Subsection (2) brings in Parts IV to X of the Harbours Act, 1946. With regard to the rent Gulf pay, £7,000 a year, can that be made payable to the harbour authority?
Harbours Bill, 1975: Committee and Final Stages.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
No. That is a foreshore rent. That will still come back to the Department.
The oil tankers coming into the terminal will be liable for dues.
It will be up to the harbour commissioners, if they want to, to take over the facilities on Whiddy Island and be responsible for them. In that event they will be able to charge for use. It will be a matter for negotiation between the harbour commissioners and Gulf. I could not say what will happen.
The oil tankers are the principal users and at the moment they are not liable for dues.
No, because Gulf provided all the facilities. The harbour commissioners can take over some or all of the facilities, in which event they will be responsible for maintenance, such as ensuring the channel is kept free, properly lit and so on. If they take them over they will be able to charge a fee. If they do not take them over they cannot charge for something they are not supplying. That is only reasonable.
The oil tankers are the biggest users. They could come to an arrangement with Gulf to charge some dues. That would be the biggest income available.
They could come to an arrangement with Gulf but Gulf will naturally protect their own position and, if they are not getting value for money, they will be unwilling to come to an arrangement. I do not want to dictate to the harbour commissioners but I imagine Gulf will retain the onshore facilities and the harbour commissioners will take over the buoys and so on and charge dues. In that way Gulf will maintain their position. The only user at the moment is Gulf. The harbour commissioners may not charge fees to any user without permission from my Department and the level will be controlled by my Department. As well as seeing that the Bantry Bay Commissioners get a fair return for what they are providing, I will also be protecting the users to make sure they are not overcharged for what the Commissioners are providing.
Have the Department of Transport and Power collected any dues from Gulf?
There are no dues charged in Bantry Bay because there is no harbour authority there. The only payments that are made are the payments for the use of Bantry Pier, and the payment by Gulf of £7,000 a year for the foreshore at Whiddy.
The first part of the Minister's opening remarks read:
Revenue arising directly or indirectly from each call of a large tanker is nearly £20,000.
Does that mean that if the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners were providing all the facilities and services required for dealing with tankers they would have an income of £20,000?
No. When a big tanker comes into Bantry Bay, tugs have to be hired and men employed to handle it, and there are purchases of stores on shore and that amounts to £20,000. It has nothing to do with dues except that each call could be allocated a proportion of the £7,000 foreshore licence.
If the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners were providing all the services and facilities that ordinary harbours provide, can the Minister say what would be the harbour fees?
Bantry Bay would have to decide what they were going to provide.
If, for instance, a tanker of that size could get as far as one of the ports in the west, say Foynes, what would the fees be? Is it on a tonnage basis?
It would be on a tonnage basis, but the level of fees from each ship, which I presume is what the Deputy is looking for, could not be decided.
I am trying to estimate what the income of the harbour board would be during a 12 month period, because the expenses and income of a harbour board are what keeps a harbour board alive. Is there no way that the Minister's advisers could give him an estimate of the income of the board?
I can give you the income of the oil charges by other harbour authorities around the coast, which is about 6p per ton, but you would have to see then whether they were giving value for that 6p per ton and whether there is dredging included in that. There would not be dredging in Bantry Bay, so therefore you might say that the charges in Bantry Bay should be lower than that. There are facilities in Bantry Bay, which is a much harder harbour to take, and if they were buying over the facilities on Whiddy Island they would have to charge the interest charged for that capital purchase.
Under the 1946 Act this harbour authority would be empowered to borrow to £50,000 without the Minister's sanction and the Minister would have to sanction anything over that amount.
They must have sanction from me to borrow up to £50,000. If they borrow over that amount, I have to go to the Department of Finance for sanction.
You have to sanction up to the £50,000?
Yes.
With regard to pilotage in the area, what are the functions of the harbour authority in regard to this?
