I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss this Bill which will enable a significant and long overdue reform to take place.
Harbours Bill, 1986 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
May we have a copy of the Minister's speech?
I have a copy here for the Deputy. The occasion also presents one with a welcome opportunity to explain to the House some recent and proposed developments in relation to ports policy in general in an area which, I may say, has been largely neglected for a good many years.
The primary purpose of this Bill is to provide for the establishment of a unified harbour authority, to be known as the Shannon Ports Authority, which will take over, manage and operate the existing harbours at Limerick and Kilrush together with a number of publicly-owned piers in the Shannon Estuary. The new authority will exercise jurisdiction over all the waters of the estuary excluding Foynes harbour. The Bill also provides enabling powers for the future amalgamation of Foynes with the new authority.
As well as rationalising the structure of harbour authorities in the Shannon Estuary, the Bill also contains provisions which will permit a major reform of the general structure of the country's harbour authorities — a structure which has remained unaltered since the passing of the Harbours Act, 1946, which in turn was based on the recommendation of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal of 1930. The tides of change have been unrelenting in the meantime and the time has come to take cognisance of that fact in our legislation.
On a point of order, would the Minister like to facilitate me by letting me have a copy of his script? This is normal under such circumstances.
I understand that is being organised.
Would the Minister like to wait until we recieve copies?
If the Deputy so desires, but I have already provided a copy for the spokesperson for the Opposition party.
The Minister will recognise I have more than an ordinary interest in this subject. I would have stopped the Minister playing politics with such an important national aspect.
There are absolutely no politics here. This is simply bringing in legislation that should have been brought in years ago, indeed by the Deputy's own Minister. It is filling a void which exists in our legislation.
The Minister knows he is bringing in this legislation at the behest of a colleague of his own party from the city of Limerick.
We are simply bringing it in to provide modern legislation. The legislation has not been revised since 1946. The tides of time have caught up with us.
Will the Minister please continue? There is a copy of the script coming for Deputy Collins.
The principal provisions of the Bill are:
Section 3, which provides for the establishment of the provides Shannon Ports Authority and defines its jurisdiction;
Sections 4 to 7 which set out the membership of the Authority and frequency of Authority meetings and provides for the establishment of a board of management to carry out, with certain exceptions, the functions and duties of the Authority.
On a point of order, it is very unfair that we have not a copy of the Minister's speech. We have an interest in this matter.
We have an even greater interest than the Minister in this.
Unfortunately, I have no control over the copies of the Minister's speech.
It is a grave discourtesy to the Members of this House by a Minister who obviously does not care.
Sections 8 to 10 which provide for the transfer of staff from the present authorities to the new authority; preservation of their terms and conditions of service and pension rights; section 13, which enables the future amalgamation of Foynes Harbour Trustees with the new authority; and section 15, which enables the Minister to reorganise the various harbour authorities scheduled to the Harbour Act, 1946.
The concept of a single authority for the Shannon Estuary is one that has been around for many years. Therefore, it may be of assistance to the House if I outline briefly the background to the present Bill.
Copies of the Minister's speech are on their way, I am told.
We shall wait for them because we want to make sure that we know exactly what is at stake and what is being written into the public record today.
I regret that copies of my speech have not yet arrived but they are on the way. Discussion of the Building Societies Bill did not take as long as was anticipated.
The question of amalgamating the various harbour authorities in the Shannon Estuary was first raised almost 30 years ago in 1958. Since then successive Ministers have entered into consultation with the various interests concerned with a view to trying to reach agreement on the establishment of a Shannon Ports Authority. In particular, developments over the last few years have shown the potential of the Shannon Estuary for heavy industry. These include the ESB coal burning power station at Moneypoint, the Alumina project at Aughinish and the oil jetty at Shannon Airport. These developments highlight the need for a single authority for the estuary. The Shannon Estuary is recognised as one of the finest in Europe. It is one big natural resource; it is not split with disparate self-contained units. This asset has been recognised by a number of domestic and international industrial developers. While the estuary continues to hold major potential for the future it is fair to say that it has fared relatively well in terms of development. My view is that the best way to manage and market one big national natural resource is in its totality. That is why I am so enthusiastic about the concept of a unified ports authority for the area. Over the past four years I have had detailed and extensive discussions with numerous local interests in the area and, with a few notable exceptions, there is I believe now a broad consensus in favour of a single ports authority which should lead to a more economic development of port facilities and encourage the further development of the already recognised natural advantages of the Shannon Estuary. These advantages include its geographic location, its width and its natural sheltered deep water which can at present cater for vessels of up to 200,000 tonnes deadweight and, with dredging, could cater for vessels of up to 400,000 tonnes deadweight.
Against this background it is the responsibility of the Oireachtas to legislate to meet the wishes of the interests in the estuary region as to how what is probably their most valuable natural amenity should be managed and developed and, as such, I am sure it will be welcomed by the House. It goes without saying, of course, that the ports in the estuary are only one part of the equation; we must not forget the major contribution to the development of the hinterland which is made by Shannon Airport and the Shannon Industrial Estate. In this regard, the continued efforts of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company are to be lauded.
Numerous advantages should flow from the establishment of the new authority. I would just like to mention what I believe to be the main advantages. It will bring about a unified approach to the future planning, development and promotion of the estuary. It will help to eliminate the possibility of undesirable dissension between different harbour authorities in the estuary, particularly in relation to questions of jurisdiction and entitlement to harbour dues; unnecessary and costly duplication of facilities and services can be more easily avoided, leading to a better overall deployment of scarce financial resources. Last but not least I also believe that the existence of a unified ports authority will help in attracting further industrial development to the estuary area as a whole.
Regrettably, the new authority initially will not include Foynes Harbour Trustees at the outset. I am satisfied that the advantages of a unified authority far outweigh any disadvantages envisaged by the Foynes Harbour Trustees who have been historically opposed to being included. I have, however, been encouraged by Limerick Harbour Commissioners and other local interests to proceed to set up the ports authority initially without Foynes while providing in the legislation for the eventual incorporation of the Harbour Trustees into the ports authority. While reluctant to proceed without Foynes, I have come to the conclusion that, instead of bringing unity and co-ordination to the new authority, the forced inclusions of Foynes could prove counter-productive in that it could lead to serious divisions within the new authority at the vital initial stages.
Accordingly, I am proposing the establishment of a Shannon Ports Authority at this stage without Foynes but I am making provision in section 13 of the Bill for their inclusion at a future date. Whilst I do not doubt the sincerity and conviction with which the Foynes Harbour Trustees hold their belief, I am still disappointed and not fully convinced at all that this is the best approach. I say this particularly in the knowledge that the trustees propose to embark on a further major harbour development scheme costing in excess of £5 million. It is a pity that such a scheme could not be devised as part of an overall strategy for the estuary drawn up by a Shannon Ports Authority.
The difficulty with independent development schemes in an entity such as the Shannon Eastuary is that they can lead to lack of cohesion and wasteful expenditure of scarce resources through duplication of facilities that the creation of the Shannon Ports Authority is intended to avoid. This is something I would ask the trustees to consider if they have not already done so. At the same time, I must hasten to add that the Government fully appreciate the very important role played by Foynes Harbour in the economic well-being of the surrounding region. This has been borne out by the State grant of £500,000 and local loans fund loan of £1.9 million which were provided in the recent past towards the extension of the east jetty at Foynes. I firmly hope that the Foynes Harbour Trustees will soon come to see the new authority not as a threat but as an opportunity and that the occasion of their amalgamation with the authority will not be too far away.
As I said earlier, I have had detailed and extensive discussions with numerous local interests and it is safe to say that, in the course of those discussions no issue has aroused more comment or controversy than the thorny question of the size and membership of the proposed authority. Indeed, on the general question of the size and membership of harbour authorities a common characteristic of submissions received from various interests in response to the Green Paper on Transport Policy published in November 1985 was that almost all of them, while recognising the desirability of smaller authorities in general, saw a need for their own particular sectional interest to be represented on any new harbour board structure. In the particular case of the proposed Shannon Ports Authority, many people have advanced cogent reasons to me as to why one area should have greater representation than another and so on. I believe that all concerned must ultimately accept, however, that the composition of a meaningful ports authority for the entire Shannon Estuary can be built only on compromise.
