I move amendment No. 14:
In page 44, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(b) The Harbour Master of a harbour shall refuse entry into a harbour of a ship or a vehicle or any other conveyance that is powered by nuclear power.".
Harbours Bill, 1995: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 67, line 29, to delete" , and may be exercised in conjunction with,".
This amendment is being put forward at the request of the parliamentary draftsman who has advised that the phrase "and may be exercised in conjunction with" in section 79 is superfluous and may cause confusion at some future date. He has recommended that the phrase be deleted.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 16 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
I want to make a few comments on my amendment.
Acting Chairman
The Senator must accept the Chair's ruling on the amendment. I will now proceed to amendment No. 17.
I only want to make one point.
Acting Chairman
The Senator was allowed to raise the subject matter of this amendment on Committee Stage. However, we are not discussing the Bill section by section on Report Stage. Procedure does not allow the Senator to raise the subject matter of the amendment.
I only want to clarify a matter with the Minister.
Acting Chairman
This is totally out of order and I must rule accordingly.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 72, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(7) On the commencement of this subsection there shall stand transferred to Kerry County Council the following harbours and piers at Tarbert and Salleen and the areas within both piers including the Tarbert Island jetty, Tarbert Ferry Terminal and Tarbert Gantry.".
Perhaps the Minister could explain the situation as regards transfers as they apply to harbours which will not be set up as semi-State bodies. I am particularly interested in the development of Sligo harbour, a matter that was raised by Senator Reynolds on Second Stage but which the Minister did not respond to then. A strong case has been made for the development of Sligo port and a good deal of money has been invested in it. However, there is a huge geographical gap as regards the ports which will be created as semi-State bodies because most of them will be located south and east of Galway. I am concerned about the absence of development at Sligo port, particularly in the light of the development of the Masonite timber plant in Carrick-on-Shannon. This will have an industrial and economic benefit not only for the immediate area but also for the north-west. The company has plans to transport its materials by rail, therefore, it will want port access. At present there is a strong lobby in the north-west to have the N16 road upgraded. This will create greater access to the port of Larne and will have an inhibiting effect on the future development of Sligo harbour as a commercial entity.
Acting Chairman
This amendment relates to Kerry County Council.
I am anxious to know the Minister's views on this issue.
Acting Chairman
The Minister has not been given notice of any other matter.
I understand that the pier at Tarbert and the Tarbert ferry terminal are already in the ownership of Kerry County Council. The Tarbert island jetty is owned by the ESB and is under the jurisdiction of Limerick Harbour Commissioners. The Tarbert gantry is a Commissioners of Irish Lights buoy repair yard. I further understand that Salleen pier is owned by the Commissioners of Public Works, although I have been unable to clarify this definitively.
I draw the Senator's attention to section 91 which deals with the limits of harbours under the control or management of local authorities. That section empowers the Minister after consultation with the local authority concerned to define the limits of a harbour which is under the control or management of a local authority. As the pier at Tarbert is already in the ownership of Kerry County Council, section 91 could be invoked if at some stage Kerry County Council wished to have harbour limits defined for Tarbert. In my view, the initiative in this regard would have to be taken by Kerry County Council in the first instance. There would also have to be full consultations with Limerick Harbour Commissioners on the matter as the definition of limits for Tarbert would involve encroachment on an area over which Limerick Harbour Commissioners exercise jurisdiction at present. The amendment is unnecessary and I ask for it to be withdrawn.
As regards the point raised by Senator Mooney, the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, visited Sligo port last week. There is a number of options open to ports which are not being set up as semi-State bodies under this legislation. They can become semi-State bodies in the future, they can remain as they are under the 1946 Act or they can be transferred to the local authorities, with the agreement of the local authorities concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 18: 18 has already been discussed with amendment No. 13.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 76, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"(2) The following section is hereby inserted after section 87 of the Act of 1946:
87 A. (1) The harbour master of a harbour may refuse entry into the harbour of a vessel, vehicle or other conveyance that is carrying dangerous goods (within the meaning of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code) which, in his or her opinion, would be likely to endanger persons or property. (2) None of the following, namely
(a) a nuclear powered vessel, vehicle or other conveyance,
(b) a vessel, vehicle or other conveyance that is carrying one or more nuclear weapons,
(c) a vessel, vehicle or other conveyance that is carrying nuclear material (within the meaning of the Radiological Protection Act, 1991), shall enter a harbour.