They could provide the pilotage which is being provided by Gulf at the moment. The harbour authority can take over this function and charge Gulf a fee for it.
Would Gulf have to pay for pilotage or would the tankers have to pay?
If a pilot authority is set up under the harbour commissioners, the owners of the ships would have to pay the fees.
Who decides to set up the pilotage authority?
The harbour commissioners themselves could recommend its establishment to me.
What made the Minister decide on a class II harbour authority in view of the importance of Bantry Bay, which is known internationally as the finest harbour in Europe? Why did he not make it a class I authority?
There are only four class I harbour authorities—Limerick, Waterford, Cork and Dublin. The reason for that is that they have a huge variety of trade going into these ports. There is only one type of trade being handled in Bantry. If Bantry should develop into a huge international port, then it would become a Part 1 harbour.
Would it not be a serious contender to some other harbours now that they are looking for a lot of money?
Is it not a drawback that a port is second class? Would it be a drawback if they were competing for EEC regional funds?
It makes no difference at all. The only difference is in the composition of the board and the fact that they do not have a general manager. Their expenses are less under this. If they were a Class I harbour, they would have to have a general manager and a bigger staff.
With regard to the planning permission for an oil refinery, is it correct to say that this proposed refinery has gone by the board?
I only know what I read in the papers about this. The planning permission was applied for four or five years ago and was granted about two years ago. You must remember that this was applied for in different circumstances. This planning permission was applied for at a time when there was great difficulty in establishing oil refineries on the east coast of America. The thinking behind this refinery was that it should be established in Bantry Bay. It was structured to provide heating oil for homes, which would then be shipped from Bantry to the east coast of America for consumer use there. But that was all prior to the oil crisis in 1973, when conditions changed. The same restrictions did not apply to establishing oil refineries in America, there was not the same demand for home heating oil, and the general downturn in the use of oil throughout the world did not make it economically attractive as far as the promoters of this project were concerned. The planning permission still exists and they can come back at any time, and perhaps they will go ahead in the future.
With regard to oil spillages and oil pollution, which is a very emotional issue, and probably exaggerated, because I gather from the Minister's brief that the percentage of spillages is very small, I understand that the anxiety felt by many can now, at least to some degree, be put at ease with the creation of a harbour board in Bantry Bay. Can the Minister say what sort of cost would be involved for the harbour board to equip themselves properly and fully to deal with any emergency that might arise as a result of spillage in the Bay? I gather that one needs extensive equipment to deal with such a problem when it arises.
I can foresee a situation, say at the first meeting of the harbour authority in Bantry, where estimates for £10,000 worth of equipment in boats and trucks would have to be dealt with. We have a harbour authority whose income is only £3,000 or £7,000. Until such time as they negotiate new terms with Gulf to get themselves in a viable position, will the harbour board not be in a weak area for dealing with any spillage which might arise?
The Deputy said the spillage was very small, and that is true in terms of the total throughput of the terminal since it was established, but I also said that I consider any spillage serious and can be very damaging.
I agree.
As regards the harbour commissioners' expenses in cleaning up some future spillage, all the equipment is there on site now. I do not think the harbour authority would consider buying a whole duplicate set of equipment for themselves but they would come to an arrangement with tug owners that in the event of a spillage they would hire their tugs and with lorry-fleet owners they would hire their lorries. The Cork County Council keep a stock of detergents. The authority would arrange that the county council would be responsible for keeping the estimated amounts of detergent the Cork County Council have for use in the Bantry area. Under the Department of Local Government the Cork County Council have to keep a stock of detergent sufficient for the whole of the Cork county coast. I presume the harbour commissioners would then come to an agreement with the county council to keep portion of that stock. In relation to the total that might be used in Bantry it would probably be more because the danger of spillage would be greater in Bantry. They would come to such arrangements with the county council or with lorry owners or tug owners without making any capital investment in lorries or tugs or spraying equipment.