There is no end to the possible number of permutations of representation and size of the proposed Authority. Ideally, I would have wished to have an authority of ten members or fewer but this creates difficulties in a situation where, for example, Limerick Harbour Commission alone, as at present constituted, is a 27-member body with wide representation including local authority interests. The legitimate desire for representation of a wide variety of interests along the estuary makes it all the more difficult to contain the size of the new Authority. Bearing in mind these factors, I have decided that the composition should be on the basis of eight local authority members, divided equally between the counties of Clare, Kerry and Limerick as well as Limerick Corporation, two chamber of commerce members, two members from the Confederation of Irish Industry, two representatives of labour interests, two elected shipping representatives and five Ministerial nominees. This is provided for in section 4 which also provides that the Minister may make regulations specifying the manner in which the local authority members are appointed to the authority.
The reason for these regulations is that the four local authorities who are to be 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, for example, from electoral areas bordering on the estuary. The regulatory powers in section 4 accordingly are intended to 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 subsection would only be made after the fullest consultation. I feel power to make such regulations is in the overall interest of the estuary. Subject to any regulations which may be made under this 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 Act.
I am taking the opportunity of the establishment of the Shannon Ports Authority to change the traditional structure of harbour authorities under harbours legislation whereby a large single harbour authority, representing mainly sectoral interests, has full responsibility for the management and operation of a particular port or harbour. This structure originally emanated from a recommendation in the report of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal, 1930, which considered that the management of a port was primarily a matter for local bodies and that the citizens of the locality should be responsible for its operation subject always to the supervision of the State in the public interest.
It is my view that present day commercial considerations and the competitive requirements of a modern port require a less unwieldy and more dynamic structure than that provided for in existing harbour legislation. I have decided accordingly that, while responsibility for overall policy and future planning and development of the Shannon Estuary will rest with the new Authority, it will delegate to a smaller board of management general responsibility for the day to day administration of the estuary. Section 5 of the Bill provides for the establishment of the board of management.
I believe that the proposed two-tier structure will be more in keeping with the modern-day requirements of a major harbour and that the new arrangements will have the effect of facilitating efficient operation and administration. They should enable the ports authority to divorce itself from the execution of settled policy in most areas, thus allowing it more time to concentrate on the important area of long-term planning and overall policy co-ordination infettered by the more mundane business of running a busy port on a day-to-day basis. I also believe that the smaller board of management will be able to deal more effectively with the various pressures and problems which will undoubtedly arise in the early years of the new Authority and that it will be less subject to potential conflict of interests which can so easily arise in a large representative body such as the proposed ports Authority.
Naturally, the precise division of functions will require careful consideration in the light of consultation with the new Authority. The idea of a two-tier Authority arose essentially out of the special position of the Shannon Estuary, but there may be merit in the application of some similar structure to major harbours elsewhere in the country and this is something which I will be considering especially in the light of experience with the new Shannon Authority.
In pursuing the establishment of the Shannon Ports Authority, I have always had uppermost in my mind the concern to ensure that the interests of staff being transferred will be fully protected. Section 8 of the Bill provides for the transfer of staff from the existing authorities to the new Authority on terms or conditions not less favourable than those which they may at present enjoy, while sections 9 and 10 provide for the interim continuation of existing superannuation schemes and the introduction of new schemes.
I would now like to deal with the overall question of rationalisation and amalgamation of ports in general which is naturally a subject of wide interest. The Green Paper on Transport Policy in the chapter dealing with ports, refers to the size and membership of harbour authorities and indicates my intention to introduce amendments to harbours legislation to provide for the disbandment of existing authorities and their replacement by smaller boards. The Green Paper also mentions the possibility of grouping contiguous harbours. There has been much and varied reaction to these proposals. A predominant view, particularly among those who would be affected, seems to be that the amalgamation of ports has little to recommend it, although greater co-operation between ports is undoubtedly something for which there may be scope. The suggestion has also been made that rationalisation of ports would eliminate competition and would not be in the public interest. I consider this view to be too dogmatic; the concept of competition between ports needs to be carefully examined. We live on a small island. Resources for capital investment in ports of infrastructure are limited.
Competition at the charges level without regard to the need to provide for asset replacement and then relying on State assistance for that purpose is not competition at all. It is arguable that there are too many small ports competing for the same volume of traffic. Amalgamation of ports may not be the only answer, but if new investment is required to meet a particular need of a region and involves State subvention, a decision could be made by the Government as to which of two adjacent ports should be developed. Such a decision could be painful, particularly for the loser, but may prove necessary in the interests of effective investment. In conclusion, it is clear that, even where natural groupings suggest themselves as, for example in the Shannon Estuary, substantial difficulties can arise in effecting amalgamation. This is not a reason, however, for not addressing the problem.
It seems appropriate therefore that the Harbours Bill should contain the necessary provisions to enable the issues I have just described to be adequately addressed. Section 15 (1) of the Bill provides, accordingly, that the Minister may by order dissolve, reconstitute or amalgamate a number or any of the harbour authorities specified in the first column of the First Schedule of the Harbours Act, 1946, as amended. In the case of Dublin, I envisage early reconstitution of the Port and Docks Board in line with a previous Government decision in the context of the financial restructuring of the Dublin Port and Docks Board.
I am also availing of the Bill to provide for the possible extension, with appropriate alterations where necessary, of the two tier management system proposed for the Shannon Ports Authority to the other main harbour authorities — Cork, Dublin and Waterford. This can be considered in the light of experience with the Shannon Ports Authority. In addition, the Government have already decided in the context of devolution to local authorities, that harbours which now catered 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. Section 15 also makes provision in relation to these matters.
While on the general subject of ports policy, I should like to refer briefly to some other measures which are being taken in the light of the review of this area which led to the publication of the Green Paper. Steps are being taken to ensure that, in future, all harbour authorities review their rates and charges on a regular basis and to encourage rationalisation of rates structures. The general aim will be to ensure that harbour authorities pay their way by charging economic rates and thereby producing. realistic surpluses. Through a gradual implementation of a policy of charging realistic rates, users will pay for services provided and the call on the taxpayer for State assistance will diminish.
Furthermore, in line with the target set for public investment projects in the public capital programme, it is now the policy that investment proposals by harbour authorities should achieve a realistic return on investment. Except in the most exceptional circumstances, the availability of a local contribution of 25 per cent, at the very least, will be a prerequisite for the consideration of State assistance for any port development project. Moreover, in evaluating proposals for investment in harbours, care will be taken that Exchequer assistance is not provided for the purpose of encouraging the diversion of traffic from one port to another. All these measures are designed to improve the financial position and overall environment in which our harbours operate.
The remainder of the Bill before the House is concerned with tidying up minor matters and standard provisions which are in the main self-explanatory. In particular, section 16 of the Bill implements standard provisions in relation to the remuneration of chief officers of harbour authorities in accordance with Government policy. Sections 17 and 19 in effect dissolve the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, Kilrush Urban District Council and Clare Castle Pier Trustees as harbour authorities on the establishment of the Shannon Ports Authority. Section 18 rectifies a technical drafting defect in the Harbours Act, 1976, which established the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. Section 20 provides that every regulation made under the proposed legislation will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and will be subject to annulment. Section 21 contains the short title and collective citation.
The present Bill, as I have stated, is primarily designed to give statutory effect to the wishes of local interests in the Shannon Estuary region to establish a unified harbour authority for the geographical unit of the estuary. I have confidence that, as such, it will command the full support of the House and I have no doubt also that, now that local interests are about to achieve their longsought objective, they will put forward a united effort to ensure that the new authority becomes a dynamic force in meeting the needs for a developed portal infrastructure in an expanding local economy.
I do not have to enlarge on the magnificient local resource that is the Shannon Estuary. It is an environmental lung which stretches from the Atlantic to my county, where the Shannon arises. For its spaciousness and the huge vessels it can take — and with a little dredging the even greater tonnage it can take — it must impress people with its importance, and in particular its potential for economic development in that area. The Minister's speech ended on a note about investment and the importance of investment. That is almost a sick joke in the present economic climate, when investment never was so low so badly needed in our community. This is an area that attracts the attention of people who want to see major development there. It is a pity, some people say, that it is not on the eastern side of the country, or the south eastern, facing Europe but, then, it was the Atlantic Ocean that provided us with it in the first place. Therefore, that is a foolish kind of wish. We have to accept it as it is. We must accept its amenity and commercial value and its potential for development.
The Minister has mentioned a major economic development in the area. I am proud to record it in the House — lest it be forgotten in a welter of propaganda — that Aughinish, Moneypoint and so on were the products of the vision of the Fianna Fáil Party.