(3) (a) The Minister may by order exempt a vessel carrying nuclear material of a specified class or classes from the application of subsection (2) (c) of this section and for so long as such an order is in force the said subsection (2) (c) shall be construed and have effect in accordance with the order.
(b) The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this subsection (including an order under this paragraph).
(c) The reference in this subsection to an order in force shall, as respects such an order that is amended by an order in force under paragraph (b) of this subsection, be construed as a reference to the first-mentioned order as so amended.
(4) If a vessel, vehicle or other conveyance
(a) being a vessel, vehicle or other conveyance that has been refused entry into a harbour under subsection (1) of this section, enters the harbour,
(b) in contravention of subsection (2) of this section, enters a harbour, the owner and master of the vessel or the owner of the vehicle or conveyance or the person to whom the vehicle or conveyance is hired for the time being shall each be guilty of an offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.
(6) In this section "International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code" means the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code adopted by the International Maritime Organisation and includes any amendments of that code for the time being adopted by that organisation.'.".
Amendment put and agreed to.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I commend the Minister for the way he handled this Bill. I thank and commend my team on this side of the House, Senators Fitzgerald, Daly, Mooney and Rory Kiely who played their part. The Minister also played his part in responding to amendments that he and those advising him believed would make for a better Bill. The number of amendments taken in the House is probably unique.
With regard to section 88, I am sure the Minister would not wish to ruin a very good Bill by not dealing with the issues relating to an area dear to my heart. I do not speak entirely politically, but as part of a family that has been part and parcel of the two areas of Skerries and Balbriggan for 100 years. If fish was caught in those areas, my family bought it. Indeed, today's local paper reports that all members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Progressive Democrats, Green, The Workers' Party or Independent, supported a motion on this issue two weeks ago.
The Minister advised me this morning that there was another role with regard to consultation and so on. I hope that when requests are made by Fingal County Council, the Minister and his Department will meet those who have an interest in the area to ensure basic facilities.
When I mentioned last week that some resources were being put into the area for the first time since 1972, the Minister rightly advised me that he was involved. However, I ask him to understand that it is not enough for a port of the importance of Skerries to be satisfied with the removal of two wrecks at a cost of £20,000, or that the port considers this to be the fulfilment of an obligation. The Minister and his Department will have an opportunity to put this right, and I hope that in the consultation process in the coming months, and before the two areas are handed over to Fingal County Council, the Minister will ensure that some of the basic needs of Skerries Harbour will be identified and looked after.
The Minister has done a good day's work on this Bill. I have no doubt that the industry, and the position of the harbours, will be improved following enactment of this legislation. The Minister suggested, off the record this morning, the kind of process that will take place. I ask him to ensure that this process is given a chance so that section 88 is improved and that the two harbours in question will play their part in the promotion of the fishing industry in the area I represent.
I welcome the passing of this Bill and congratulate the Minister. It is one of the most significant to have been put through the House this session. It is an exciting Bill in that it creates a new scene throughout the 12 harbours concerned and creates 12 new semi State organisations.
I especially congratulate the Minister for taking on board the views of the House, on Second Stage and on Committee Stage. The House has significantly improved the Bill. It is important that Ministers listen to what we say, in this instance, the Minister listened carefully to what we said and took all the positive points on board.
I raised problems on the issue of pilotage in Foynes and Limerick. We must ensure there are no delays on ships coming through Foynes as it creates a non commercial situation. Perhaps the Minister will also look at the involvement of Foynes and Limerick, if difficulties arise, in the review group similar to the one that has taken place in the Minister's office in Waterford.
I thank the Minister, and the senior Minister, for listening to the various organisations outside the House that lobbied him over a number of months. The Government, the Ministers and their officials listened to the views of people, as we did. We were lobbied very strongly on this Bill and we were happy to listen. It is good for democracy that we are advised and spoken to by those who have expertise in this area. It improved the Bill.
I thank the Minister, Noreen O'Mahony and her staff for their work on the Bill for probably a number of years, certainly months and especially over the last number of weeks while it was going through the Dáil and the Seanad. We have done a great few months' work in ensuring that there is a very bright and exciting future for our harbours.
I am very happy with the Bill. Perhaps for the first time, the other House and those outside will see the valuable contribution that this House can make to a Bill. The Minister listened to all arguments, and I know that, behind the scenes, he and his staff, including Noreen O'Mahony, consulted groups that had problems with the Bill, even as it was going through the House.