If a spillage unfortunately occurs, and I accept what the Minister says that a spillage of any size is a disaster, when it does occur in the very early days of the operation of the harbour authority they will be fully equipped and able——
The equipment is there and they have the most experienced people in the country for dealing with spillages.
I accept that.
Because of the manner in which the spillage of two years ago occurred, leaving a valve open and letting the oil flow into the sea, does the Minister envisage the harbour authority having any powers of supervision or spot check when tankers are being unloaded? It was sheer negligence that that happened the last time.
That was the first one.
Will there be any powers for inspecting or spot checking?
Yes, these powers exist. At present the people in my Department are responsible for them. These will be transferred to the harbour commissioners. They will prove more effective because they will be on the spot all the time and will be able to send down officers.
The first spillage, as you say, was a human error in that a cock was left open and the oil flowed out. The second one was a different type of spillage, the fracturing of a tanker by a tug lifting under it. I should say, a Cheann Comhairle, that I was very annoyed about those two spillages because I felt they could have been avoided. The Gulf Oil Company were very co-operative with my Department and accepted all the restrictions put on their activities and all the necessary safety measures for oil spillage that we felt were necessary to impose on them. I should pay that tribute to them. When the oil was spilt in Bantry they were very concerned and so showed themselves right up to the top of the Gulf Organisation in getting the spillages cleaned up and installing systems that would inhibit that happening again.
It is important when one is talking about spillage and ensuring that it does not occur again, that the membership of the harbour board should be as representative as possible. Glengarriff directly has no representation. Would it not be a good idea to have a member from the tourist group and also a member from the boatmen's association as two extra members from Glengarriff on the harbour board? I suggest that because in the event of a spillage the people who will not suffer the most but will suffer to a tremendous degree will be the people who derive their livelihood from tourists in the Glengarriff area. I urge the Minister to take into account that Glengarriff at the moment are unrepresented. If they have a representative it is purely accidental. I want the Minister to consider specifically, say, somebody from the tourist association and somebody representing the boat owners.
Representing who?
The boatowners in the Glengarriff area. There are a considerable number of them, and their livelihood is put very much in jeopardy in the event of any oil spillage because at least 70,000 tourists a year visit Garnish Island and the boatowners are concerned with the to-ing and fro-ing of those visitors. It is important that representation be given to them. Again, from the tourist point of view for the whole development of the area, somebody should be representing the tourist groups there. I do not think there is anybody living in Glengarriff who does not derive some source, even probably a major source, of his or her livelihood from tourism. We know that there are certain flexibilities in the nominations of people, but it is in the interest generally of the proper working of the whole authority that this type of representation be brought to fruition.
The Bill before the House amends the 1946 Act which lists the people who will be on the harbour commissioners and it will mean all we are doing here is adding to the list of the harbours under the Second Schedule of that Act the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. We are not amending the whole Act as it gives administrative authority to commissioners throughout the country. Even if we did that we could not list particularly the Glengarriff tourist association or something like that. As the Deputy says, the county council have nominations, and I will have the nomination of three members to the board, one of whom must be of labour interest. At this stage revamping the 1946 Act as regards membership of boards would lead to long delays in the implementation of this part of the Bill. The best thing at the moment is to put in the Bantry Bay harbour authority and stick to the listed nomination powers and leave it to me.
The only interpretation I can put on that is that I would be given some form of assurance.
I could not give any assurance in view of the list of nominated people.
We must impress on the Minister the need for the type of representation we have been talking about. Among those whom he nominates he must consider tourism and the importance of having representation from that industry. He must remember that one of the groups who create tourism are the boatmen and that they also should have representation. I have had long discussions with all the people involved and it is generally felt that the type of representation I am advocating is the most desirable and would be in the best interests of the harbour. The chamber of commerce, if there is one there, will have two nominees——
The chamber had been defunct but it was reformed late in December or early in January.
I was not aware the chamber had been reactivated. Maybe the pending advent of this Bill had some effect. There will be two representatives of shipping interests and I am sure Gulf will be able to look after themselves.