The Minister mentioned that one of the purposes of the Bill was to remove causes for dissension. I shall revert to that later. The House will also have the privilege of contributions from Deputies Gerard Collins and Daly who have a deep interest in this whole matter. The elimination of dissension, in the way that the whale eliminated Jonah's dissension by swallowing Jonah, is not something we regard as desirable. There seems to have been a pitch to swallow the very effective Foynes Harbour Authority which has served this country well in its development up to now. When I was Minister I had the privilege of meeting representatives of the Foynes Harbour Authority. There are two features of Foynes which are very important and should command the attention of the House. One is that it has been commercially successful on a large scale. The second — one which ties into the Minister's philosophy and causes a certain contradiction in the thinking behind the speech we have just heard — is that Foynes did this practically without Government grants. Foynes Harbour Authority received, I think, approximately £500,000 in grants over a quarter of a century. They had guarantees from the Local Loans Fund but a loan is a loan and they are addressing themselves to the repayment of their loans. Deputy Collins indicates to me that I said a figure of £500,000. The figure was £571,000 to be precise. The Foynes people, in the case they put to me, certainly convinced me that they were entitled to their independence.
That takes me to another point that worries me about this Bill and that is that there is surreptitious legislation in it. Foynes is stated openly to be at risk of being taken over by ministerial ukase or fiat. Admittedly, there is a slight democratic safeguard in that this would have to get a majority vote in this House. I do not like it as a method of legislating. It is conceivable at some time in the future the Foynes people would want to join the rest of the estuarial authority but the way to do so would be to introduce a Bill and have it fully debated here. Foynes is not a tinpot operation. Consequently it should command that much respect in the House, that of a separate Bill.
The second thing that worries me about the Bill is section 15 where the Minister again takes powers to himself to do all kinds of things with the other harbours. We had problems — admittedly they are less severe now than they were a couple of years ago — in the port of Dublin. If any major amalgamation or restructuring were to take place, either in the compilation of the board or in an amalgamation between Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, that proposition also should come before the House as a separate Bill. I have had communications with a number of other people in various harbours and ports throughout the country who fear what was foreshadowed in the Green Paper, namely, compulsory amalgamation or elimination as an effective port in our economy. I am thinking of, say, Greenore, Dundalk, Drogheda, Clogher Head, and Annagassan Pier, that whole area. Why should the Minister take that power in a Bill which is ex professo dealing with the Shannon Estuary? Why should that Bill give him power to deal with all those places that are not necessarily thought of now? But the Minister is taking power unto himself in this Bill so that he could do that.
I have had communications from New Ross. Somebody thought of wedding New Ross to Waterford and the people in New Ross were very concerned about this, but not in any petty way — the Minister seemed to imply that it was out of self-interest — or in a get money for development type of attitude irrespective of what happens in other ports in the vicinity. They indicated that they were not in competition with Waterford in that the products they were importing and exporting from New Ross were totally different, mainly fertiliser, as against Waterford from which the main export at that time was cattle, and I hope that trade will continue.
What I do not like about this Bill are its implications as much as its overt purpose to establish a Shannon Ports Authority. For that reason we shall be putting down amendments, arguing strongly on them, in the hope that we can improve the Bill. I do not think we can make it a good Bill without excluding the section with regard to Foynes, without excluding the section which gives the Minister so much power in relation to ports and harbours throughout the country. I am convinced that we just cannot do so.
The Minister mentioned the size and membership of an authority. I agree with him that a large, unwieldy authority is something that could be detrimental to the development of any port or area. The old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee holds in cases like this. It depends on how large is one's committee. The device settled on by the Minister as far as this Bill is concerned seems to be to have a representative Authority of 21 but, within that, there will be a smaller board who will effectively carry out the developmental and commercial work of the port. How the Authority will relate to what looks like an executive committee will be very important with regard to the development in that area. I could not agree more with the Minister in his objectives, namely, to improve efficiency and competitiveness in the area. I can foresee paralysis if the relationship between the 21-member Authority and the smaller executive board is not developed in a rational manner. Indeed some of the staff representatives are fearsome that it is a device to exclude Labour representatives from the executive board. We should take cognisance of that, especially as the Minister has just told us that this may form the model and pattern for other boards, that we will have a two-tier system involved in other boards as well.
The House will have to tease out and examine that position. It will be of general interest in the House and I hope that this Bill will get full discussion here. Some commentators have already come rationally to the conclusion that it is not merely an innocent little Bill with regard to Shannon but it is the forerunner of other Bills and in particular one which deals with the Dublin Port and Docks Board which has now got entangled with the ambitions for Dún Laoghaire. The Taoiseach announced that there would be a separate authority for Dún Laoghaire. I do not know what type of authority it will be; it was an off-the-top-of-the-head statement in the context of political developments at present.
In the Seanad Official Report of 18 June 1986, volume 113, column 867 the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, stated that the Minister:
indicated in the Green Paper that he proposed to introduce amendments to harbours legislation which would provide for the disbandment of existing boards or authorities and their replacement by smaller boards some of whose members would be appointed by the Ministers, that the Government had decided that legislation should be prepared for the reconstitution of the Dublin Port and Docks Board——
That would indicate it will not be under the shadow of this Bill.
— and that the management structure for the new Dublin Port Authority, as well as for Cork, Waterford and the new Shannon Ports Authority would be a two tier structure, modelled on the lines of the division of responsibility in local authorities between executive and reserved functions.
I would be very much afraid of that pattern because as this House well knows public representatives are not at all satisfied with the amount of executive authority now obtaining in the administration of local authorities and with the considerably curbed and restricted powers which the elected representatives have. I sound a note of warning about that.
With regard to the constitution of the port authority there are five ministerial nominees. Qualifications of the five ministerial nominees should be spelled out in the Bill.
Hear, hear.
No doubt Deputy Collins who is very much into that scene will be able to explicate on that later. Why are there five nominees? Does the Minister want to categorise the five people, for example, one who would have expertise in accountancy, one who would be an expert on marine affairs, one who would be an expert on importation and exportation and so on? I would like some information from the Minister in that regard.
Were it not for the fact that the Minister decided to include section 20, the Fianna Fáil Party would, from the very beginning, have opposed this Bill. I am not saying that we are not going to oppose Second Stage. We are waiting for some enlightenment from the Government side. We are glad that this saving section is included. It states that every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be made before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made. If a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. There is some salvation in that as far as we are concerned.
I referred to Foynes earlier. There seems to be petulance in the Minister's speech today and throughout his speech in the Seanad with regard to Foynes, that they did not play the game as far as he was concerned.
There is a threat in the Minister's speech.
There is, as Deputy Collins says, a threat in the Minister's speech. The people in Foynes spent £6,250,000 on development over the last quarter of a century and, as Deputy Collins indicated, £571,000 of a direct grant is all they were looking for. That is what we are seeking from public and semi-State companies. Every political party wants to see commercial viability, profits being invested in further development and quite considerable employment potential. There are over 300 people directly employed in Foynes. As this House knows, in circumstances such as that there are spin-off effects which I am not in a position to enumerate for the House. It is important to remember that that is a rich agricultural area of Munster and that the agri-imports and exports from Foynes are very substantial. It is an important centre for fuel importation. What should delight all of us is that they have a £3 million programme for development. They may even have plans for a more substantial development, I am not too sure. This surreptitious legislation is something that this House must be wary of. In the past I indicated that the House must be vigilant about arrogating of power to himself by any Minister without full discussion in the House. I prefer straight up legislation as far as the amalgamation of ports or the development of other ports is concerned instead of giving powers in a Bill like this for the development of Shannon that can be exercised in relation to other areas of the country.
I had representations from the Tipperary North Riding area — the Chair will appreciate this — with regard to their interest in the area. They would not like to be excluded as they use the facilities in that area to a great extent. One thing which has been impressed upon me, and no doubt the Deputies from Clare will speak on it, is that Clare seems to have lost out considerably as far as representation is concerned. The Kilrush Urban Council were a harbour authority in their own right. Clare is getting representation on the board. I am in agreement with the principle that too unwieldy a board with affect the competitiveness of the commercial viability of the operation but what we have here is the abolition of the Kilrush authority and not compensation in the new representation; Clare County Council just get their two representatives.