I thank Senators Daly, Rory Kiely, Dan Kiely, Wright, Mooney, and Neville, the Leader of the House, the Independents, Senator Dardis and all who contributed to the Bill and helped to make it better. In addition, I do not wish to forget the role played in lobbying us by the harbour masters, the chambers of commerce, the pilots, New Ross and Waterford Harbours and the ship agents.
Probably the happiest people leaving the House today are those from Foynes. They did a very good job at lobbying and took a fierce interest in the Bill at all stages. Every day some member of the harbour board, in the form of either Councillor Kevin Sheehan or Councillor John Griffin and others, was in the public gallery watching the Bill progress through the House.
I thank the Minister and Noreen O'Mahony and her staff for all the months of hard work they put into this Bill. I recall speaking to Ms O'Mahony almost two years ago and she worked hard on it since then. It might have been better to have introduced two Bills within a short space of time, the Harbours Bill being one of them, and a Bill dealing with pilots and pilotage. However, that is all water under the bridge.
When the Minister for the Marine, spoke on Second Stage he referred to the debate on the 1946 Act and mentioned the Senators who contributed to it. I hope at some time in the distant future, other Senators and another Minister will when contributing on another Bill acknowledge what this House, the Minister and his staff have done here. I thank the Minister from the bottom of my heart.
I am very proud of the Minister of State. His stature as a Minister has been enhanced by the compliments paid to him and to his staff. It was important for the Minister to enact legislation providing for the establishment of State companies to handle port operations and pilot it through the Seanad.
I was concerned about some aspects, having had consultations on two or three occasions with the pilots in the Cork harbour area. They expressed concern about the vulnerability of the harbour now that it has been designated a chemical industries harbour. Their main concern was about granting licences to masters or mates of ships carrying dangerous cargoes. This amendment will assuage their fears. The Minister said the international maritime dangerous goods code was being examined to see if it was strong enough. That will reassure the people to whom I have spoken about this important legislation. Safety precautions must not be sacrificed to commercial interest and we must always keep the balance right.
I am delighted to have been given an opportunity to comment.
I echo the remarks of other Senators but not in any ritualistic way. I am glad Senator Sherlock spoke immediately after Senator Fitzgerald because I needed time to wipe away the tears following Senator Fitzgerald's eloquent touching oration. This is a good Bill. The Minister gave an impressive performance. Some of his colleagues might note the way in which he met the concerns of Senators. His listening was exemplary and encouraged Senators who put some work into trying to master the details of the legislation.
I also appreciated Senator Fitzgerald's significant contribution which helped make this a very good Bill. People form their opinions about a Department at least partly on the performance of a Minister in this House and the demeanour of the civil servants behind him. I go away with a very high opinion of the Minister's Department and the calibre of his staff.
I join other Members in thanking the Minister and his staff for the way they have conducted this legislation through the House. It has reflected very well on the House, the Minister and democracy in general, and is an example of how we should do our business. We have had a debate in the true sense of the word rather than, as we sometimes have, a dialogue of the deaf. The Minister is to be commended for the way he listened.
I endorse what Senator Lee said about Senator Fitzgerald. It required a great deal of work to put down the number of amendments he proposed on Committee Stage. But for those amendments, it is arguable whether we would have improved the Bill to such an extent. He deserves a particular word of praise.
I have no objection to lobbying, as it is part of our democratic process. However, there is a lesson to be learnt here. It is far more effective to come and talk to people and go around to the various parties and groups than it is to indulge in mob rule at the gates of the House. Other groups might learn from the way in which lobbying was done effectively, well and in a balanced way in this instance. Nobody was put under undue pressure. We were just told people's case and we listened.
Senator Fitzgerald referred to the nuclear aspect. We have done a practical and effective thing in legislating to control vessels coming in and I suspect it will not get any attention. People get very excited about Sellafield and get much attention. The Minister made the point that there is a great deal of material being transported and that it is not just the land based facilities which pose a problem. In many ways what is aboard vessels is an even greater problem. We have done an effective job and a good day's work. I hope the legislation achieves the desired results.
I also compliment the Minister on the way he handled this legislation. He listened to the debate and took on board any complaints. This Bill was vastly improved in this House and it shows how important this House is to the legislative process and proved that the input of Senators is necessary. My colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, was rightly applauded. There is a great sense of Kerry loyalty here but he deserved every praise for the amendments he proposed. I am delighted the Bill has passed. This is the third Harbours Bill to which I have contributed. I was very much involved in the two earlier Bills which caused general elections. Thank God this one did not.