They have to be working out of Bantry Bay. Owners of Irish registered ships are eligible for membership.
I do not think that covers fishing boats. If it does, what are the mechanics for their election or their nomination?
Shipowners among themselves elect two members. There can be a canvass of shipowners. The mechanics of this have not presented difficulties in other harbours. The system has been generally acceptable to boat owners and we have not been getting complaints.
When the Minister is talking this over with his officials will he discuss the point that fishermen as well as commercial shipowners should have representation? This provides for the election of four local councillors from the immediate area and they will be appointed by the county council.
I understand there are some members of Cork County Council who are also members of the Dáil. They will have a say.
I am sure they will be able to look after their own interests. I am sure that those appointed by the county council would be very concerned with the tourist amenities in the area. I presume the county council can nominate somebody from the Glengarriff area.
I will have a bet with the Minister that that does not happen.
It is in the Deputy's court.
It is not. I have a motion down for the next county council meeting. I do not know about the Minister's experience but we have become accustomed to the appointment of political hacks on such boards. This is something we must protect ourselves against. Some of the appointments in recent years have been disastrous. They were appointed for no other reason than that they were political hacks. I want assurance that no such people will be allowed to put pressure on the Minister in their own interest for membership on this board. One other point is whether boat owners in Glengarriff would become liable for harbour dues.
It would be up to the harbour commissioners but it has not been the custom of any harbour authority to charge dues. However, boating and yachting have become so popular that harbour authorities may want to charge dues in respect of moorings.
The boat owners are very concerned about this.
It is a matter for the harbour commissioners. At this point I should like to say I do not know what Deputy Crowley meant when he spoke about political hacks. I do not find anything to be ashamed of in being a politician. Any appointment I have made to any board or authority has not been a political hack. To give a blanket insult to these people, as Deputy Crowley did, because I presume he means the term "political hack" to be an insult, was wrong and he should withdraw his remarks. Some of the finest people are nominated to various boards, including harbour boards. For a Deputy to insult them all, as he intended to do, and infer that they were not competent to do their job—he used the words "puppets on a string accepting their orders from elsewhere"—is an allegation that they were in some way inferior, dishonest and were not using their own minds for the position for which they were nominated. He inferred that they were carrying out the orders of some unnamed person at another level. The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
The Minister is very naïve to think that there are not political hacks appointed by his colleagues, and maybe by himself, and he would be equally naïve to think that we would be so naïve as to think that all the men appointed on boards by the Coalition were put on them because they could do the job best of all. We know well that the sine qua non of any appointment is membership of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties.
Absolute rubbish.
We will come to the Minister' subject in a moment. As far as I am concerned I am not too worried about what goes on elsewhere; I am concerned about what happens in my constituency and about the proper development of Bantry. I am concerned about the future of Bantry and I want to ensure that this is not turned into a political football. I want to ensure that those appointed to the board have a genuine interest in the development of the area and are not just political hacks. It is important that we get that on the record. We are not so naïve as to think that all these appointments are on merit alone. I am not withdrawing what I said. In fact, I am reinforcing it from the point of view that I do not want a situation occurring in my constituency where there are these type of appointments. I want men who are capable and interested enough to develop and create employment and industry. I want men who are interested in creating conditions in west Cork for the development of the area. It is because I am so concerned about Bantry, which is becoming a ghost town, that I want to ensure that the proper representation is insisted upon. I want to ensure that those who are nominated have the proper qualifications, interest and heart in the place.
I should like to ask the Minister the reason for the hold up in establishing a harbour authority when Gulf came to Bantry? I should like to know why so many years elapsed before this Minister formed this authority? Why was the authority not formed when we had a big revenue coming into Bantry through Gulf?