The whole coast of Clare is important from a developmental point of view. I should like the Minister to reflect on the weakness in the Bill. We will oblige him in regard to amendments on Committee Stage if it is not defeated on Second Stage. Tarbert Pier, Saleen Pier, Kilteely Pier and Clarecastle Pier are also coming under the control of the authority. Deputy McEllistrim will have a particular interest as the area being taken in is from Sarsfield Bridge to a line joining the Kerry Head with Loop Head with the exception of Foynes, but there is a threat to Foynes in the Bill, as I mentioned.
I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate what implications there are in the Bill for the ports I have already outlined, the Dublin-Dún Laoghaire area, New Ross and Waterford, the Greenore-Dundalk area and other areas, for example, Rosslare which is a thriving port, and Arklow. All of these are, in a sense, under what I would call ministerial threat from powers taken in this Bill. At the risk of being accused of repetition I should like to impress on the Minister of State once more that whatever has to be done by way of development in that line should be done by straight forward Bills brought before this House with regard to the specific harbours and not by a kind of creeping interference under the umbrella of this Bill. We do not want ukases or fiats.
I accept the principle that it is important to look at State investment with a view to commercial viability. I do not think that funds should be expended in any kind of unplanned or irrational way but the wise men of one decade become the foolish people of the following decade. Who could have thought that a large industry like Aughinish would be established in the Limerick area which changed the whole basic criteria on which judgments were made? Who is to say the same will not happen at Greenore or Drogheda or Annagassan or Clogher Head right down the east coast or the south coast or the west coast. We need to be careful about making judgments for posterity which we are not entitled to do.
This Bill has excited great interest in Fianna Fáil and in other parties also and I hope to make way for other speakers. I mentioned already that Kilrush has been left out in the cold. Perhaps people with riparian rights on both sides of the Shannon between Sarsfield Bridge and the line I mentioned should also be taken into consideration as far as the activities of the authority are concerned. I will not go so far as to say they should select somebody to represent them. Perhaps they may think that local authority representation is sufficient but they should not be left out of account in deciding what this authority will be. Section 4 (b) (1A) (a) (v) in regard to elected members needs some clarification. I presume there is a definition later on as to how they are to be elected.
I would draw the attention of the House to section 4 (b) (1A) (b):
The Minister may by regulations specify the manner in which the local authority members are appointed pursuant to paragraph (a) (i) of this subsection, and any such regulations may make provision for such matters relating to such appointment as the Minister considers proper.
That is in line with the fears I expressed, of creeping arrogation of powers by a Minister and it requires the attention of the House. The setting down of the number of elected members under (v) may be covered by section 7 and I would like the Minister to confirm that.
Section 13 (3) — and I am sure Deputy Collins will have a lot more to say on that as he has expert knowledge of that area —says:
The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section (including this subsection).
That is a very rough statement and a rough provision. I will say no more about that now but we will have lots to say about it later on.
In section 15 we have these powers again:
(1) The Minister may by order dissolve, reconstitute or amalgamate as he may consider it necessary or desirable ....
It is a ukase. One would not find that kind of power anywhere.
... so to do any one or more of the harbour authorities specified in the first column of the First Schedule (as amended by this Act) to the Act of 1946.
I have the Act of 1946 here. A list of three and a half pages of authorities are put at risk by the powers being taken by the Minister there.
I want to comment on section 16 which has been the subject of considerable debate in this House in connection with other Bills. It is a very tricky area. I am not just criticising for the sake of criticism. It is about how to pay the higher executives in our semi-State, State or public companies. Every day we hear that people of undoubted ability who have proved themselves in the commercial field have moved out of the public sector and into private business. I objected before to a larger paragraph incorporated in some previous Bills where the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service were also equipped with powers to interfere with the free collective bargaining of workers in organisations. While this provision is an attenuated version of what we have been having in other Bills, I still take exception to it.
I want to make a couple of remarks on the Minister's speech and then I will conclude. Some of the points made by the Minister have been covered already. It is a unified approach, even if it is not the unity of the whale and Jonah as I already said. The idea is that dissension will end when this provision becomes law. I would see in the Bill a source of trouble and dissension until the overall Authority define their relationship to the smaller board who are under suspicion from many areas, not merely from the point of view of smooth administrations but also of the workforce.
As I have said, I agree with the Minister that we must avoid duplication of facilities where we have not got all that much money for investment. At the same time the powers taken by the Minister with the limited knowledge that any Minister must have, even with the best advisers, deal with a specific place at a specific time and without taking cognisance of future developments which may be quite adventitious to the whole operation. We do not know who will decide to locate where, in other words. This is something we do not want people to be dogmatic about.
The Minister said: "I also believe that the smaller board of management will be able to deal more effectively with the various pressures and problems which will undoubtedly arise in the early years of the new Authority and that they will be less subject to potential conflict of interests which can so easily arise in a large representative body such as the proposed ports authority". I see that as a very weak statement, a statement that really impugns the procedure we normally have in committees and councils and even in this Dáil. Of course there will be dissension, of course there will be conflict of interests, of course there will be disagreement on policy, but what is the normal procedure of this House or of a county council or corporation? Discuss it, debate it, vote on it and make a decision on it. If the Minister has not that much confidence in the type of port authority he is fashioning in this Bill, then the whole exercise is fruitless. That would be really an attack on a democratic process that has been developed over a long period, finely honed and acceptable generally in our community.
I have dealt with the two tier structure. In his speech the Minister said that the Government have already decided, in the context of devolution to local authorities, we agree with that on this side of the House; it is gaining support throughout our community and throughout the EC also that harbours which now cater for little or no commercial traffic should be handed over to local authorities. I ask the Minister when he is replying to indicate whether there would be restrictions on a county council when they had had the devolved powers to develop a particular harbour. For example, if the Government cut themselves off from Annagassan Pier and allow the county council to provide £5 million for development, does the Minister envisage a freedom for the county council? I took that merely as an example and it may not be a particularly fortunate one, but I am asking if the Minister envisages any restriction on the county council to develop. If he does, he seems to be throwing the corpse of a port or harbour to the county council because central Government see no further use for it.
I have made the point about lack of investment at present. All the statistics that we get and read about indicate that if there is one thing we need more than anything else it is investment. At present, there is neither private investment nor public investment. I agree with the principle that public investment — which we are dealing with here — should proceed along certain, very well ordered principles, the principle of return, the principle of provision of employment and so on. It is a sick joke to hear any member of this Government talking about rational development. There is no kind of development at present. I hope that the estuarial area and the Authority — if the Bill gets through this House — will be alerted to their prime responsibility which is the responsibility to develop the area.
Tá Súil agam go mbeidh forbairt sa regiún sin den tSionnain. Mar a Dúirt mé cheana féin, do chuireamar an tSionainn síos chugaibhse i Luimneach i bhfad i bhfad ó shin. Tosnaíonn an abha sin i gContae an Chabáin, téann sí isteach sa regiún seo sa bhfarraige. Tá súil agam go mbeidh forbairt ann, forbairt a rachaidh sa todhchaí chun mhaitheasa don taobh sin tíre agus don tír iomlán.
There is something very peculiar about the introduction of this Bill at this time into Dáil Éireann. It is worth noting that the last time a member of a Coalition Government brought this Bill before this House for consideration that Coalition Government fell shortly after. If I were the Minister of State sitting on his own in the entire benches of the Coalition Government I would fear that what happened once could very easily happen again.
Is the Deputy suggesting that this Bill will bring down the Government?
I am suggesting that this Bill will not get through this House.
The Minister has nobody behind him, no speaker.
It is interesting to note for those who have a deep interest in what is involved in the setting up of an esturial authority to cover the Shannon estuary that no member of the Fine Gael or Labour Parties is present in this House and that no member of fine Gael or Labour offered to speak when it was their turn to speak on this Bill. I mention that now in the hope that it may pinch the consciences of one or two of them to induce them to come in and at least pay lip service to the Bill which is here purely for political reasons. I will have more to say on that in the course of the next few minutes.
Every effort possible was made over the years by one or two important members of the Fine Gael Party in the city of Limerick — one of them in particular a former Member of this House — to set up this estuarial authority. Some of us have watched their efforts carefully over the years because we knew that their intentions were not honourable. We know from the first Bill that was published that it was hoped that the Government and the Minister — then Deputy Peter Barry — would rush through that Bill at that time and that they would use their political muscle to take over the assets of the Foynes Harbour Trustees and use them to bolster up other areas within the region and in particular the harbour trustees in the city of Limerick who were not able to provide for themselves in the economic sense. It did not happen then. Over the years many efforts have been made to resurrect this estuarial Bill but they have failed and I am satisfied that this will fail today. If the Minister wishes to contest that with me let him be prepared for a vote on Thursday afternoon and let him get word to his party Whip that he had better keep the truce here.
