact that he initiated the Bill in the Seanad. We welcome that in this House and hope that he and his colleagues will continue that practice.
I have a few things to say about the legislation. The Minister knows that I have reservations with regard to section 15. It is quite inappropriate that a Bill like this should contain the powers which it is proposed to give the Minister, not only in respect of the Bill as it is now before us but even more so in respect of the Bill as it originally came to us. This is the Fifth Stage and we are restricted to what is in the Bill now. But what is in the Bill is, in fact, still quite inappropriate. It is of very doubtful constitutional validity that the Minister should be given the power to unilaterally abolish an authority which was established by Act of Parliament. That appears to me to be most extraordinary, and an extreme power. Members might confuse that or might be confused in their minds that local authorities, of course, can be abolished; a common expression is used that they are abolished if they fail to do this, that or the other. But, of course, the local authority is not abolished. What is abolished there is merely the elected representatives for the time being. The local authority continues in existence. What applies in this case is the actual abolition of the Authority itself. By what constitutional authority could the Minister decide to take property owned by one group of individuals — for example, the Cork Harbour Commissioners — and give it to somebody else? It must be evident to the Minister and to his advisers that that is totally unconstitutional. One cannot just take property from one group of people and give it to another.
I am conscious that the Minister of State has done more with regard to meeting our genuine concerns in this matter than most other Ministers of State, and indeed most Ministers, would have done during the course of legislation. However, I feel that it is necessary for me to say that if we are lucky enough to have competent Ministers of State — in this case we have an extremely competent Minister of State — it is only right that that Minister of State should be given all the authority necessary to accept amendments in this House.
I have not spoken to the Minister and I do know whether he has that authority, but I suspect he has not. If one is going to trust a Minister of State to take a complicated Bill like this through this House one must entrust to him the authority to concede during the course of the debate. There is no Minister of State in this Government whom I would consider more capable of carrying out that than Minister Ted Nealon. He has shown by the way he has mastered this Bill, and indeed other Bills that have come before us, that he is well capable of discerning what is the essential element and what are the really critical points we are making from the general points which we all like to make from time to time to expand our own knowledge and get across our own personal interests in various aspects of the legislation. For all these reasons I would ask the Minister of State and the Minister to whom he reports to give the most serious consideration to the points that have been raised so that this Minister, or whichever Minister is taking it in the Dáil, can take it in the same spirit as it has been taken in this House and that further improvement can be made in the Bill during its course through that House. If that happens I think that both Houses of the Oireachtas will have done a good day's work.
I want to make a few brief remarks. On Second Stage and also on Committee Stage I said that in my opinion the spirit of this Bill was extremely important to the establishment of the Shannon Ports Authority. I am satisfied from the goodwill of the Minister and the measure of co-operation forthcoming in the various areas that have been discussed at length, that a good spirit obtains with regard to the establishment of the Shannon Port Authority. I reiterate that it does not materially matter where the representatives come from provided broad account is taken of geographical and other representation, resulting in the right type of Authority, which includes people who are competent and capable of doing the job well.
The potential of the estuarial Authority is enormous, encompassing the entire region of Limerick, Kerry, Clare and, indeed, extending further afield into other counties as well. There is vast potential for great industrial development which has been impeded by lack of a really dynamic Shannon port authority up to now. I, therefore, look forward to this very significant development where we have in train the establishment of a Shannon Port Authority which, I believe, will have the co-operation of all concerned. The point was made already, and I emphasise it again, that it is vital that the board, in the first instance, the management board in the second instance and, indeed, the personnel at professional level who direct the Shannon Port Authority, be of the calibre required to do the job right.
When the Minister comes to the stage of making his nominations to the board he must take account of the various areas that need to be considered, for example, the areas of trade, the workforce, the various entrepreneurs and geographical aspects as well. Above all, and I urge this very strongly on the Minister, the question of the type of person acting on that board is of paramount importance having regard, of course, to all the other points mentioned. The Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, who has spent much time in this House listening to various views expressed at the various Stages of this Bill, has helped enormously the Members of this House to understand more clearly what is involved and it is hoped that he has learned a good deal from the views and aspirations expressed here, which are a reflection of what people are thinking at this time in that general area.
Very briefly, I would like to thank Members of the House for their valuable contributions. These as Senators have said, have been long and very detailed, but they have been also worthwhile. The Bill now, as amended substantially in some vital areas, is a well balanced instrument to achieve the overall purpose and desire of the single ports Authority. Naturally, the opinions that have been expressed here do not die once the debate ceases. They obviously must be taken into consideration as the Bill is carried on further to the Dáil. They will be considered by me and brought to the attention of the Minister where strong opinions and in some cases consensus of opinion have been expressed.
I genuinely think this marks a time of new opportunities and new possibilities for the Shannon Estuary. The true potential of that area could never be realised — and it has enormous potential — until there was a single ports Authority. The Seanad has given a very good start to that process. Once the Bill goes through the Dáil and has been enacted, the Minister will be pressing ahead with the necessary back up orders and regulations to ensure that there is no undue delay in the full establishment of the Authority. As many Senators said during the course of the debate, it has been a very long wait but the turning point has obviously now come. The Seanad has made a major contribution through the excellent debate here in ensuring that the best possible results will be gained.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.45 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.