In reply to Deputy Crowley I should like to state that nobody will be debarred from being a member of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners because they are a member of my or any other political party. If they are competent to do the job I do not care what party they belong to. With regard to the point raised by Deputy O'Sullivan, I should like to state that the reason was there was only one user there at the time and Gulf were providing their own facilities. The harbour had not an established harbour authority and, therefore, dues were not charged. All the time Gulf said that if it was in the future found necessary to establish a harbour authority they would not object to this course.
Was any agreement made between Gulf and the Government at that time that a harbour authority would not be allowed in Bantry?
No agreement was made with the Government at that time. In fact, the previous Minister made it clear to Gulf that he reserved the right to himself at some future time to establish an authority.
That kills the lie that was being put out by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Deputy O'Sullivan, that there was some sort of agreement entered into by the last Government. I hope the fact that he has heard from his own Minister that this was not so has killed the lie forever. I hope we will not hear this again thrown out at county council meetings in a most irresponsible fashion. Any success that Bantry has had was due to a Fianna Fáil Government. No sort of veil of suspicion thrown out by Deputy O'Sullivan will take away from that. He has tried it on several occasions and I am glad that the Minister for Transport and Power has the integrity, and the honesty, to say that publicly.
It has been said on a number of occasions.
I am aware of that, but yet Deputy O'Sullivan has said it again. He has made a statement in direct contradiction to what the Minister has said on several occasions. It is important that everybody is aware that there was no arrangement or agreement.
Why was a harbour authority not appointed?
Is the Deputy in disagreement with his Minister?
Why was the authority not appointed?
Is the Deputy saying that his Minister is wrong? It was not done because it was not necessary. The former Minister reserved the right at any stage to appoint an authority. The Deputy was looking for it for a long time but now he does not believe his own Minister.
I asked a simple question.
The Deputy does not believe the Minister.
Simple, but devious.
We know Deputy O'Sullivan is not so simple at all.
If the Deputy wished to have my statement on the record he should have asked the question himself and not leave it to Deputy O'Sullivan to ask it.
As the Minister has stated, this was contradicted on several occasions. I did not think it was necessary to contradict again, but obviously, it was. I want it written into the record and the maximum publicity that there was no truth or substance in this allegation.
I should like to ask the Minister about the question of yachts and fishing boats paying dues. This matter was raised by Deputy Crowley.
Deputy Crowley was talking about the pleasure boats that ply between Garnish and Glengarriff.
Boat owners and owners of small fishing boats.
I understood the Minister to state that this area was being considered and that possibly there would be some charge for buoys.
I said other estuaries in that area.
It is fair to say that our biggest estuary is the Shannon estuary, which is 60 miles long. To the best of my knowledge there are not one dozen buoys along that 60 miles.
They would not be charged. Yachting has become very popular in the last five or six years and people are putting down moorings all over. Some of the harbour authorities——
Will have to regulate?
Exactly. It is possible that the easiest way to regulate is to put a charge of 50p per year on them.
Can the Minister see any charges resulting from this on fishing boats?
I gather that fishing boats already pay at Bantry pier. They pay small dues and they pay in other harbours also. They already pay landing fees at Bantry pier.
Will it mean any substantial increase?
This will be decided by the harbour commissioners but I will not sanction any substantial increase.
My major concern was the boats that go to and fro to Garnish. The operators of those boats are worried and they asked me to get an assurance from the Minister that they will not be charged any fees.
I cannot give them that.
The tenure of what the Minister has said is that it is not done and that he would be surprised if it was done in Bantry. As a member of Kinsale Harbour Commissioners I am aware that the major source of income to those commissioners is from yachting and I can see the reason for including them but I do not believe there is any yachting of any substance in Bantry. I am talking about the people who would be bringing tourists to and fro from Garnish and they are concerned that their livelihood would be put in jeopardy by the imposition of dues.
This is a matter for the harbour commissioners. They would not be rooking the boat owners who carry people to Glengarriff, particularly when they would have representation.
Particularly when there are four county councils on that body.
Exactly.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.