I welcome, as would any member of the House, any effort to provide additional employment opportunities for the young people. During the course of another Bill on a similar subject introduced by the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, some time ago on the establishment of the concept of free ports, enshrining it in our legislation, we made a very solid case for the inclusion of the Shannon Estuary, by including it in the Bill as a free port. When the Minister replied he did not have anything positive to offer for the 20,000 young boys and girls who are unemployed in the mid western region. There was no soft soap talk from the Minister on that occasion such as that given by the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon here today with regard to the many fine attributes of the Shannon Estuary. At that time we were talking about only Cork, and we know full well the reasons why. The Government were trying to hold up their declining support in that region. Now we are told that Shannon is a wonderful place, that it has powerful potential when a blind eye was turned to it on that occasion. The Minister, Deputy Mitchell, should be here today to answer for his part in that matter but the Minister is sending his junior Minister in an effort to keep himself away form the well deserved criticism that can be levelled at him for his part in this.
This Bill has more in it than meets the eye. I do not accuse the Minister of State of political chicanery or side-stepping but there is something about this Bill that does not meet the normal standards applicable to Bills such as this. The famous section 13 deserves to be highlighted at every opportunity. If the Bill gets through Second Stage we hope that that section will be deleted from it.
Last May the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, came to Foynes to officially open an extension to the jetty. As a member of an Irish Government he was welcome there, but as a Minister who had done nothing for Foynes his presence was questionable. Foynes had embarked on an extensive and expensive extension to their port facilities. Promises made with regard to Government grants had been reneged on. The port authority trustees were put to the pin of their collar to try to meet the financial commitments to pay money due for that great extension which was necessary for the development of the port. Total public investment to date in this area is £571,000. There are 500 people and therefore 500 families making a good living from the port which is our deepest port on the western coast and many others depend indirectly on its success also. Every day that port handles ships up to 35,000 tonnes dead weight which no other port on the west coast can handle. One could compare the jobs provided without cost to the State to the jobs provided by the IDA involving a State expenditure of £10,000, £15,000 or £30,000 per job. In Foynes the people on their own initiative, with little help from the Exchequer have provided something worthwhile and the concern now is that their best interests might not be served if they are swallowed up in this estuarial authority. On the last occasion the Government tried to force them in. This time there is a slightly different approach in that section 13 says that Foynes may stay out but that the Minister at a future date, by ministerial order, can force Foynes back in.
Softly, softly.
That is not a manly way in which to approach the problem. It is sneaking, it is the back door method. The carrot and the stick method is used by this Government. The carrot and stick were indirectly used by the Government when they refused to honour their financial commitment to Foynes to help them build the east jetty extension and the whisper was out that if they kept quiet and became part of the esturial authority, they might get a little more. The end result was that they got a small grant. I asked a question of the Minister on 12 March 1985 as to the amount by way of grants he proposed to allocate for that year to harbours and ports but the answer given must have been a grave embarrassment to those who try to represent the Government parties in the mid western region. The information given to me showed that Cork Harbour got £4.8 million for the development of a deep water wharf at Ringaskiddy. There is a natuaral deep water facility in Shannon; however Cork got £4.8 million; Drogheda got £300, 000, Dundalk £80,000, Tralee and Fenit £90,000, Wicklow £5,000 and Rosslare £132,000. These were for lifeboat facilities and nobody would object to that. But Foynes got £200,000 and Sligo who could not boast of even 250 people working there got £470,000 for the completion of a harbour dredging scheme.
Making a total of £700,000.
The Minister can be proud of it——
I am.
——if that is the price of his seat here. I hope the people of Sligo recognise what the Minister is doing.
It was the price of keeping the port open. The port had been allowed by the Deputy's party to become silted and it was impossible——
How many people are working in the port on a full time basis?
It will now realise its full potential, which the Fianna Fáil Party had ensured it could not realise, because ships could not come in.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister please tell the House, since he is so quick to interrupt, how many full time people——
Deputies should address the Chair and the Minister of State should not interrupt.
I forgive the Minister because his embarrassment must be unbelievable.
I am very proud we prevented Sligo Harbour from being silted up.
The Minister of State should not interrupt.
I have obviously touched the Achilles heel or a very weak political nerve of the Minister. I am comparing Government expenditure, which was greater that I thought, in Sligo now amounting to over £700,000 — and we still have not been told the number of full time jobs there at present — with total Government expenditure of £571, 000 at the port of Foynes where there are almost 500 people working.
The Minister will have an opportunity of giving that information later on should he choose to do so.
I will gladly give way to the Minister now if he wants to tell me the number of people involved as I have already given way to him to tell me the total cost of public money spent on Sligo port.
That was disorderly.
With all due respects, I was not disorderly and I will continue to make my case. If I can embarrass the Minister — as obviously I can from what he said by way of interjection — it is my job to do so. It must be noted that the money was spent in an area — I am not saying it should not have been spent — which did not have as strong a case for investment did not take place for political reasons and Sligo reaped the benefits.
When this Bill was published last May it was publicly criticised by the Minister for Energy as is clear from the front page of The Kerryman of 16 May 1986. He criticised it because of the exclusion of Foynes from the control of the proposed harbour authority. That is worth noting because he is the second most important man in the Government. If he publicly criticises a Bill, section 13 of which is a trap door for wiping out the autonomy of Foynes at the stroke of a ministerial pen, then we must be on our guard. If what he said can be regarded as an indication of the Government's intentions in regard to using the powers which the Minister wants under section 13 to take away from Foynes its independence to pursue its own business, in the economically viable and successful way it has been operating over the years, then there is great cause for concern. I want an assurance that the indication, which can only be read into what the Minister for Energy said, is one which has been misrepresented. Of course, one way to take the Minister out of his misery is by not having the Bill processed or by deleting section 13.
There is genuine concern about Foynes, where there are almost 500 people working and whose assets are at present valued at approximately £20 million. The assets of the port users are also valued at £20 million. Its successful operation would be hindered if it was part of an estuarial authority. There are excellent facilities are available in Foynes. Even though facilities are vitally important we all recognise that unless you have good labour relations — as is the case in Foynes — a port is useless. We are all very proud of labour relations in Foynes and having regard to labour relations in ports generally I am sure Members will agree that where we have excellent relations we must do everything we can to preserve them as they are necessary for the successful operation of any port.
The Minister implied this morning that there is dissension in the estuary area. I do not think that is so as I have not seen any. He said the development of a port authority will help to eliminate the possibility of dissension between different harbour authorities in the estuary, particularly in relation to questions of jurisdiction and entitlement of harbour dues. I accept that but there is no dissension on the question of which port can provide the facilities because Foynes is the only port that can provide the facilities which commercial shipping needs. No other port would be able to handle ships up to 35,000 tonnes dead-weight. The Minister is wrong. If he is trying to make a case for the inclusion of Foynes, against its will, in the estuarial authority he should stop now.
When the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, visited Foynes on 16 May 1986 he said he intended and hoped that Foynes would be included in the estuarial authority from the outset. He regretted that Foynes was outside the domain of the Shannon Ports Authority for the time being. I mention that because the words "time being" are important. He went on to say he was still disappointed and not fully convinced that their approach was the best one. I refer to that because implicit in those words is an indication that the Minister has every intention of using section 13 of the Bill if it is ever introduced in the House. His remarks must be coupled with what the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, said today that while he did not doubt the sincerity and conviction with which Foynes Harbour trustees hold their brief, he was still disappointed and not fully convinced it was the best approach. He said he made this remark in the knowledge that the trustees propose to embark on a further major harbour development scheme costing in excess of £5 million. The Minister said it is a pity that such a scheme could not be devised as part of an overall strategy drawn up for the estuary by the Shannon Ports Authority. I fear, because of the way the Minister's regret is so clearly stated and because he went on to talk about the development which is costing £5 million, that he was showing up clearly his stick and carrot approach. I want to warn the Minister that if he interferes in any way with the development of Foynes Harbour or with the livelihoods of the 500 people who work there he will have a lot to answer for in this House.