I compliment the people who came and spoke to us privately. Senator Neville said on Committee Stage there was no need for all the lobbying from Foynes. However, it was necessary and they proved that lobbying in the right way can achieve success. I am pleased that the people from Foynes will go away happy. I am concerned about Limerick. We did not agree with elements of the extension of jurisdiction to Foynes. However, Limerick, the Shannon Estuary authority and the Foynes authority will have a successful dialogue and ensure that everybody in the area is happy.
Senator Wright made a valid point about Balbriggan which I am sure the Minister will take on board. He mentioned the £60,000 funding offered by way of grant to both ports. It is very little and it is possible to make a comparison with the agricultural industry in this instance. We are supposed to maintain European standards and modernise our systems, particularly in the dairy sector. To keep in line with European standards, it would cost a farmer £100,000 to modernise a medium size farm, but the two ports will only receive £60,000. This is wrong. I appeal to the Minister to improve the funding for the ports of Skerries and Balbriggan.
I thank the Minister for his deliberations and for listening to the lobbyists. I am sure everybody will be happy with the Bill. It has been promised for a long time. This is the third Harbours Bill to which I have contributed. I was the Opposition spokesperson on the Marine when former Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, introduced the first Bill. It was controversial legislation and I am glad we finally have a Bill which pleases everybody.
I thank Members for their help and co-operation in ensuring the Bill is passed by the House today. I also thank the officers and staff of the House for their help and co-operation in this regard and I thank the officials from the Department for the considerable work they put into the preparation of the Bill and the consultative process which surrounded it.
I mentioned this point on Second Stage but, as I referred to the consultative process, it is not inappropriate to again acknowledge the considerable work done in the early stages of the preparation of the Bill by the former Minister of State, the late Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan. We all remember him with a great deal of fondness.
The Bill was not contested and its object was generally accepted across the political spectrum in both Houses. It attracted quite an amount of attention inside and outside both Houses. A number of Senators mentioned the amount of representation and lobbying which was received. It is also good and healthy that we should endeavour to improve the legislation as originally drafted as it passes through both Houses. I was happy to accept several amendments in this and the other House with a view to improving the Bill. This is important since it was not contested.
It is a substantial Bill, containing 105 sections and a number of Schedules, and it is good that the views, opinions and concerns of those who must work it in the future, such as people involved in harbour companies, were brought to bear on it. It is also good that the considerable experience of Members of both Houses, who served on harbour boards, who have been associated with such companies or who have particular knowledge of this area, was brought to bear on the legislation.
Senator Wright mentioned section 88. This is an enabling provision and an order must be made to commence it. A specific section relates to Fingal County Council, which involves the transfer of Skerries and Balbriggan. A commencement order must be made but there will be a consultation process prior to its commencement involving the county council and the port authority. In any event, an opportunity will be provided to Members of both Houses to raise the issue prior to the order coming into effect.
The Bill is important to the country. It is a cliché to point out that Ireland is the last island in the European Union, but it is the only EU member state which does not have a land link. This has significant implications for our trade with the rest of the EU. Over 90 per cent of the State's trade goes through the sea ports and their management and condition, the facilities provided and the shipping services to and from them are critically important to the economic well being of the country.
This legislation is important in that it gives the larger ports a new mandate and a new lease of life. However, it must be read in conjunction with the considerable investment which is taking place at the ports. This will involve over £140 million in the next four years and is aimed at improving facilities and reducing costs to port users. It must also be read in conjunction with the considerable advances being made in the shipping area. A large number of new vessels are coming into service and there are new operations to and from the ports. These matters are indicative of healthy economic activity.
I am pleased we have produced legislation which confers a commercial mandate on the port companies. It will release them from the day to day control of the Department of the Marine and enable them to carry out their functions freely and commercially. At the same time, the Bill tempers the commercial mandate, given the requirements to care for the environment and to take account of the critically important areas of safety and uses of harbour facilities other than shipping, such as leisure, recreation and tourism amenities.
A well rounded piece of legislation has been produced. I have no doubt, given the investment in ports and advances taking place in shipping, it will serve the economy and country well in the years ahead. I again thank Members for their assistance and co-operation in dealing with the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.