As I have already said, we would welcome any work in the estuary and any move which would help to attract further major industries there. We have been successful in that regard in the past as is evidenced by the existence of the power generating station on Tarbert Island, the Moneypoint generating station in County Clare and the Alumina plant on Aughinish Island and which is only about 400 yards north of Foynes. We want to see more industrial development such as the development which has taken place at Askeaton in County Limerick. There must be as much development as possible on both the north and south sides of the estuary, with north Kerry being included in any development on the south side.
The Government should devote their energies to developing properly this fine natural asset. We have many State agencies including the IDA who are costing hundreds of millions of pounds every year but who are not doing anything worthwhile for the development of the Shannon estuary. They own large tracts of land on both sides of the estuary but they have done nothing with it. We would like to know what input the Shannon Free Airport Development Company are going to have into the development of the Shannon estuary. Are they going to be allowed to have any input?
Another layer of bureaucracy is now being created and we do not know what powers they are going to have. Will they have greater powers than the IDA to develop the estuary? Will they have the same budget as the IDA? Will they have representatives abroad to meet industrialists? If we are serious about developing the Shannon estuary I hope this new creature which is being created by the Minister of State will have the necessary powers.
They will have no money. There is no provision for financial assistance.
There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill.
One speaker at a time.
There is nothing in the Bill to indicate if the Government have any intention of spending an additional 6p for the purposes of creating jobs in the area of the Shannon estuary. If one could take any indication from the attitude of the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, as to where Government moneys are going to be spent we can rest assured that the Shannon estuary region is going to be hard done by. In 1985, he took twice the amount of money to Sligo than he pumped into the entire area of the Snannon estuary which stretches 60 miles from the city of Limerick to Loop Head and Kerry Head. If that is an indication of Government support for the development of the Snannon estuary, let us hasten the day when there will be a change in Government.
I think I will ask the Sligo Champion if they will consider using the Deputy's speech.
A Cheann Comhairle I am waiting for you to reprimand the Minister. I do not like to have to tell him that he is totally out of order and that if he wants to get involved in a political argy bargy it might cause embarrassment if I turn back on him. Let us have it fairly even handed.
We always have.
I am not going to pull back from it. If the Minister's attitude, on the basis of fairplay for other regions, is as indicated by him in the way public moneys have been disbursed, there is great cause for concern in the Shannon estuary region. However, we look forward to a change very quickly when we will not have the concern we have now.
Large amounts of money are collected by the Limerick harbour authorities, who are based in the City of Limerick, in respect of ships which discharge their goods at Moneypoint, Tarbert and Aughinish. A high proportion of those fees should not have been invested in particular areas. Developments would not have taken place in those areas but for the fact that the county councils there ploughed a lot of money and effort into them before they were provided. Some of that money should have been invested in areas from whence the landing fees came in Counties Clare and Kerry, Huge amounts of money are being collected annually from these areas in County Clare and County Limerick. I will leave it to my County Clare colleague, Deputy Daly, to make the case for the people who sent him here to represent them.
Deputy McEllistrim has indicated that he is going to participate in this debate and he will make his case. There is a big case to be made. Even if this Bill gets through without section 13 — we will be moving an amendment to delete section 13 if this Bill reaches Committee Stage — two representatives from County Clare on the board of 21 is not going to give adequate representation to that county which provides the whole northern bank of the estuary. They will have no greater say than two representatives on, say, a chamber of commerce or the CII. That is wrong.
It is equally wrong that County Limerick which has 40 miles of the southern bank of the estuary should have only two representatives on the authority by way of members of a local authority. The same applies to County Kerry. Out of a body of 21 people six members are to represent the Counties of Kerry, Clare and Limerick. That is not right or proper. I appreciate that if one has too large a board it will be an unwieldy body to get to move and I would be prepared to discuss that aspect reasonably and fairly but it is not good enough that the three counties on the Shannon estuary should be limited to six representatives out of 21, bearing in mind that there will be two representatives from a chamber of commerce, two from the confederation of industry and five from the Minister. That is not good enough. I should like much discussion on this point and the Bill amended to ensure a fairer representation on the board.
I would help the Minister on the matter by way of amendment when it comes to that stage and would urge him clearly to define for us the qualifications of those he intends to nominate to fill the five vacancies which he can fill on that board. We would like to know who these people might be, their qualifications and interests. That is very important. I want the Minister to spell out very clearly if section 13 remains, if the port authority at Foynes continue to be the success story they are and if they want to stay independent, outside the umbrella of the port authority, will the Minister force them in against their will? I know that he is trying the carrot and the stick game and has been for a considerable period of time. Does he now feel that this is the time to tell if they will be forced in? We would welcome a definite statement of intent from him and the Government on this point. This is necessary, because the Minister for Energy in Tralee last May stated his views.
There are many people dependent for their livelihood on the continued success of Foynes harbour, who would be deeply worried if the control of their own affairs, successfully managed to date, were given to a larger authority on whose board they would have no representative as such, other than two from the county of Limerick. These people have every right to be concerned and to expect that their public representatives would seek clarification of the situation. This is a very serious matter, indeed, which we would like clarified. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and, depending on what he does say, we shall know where we stand when we go to Committee Stage with regard to amendments to the Bill in which I have a specific interest.
As somebody coming from Limerick, I should like to take this opportunity of saying a few words on this Bill which I welcome. The port of Foynes has been mentioned on numerous occasions by Deputies Wilson and Collins. That port is recognised worldwide by ship owners and charterers as the only general cargo port in Ireland capable of handling large vessels, leading even the ports of Limerick, Cork and Belfast. That port is recognised in world shipping circles by the masters and owners of vessels for prompt turnaround of ships.
This Bill is long overdue. I must refer to the famous section, section 13, which has been mentioned here today. Prior to the Minister's decision to allow Foynes to remain outside the new port authority, there were many scare stories throughout west Limerick. Everywhere I went I was told that the Minister would insist on the inclusion of Foynes. I was told at the Limerick County Council meetings, being signalled out by the Opposition, that responsibility for the people of Foynes was mine at that moment. I was told that I was pressurised by sections belonging to my own party not to support the inclusion of Foynes. If possible, would the Minister make public the names of those who made recommendations to him personally and through his office requesting him to take in Foynes? If that were to happen, I could see some people on the other side blushing, people who will come in here later today and take on the line that Deputy Wilson was advised to take by his colleague as regards Foynes.
I am conscious of the position at Foynes where we have had between 400 and 500 people working. For the vast majority of my lifetime I have been a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union and was always conscious of what employment and unemployment meant, also as somebody who all his lifetime was a worker. I was one of those who emigrated at a young age in 1944 with a number of my colleagues in a ship to Birmingham where arrangements had been made with the powers across the way by the Government then in power here.
Section 13 was used by Deputy Collins here. He said that the Minister, for some deliberate reason, wanted to connive at a later stage to force Foynes under the port authority. I am sorry that Deputy is not present at the moment, but I should like to ask him why did the Minister not avail of that opportunity last May when no change was needed in the legislation? I was one of those who made constant representation to the Minister in that respect and pressurised him as much as possible. The Minister for Communications is not somebody who yields easily to pressure. He told me that he sat down for four days examining the position of Foynes, the achievements and the potential employment there. For that reason he was satisfied to grant my request to exclude Foynes.
There was, of course, disappointment in west Limerick among the Fianna Fáil members because they had already told the people that this would not happen. Two weeks after the Minister's decision was taken, I was literally abused at a Limerick County Council meeting because I put in notice of a motion congratulating the then Minister for his very wise decision. I knew well what it meant to those people that the Minister had not forced Foynes in. It was an awful blow to the Fianna Fáil Party in west Limerick because they had thought that they had something to handle, that they had a nettle to grasp. Our party in west Limerick never lost an opportunity to ask the Minister to examine the position of Foynes.
Foynes can be very proud of their record. I remember when the extension was opened in May the Minister said there was a doubt as to whether Foynes would be allowed in but he made it clear to me he would only bring in Foynes under section 13 if they so desired. Since that time the number of people employed in Foynes Harbour has increased. That is clear evidence the Minister was right. If the names of those who are opposed to my suggestion were printed in Kerry, west Limerick and Clare there would be many red faces. It is only natural for people to concentrate on their own interests and think of what it means to their constituency. As far as I am concerned I will never lose an opportunity to make sure that Foynes are on their own. I hope members of the party opposite will not be influenced by others in their party from that county and change their minds. I gave a commitment to the people and workers in Foynes and I wish to put on record my appreciation of what Deputy Mitchell has done as Minister.
It is unfortunate that this Bill which has been the subject of discussion for almost 20 years should be the cause of so much frustration and anxiety. While the overall concept of an authority for the development of the Shannon Estuary is one which is broadly welcome there is widespread disagreement with the measure now before the House. That dissatisfaction is not confined to the benches of this side. Reservations have been expressed by numerous people on both sides on the inadequacies in the Bill. When you measure the potential of the Shannon and recognise the magnificent natural resource we have in the estuary which has not really been exploited up to now and when you look at the variety of interests involved in the estuary, it is understandable that there would be anxiety about the representation aspect. The Minister did not deal with this adequately. When the Minister visited some of the areas and met with some of the interests involved in the estuary he did not take into account the views expressed to him. The representation which is in the Bill is not satisfactory from the point of view of those in County Clare whom I represent and is totally unsatisfactory as far as the estuarial sub-committee of Clare County Council are concerned.
I should like to see a management development plan for the estuary. Fish farming is carried out in Carrigaholt. The oyster beds in Poulnasherry are being developed. There is traditional salmon fishing from Kilfedane to Limerick city on both sides of the estuary. Power stations have been built at Tarbert and Moneypoint. Numerous sites have been identified and planning permission has been granted for developments of one kind or another. When all that is taken into account one can see the need to have the fullest possible representation on the authority.
I am not happy with the legislation. The setting up of a management authority or an authority within an authority is detrimental to the overall objectives that would be desirable from the point of view of having an authority set up to look at the management of the estuary, taking into account its amenities, environmental value and the uses to which it can be put. If you look at the speeches which were made in the Seanad you will see there was dissatisfaction there with the representation. Much concern was expressed by Senators. I do not want to quote all their reservations but Senator Honan expressed clear reservations about the authority when the Bill was before the House in June. Senator Howard referred to the representation from the Clare side. He stated at column 869 of the Official Report:
If the balance of representation proposed in the Bill remains unaltered there will be a serious imbalance and this will be against the northern bank.
The northern bank is the Clare side of the estuary which is over 90 miles in length and comes under the jurisdiction of Clare County Council. We believe the lack of representation from the Clare northern bank of the river will be seriously detrimental to the best interests of the port authority and to the future plans the authority will make. There is a lack of representation from the Clare side.
The Minister is well aware of the fact that the Kilrush Harbour Authority, who were the Kilrush Urban Council, are being abolished under this legislation. Nothing has been written in to the new port authority to replace them. The Minister may determine who may be the representatives from Clare County Council on the new authority. He could draft regulations to ensure there will be represenation from the Kilrush electoral area on the authority, but that does not get over the fact that Kilrush Urban District Council as a harbour authority are being abolished and there is no provision in this legislation to replace any of the people who are at present members of that authority. The Kilrush Harbour Authority have been a very forward looking and determined body in the promotion of Cappagh. Unfortunately, because of circumstances beyond the control of the Kilrush Urban District Council, it has not been possible for them to undertake the kind of development necessary at Cappagh and in the general area of Kilrush. One of the reasons for this, and it runs right through this legislation, is the lack of financial provision to enable them to do the work necessary. The lack of financial resources to enable the Kilrush Harbour Authority to develop Cappagh has hampered them in their work for the last 25 or 30 years. On numerous occasions Kilrush Harbour Authority sought financial assistance from the Minister even to undertake a feasibility study of possible developments which could be undertaken at Cappagh.
As the Minister knows, within the existing financial limitations laid down in legislation, the Kilrush authority are not in a position to raise even limited finances to enable them to carry out that work. In my view the main reason for the difficulties facing these authorities is the lack of financial commitment to deal with the major issues facing them. It is a good move to get the Minister to consider what a new authority would look like from the point of view of representation and the objectives they should try to achieve, but an authority which does not have the necessary finances to carry out certain projects is one that is weak and has a foundation which will be undermined straightaway. As I said, it was lack of finance which hampered the Kilrush Urban District Council from developing Cappagh.
When Moneypoint was under construction there was a great deal of increased traffic using our roads. These heavy vehicles brought by road materials which could have been brought through Cappagh harbour had it been developed, but the harbour authority did not have the financial resources or the legislation to enable them to raise the necessary finance. When Moneypoint was under construction we saw little or no increase in traffic at Cappagh but immense damage was done to the roads of west Clare. Enormous financial problems were created for the local authorities who tried to maintain a road structure which was not designed to carry such heavy vehicles. In fairness, the ESB made contributions to the council to enable some repairs to be undertaken, but the damage to the foundation of our county and arterial roads will not be remedied over the next ten or 20 years and will involve huge expenditure of taxpayers' money. Most of this could have been avoided if Cappagh harbour had been utilised.
It is very disappointing for members of the Kilrush Harbour Authority to find, after all their years trying to maintain and develop Cappagh, that a new authority are being established on which they will not have any direct representation. There are other areas which are not represented on this board, nor are they likely to be represented. This legislation, I believe, is not satisfactory from their point of view. When the Minister came to Kilrush a couple of years ago numerous bodies interested in the development of the estuary spoke to him and got assurances that their views would be listened to. They are very frustrated and disappointed that their views have not been taken into account and that they will not be represented on the new authority, except perhaps by a Minister who might take their views into account when appointing his nominees. This is not satisfactory because these people believe they should have direct representation so that they will have a say in how the authority will develop in future years.
The smaller ports on the estuary on the Clare side have been neglected. An interest in Clarecastle is being developed by a newly established company, CW Shipping, set up by a young Clare businessman, Mr. Whelan. He organised a very successful operation to undertake some development in Clarecastle, and probably in other smaller harbours. This will lead to extra jobs in the area. People like Mr. Whelan are to be congratulated and supported, but what do they get form the present authority at Shannon? They were frustrated and inconvenienced in every way when they tried to establish legitimate businesses on the estuary because of vested interests and controls which are more or less decided in the Limerick harbour authority offices. They decide who should or should not develop a business on the estuary. Young people find this very frustrating and annoying. We now have a facility at Moneypoint that is creating additional business on the estuary. There are young business people interested and willing to invest their time, effort and money in shipping, in tug boats, in the establishment of a new harbour at Clarecastle, and so on, but their efforts are frustrated because of the vested interests and controls imposed by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. These people are being given the run-around. They have been forced almost into having to take legal action to endeavour to establish legitimate businesses in the estuary. If this is to be the position under the new estuarial authority proposed under the provisions of this Bill is it any wonder that people are expressing reservations about the representation? Is it any wonder also that people are loud in demanding that they have adequate and full representation on this authority so that there will be an end put to the restrictive practices at present frustrating young business people attempting to establish industries in the estuary?
There are a number of development agencies operating in the region. It is true to say that over the years there has been no co-ordinated approach to industrial development in the Shannon Estuary area. There is the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, which deals with Limerick, Clare and North Tipperary, with no authority to deal with projects in the estuary. The IDA have identified sites in Kerry but, to my knowledge there has not been a site identified on the Clare bank of the estuary in the 90 miles from Loop Head to Limerick city. There has not been one industrial site identified or purchased by the IDA for any project of any importance at a time when the whole development of the estuary is supposed to take off. On the other hand there is a different IDA regional office handling the Kerry side. There is total confusion, with no overall approach to the development of the estuary from an industrial viewpoint.
This may well be something with which the new estuarial authority should deal. Is it not odd, to say the least of it, that none of the development agencies with responsibility have any representation whatsoever on the new authority? There is SFADCo, which has been responsible for the promotion of small industry, delegated to deal with the food processing industry and others involved also in the promotion of the overall duty-free area in Shannon. There is the prospect of additional duty-free ports being established under legislation already introduced. Is it not odd that a company like that would not be represented on the new estuarial authority? Would it not be sensible to have some overall approach to the estuary on the part of the IDA rather than having different offices, agencies and regional managers dealing with different areas of the river? There can be no overall approach to development within the estuary as long as that type of attitude obtains. It would be sensible and reasonable that bodies like the IDA should be involved. Certainly SFADCo — which has responsibility for promotion of small industry and is very much involved in various parts of my constituency in the provision of industry should be involved.
Would it not be reasonable that the fragmented approach to overall industrial promotion be examined on the establishment of a new authority such as a ports authority, that when appointing people to that authority account should be taken of that fragmented approach? There is the fragmented approach of two different regional offices, with regional managers, one dealing with one side of the river and the other with the opposite side. Then there is SFADCo with responsibility but with no voice in saying how that responsibility should be exercised in the overall development of the estuarial authority as a unit. As long as that obtains we shall continue to see the fragmentation and lack of effort which have hampered development not only in the estuary but in many other areas as well.
I believe that lack of representation is a glaring omission from the proposed new authority. Before we reach Committee Stage the Minister might examine the possibility of ensuring that the industrial promotional agencies, whether it be the IDA, the county development teams, SFADCo or whoever, would have some input into or voice on the estuarial authority. If that were done, even at this late stage, we might eliminate the handicap suffered in the development of industry in areas like Shannon, Clare and north Kerry, particularly from the fragmentation, overlapping and waste of human and financial resources. Certainly that should be examined on the establishment of the estuarial authority to ascertain in what way it can be remedied.
In the estuarial sub-committee of Clare County Council established some time ago to examine the legislation and the whole area, to ascertain the possibilities for development, there was widespread criticism that the huge volume of revenue now accruing from the Moneypoint development on the Clare side of the estuary, is being paid directly to Limerick Harbour Commissioners. They have been very critical of the fact that the revenues accruing from traffic moving in and out of Moneypoint is being paid to Limerick Harbour Commissioners, with no account being taken of the damage done already to the infrastructure in Clare by the development of that power station. I want to emphasise, from the point of view of people in Clare, that it is most unsatisfactory, especially bearing in mind the hardship they have suffered with broken down roads, the breaking of boundaries and division of farms occasioned by the erection of huge pylons in the vicinity of the Moneypoint station. At a time when there is financial benefit to accrue to the region and county, after all of the hardship they have suffered in the past five or six years since the power station was built, it is indeed disappointing to see those financial benefits from Moneypoint going to the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. That is unacceptable to Clare Council. I feel it is unacceptable. A proportion of the financial returns now accruing to the Limerick Harbour Commissioners is entitled to be paid to Clare County Council. The sub-committee of Clare County Council have said they are not prepared to accept the situation in which the fees generated by Moneypoint are paid to Limerick Harbour Commissioners. Clare County Council want to see that situation rectified and fairly soon.
The whole position in Clare is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the provisions of this Bill. For years and years we were given to understand that Clare would be given full and adequate representation on the establishment of a new ports authority. They are not being given adequate representation and they are dissatisfied. I want to express that dissatisfaction here. Clare County Council are also dissatisfied with the way in which this matter has been handled by the Government. The Minister for Communications came to Kilrush, he met Clare County Council and has met numerous deputations over the years. It should be remembered that the Government have been contemplating this legislation for the past four years. Even bearing in mind the views expressed in the Seanad by Senators of the Minister's own party that the representation is not satisfactory from our point of view, there has been no attempt made to change that representation. Certainly we shall have to consider putting down amendments at a later stage in order to rectify that position.
Overall the Shannon Estuary has not been developed to any great extent. It is a piecemeal operation which is going on in different places and by different organisations with no overall co-ordinated approach. We urgently need a co-ordinated overall approach to the development of the estuary, one that will ensure that people's rights are safeguarded, that there is a balanced development between the various strands of activity that are taking place within that estuary area, that there is care and concern for the protection of the environment and that the magnificent natural amenity there will be relatively pollution free. Every effort must be made in the overall development of the estuary to ensure that there will never be any prospect of polluting the area of the estuary which is pollution free at present. In the overall balanced development of the estuary fishing interests, industrial interests and the recreational and amenity interests should be taken into account. There is enormous potential there for developing water sports and other recreational amenities. That potential is unexploited and underdeveloped. To date all these factors should be taken into account in a new estuarial authority who must be fair to every section, who will be reasonable in their representation and who will take account of the various and different views expressed in that area.
We cannot accept any longer in my constituency the kind of mismanagement we have got from this Government in the past four years. The whole prospect of industrial development in the estuary has been damaged by a Government who have been uncaring in their attitude to employment in that region. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is demonstrating a very keen interest in photo-call sessions at present in the industrial area of Shannon to try to convince people that he has some commitment to industrial promotion and development in the estuary. We are very sceptical about that. We have not seen any major drive from that Minister to increase employment in the mid west region. Any industrial development that has taken place in that region in the past number of years has been undertaken under Fianna Fáil administrations. For the first time industrial jobs in the mid west region are declining, with a loss of 1,000 jobs this year. Any of the projects — Aughinish, Moneypoint, the Tarbert generating station — or any of the developments that took place in the estuary or in the Shannon free airport industrial development zone were undertaken by Fianna Fáil. Because Fianna Fáil have been out of office for the past four years we are now seeing the result of the neglect of this Government, and in particular of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who comes from the region, in dealing with industrial development in this area.
I was present when the Minister opened an "industry" in Shannon. On the day of the opening I asked who was employed there but was told that there was nobody employed. To the best of my knowledge nobody was ever employed in that company.
Are you still on the harbours Bill?
That was a phantom factory that was opened by the Minister in 1984. These are the type of photo-call sessions we saw from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and this is the kind of commitment we see from this Government.
The Deputy should stay on the Bill.
The Government closed down Woodfab Limited in Kilrush, Ceramics Limited in Kilrush and other plants——
It is the harbours Bill we are talking about
The litany of closures is almost unending.
The Deputy should stay on the Bill.
The people of County Clare are very sceptical about any promises coming from this administration. They hoped that this Bill would go down with this Government the same as the last esturial authority Bill went down with the Minister for Communications, Deputy Barry, at that time. Unfortunately, the Government in a last ditch effort to try to demonstrate that they are doing something in the region, are now rushing through this legislation to have it on the Statute Book before they are thrown out of office. I suggest to the Minister that he might not go any further with this Bill after Second Stage. He might just leave it there and let it die peacefully the same as its predecessor died under the last Coalition Government.
I welcome the Bill even though it has very severe limitations, particularly in relation to the members of local authority appointees proposed in the Bill. In that regard the proposals of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners in their 1983 document were far more generous than those proposed by the Minister. Between 1983 and 1985 the Limerick Harbour Commissioners proposed that the Authority be comprised of four people from Limerick Corporation, four from Limerick County Council, four from Clare County council, four from Kerry County Council and one from Tipperary North Riding County Council. They then went on to list chambers of commerce, the Confederation of Irish Industry, labour interests, shipping interests, Minister's nominees, the IDA and so on. I had the privilege of serving for 13 years as a member of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. During that time we engaged in very serious expenditure on the development of the Shannon Estuary. I am absolutely appalled at the lack of balance and downright ignorance or misrepresentation by some Senators from County Limerick and from County Clare, namely, Senator Rory Kiely from County Limerick and Senators Tras Honan and Michael Howard from County Clare. Anybody reading their contributions in the Seanad and knowing the history of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners on their attempts to develop the overall estuary for the benefit, not of the contiguous Shannon estuary area, but of the entire country, could only be appalled. One would question the situation whereby these statements could be made in the Seanad without these people first having investigated the facts.
In a submission to the Minister for the establishment of a Shannon ports authority the harbour commissioners outlined the history of their own position and their overall proposals for the development of the one single estuarial authority. They stated that a single unified port authority, representative of all interests on both banks of the estuary as well as being favoured by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, also received the support of Dr. Nathaniel Lichfield, planning consultant, of Dr. Brendan O'Regan, former Chairman of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, of the mid-West regional development organisation and of almost all Ministers for Transport since 1965 when the late Mr. Erskine Childers was responsible for harbours. They went on to say that the concept of a unified port authority meant that the existing harbour authorities would be dissolved and their assets and liabilities merged, that provision could be made for local committees for the purpose of preserving the links between the members of the local community and their traditional ports. The advantages claimed for a unified port authority were the cohesive and progressive forces which could be generated by a broadly based port board fully representative of all the sectors on both banks of the estuary; the elimination of undesirable dissension between harbour authorities and others in the Shannon Estuary which, if allowed to continue, could have very adverse effects on industrial development; the avoidance of unnecessary duplication of facilities and services; the improved co-ordination of planning; better deployment of financial resources; and a stronger position than at present in any future negotiations with governmental and EEC funding agencies and with major port users. That was a key factor in the whole thinking of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners.
Also, the fact that most estuaries in Europe were, or had come under the control of one authority since World War II was seen as concrete evidence of the effectiveness of the proposal which we then submitted to the Minister.
Following a report by Dr. Nathaniel Lichfield, regional planning consultant, in favour of the establishment of a unified port authority, negotiations commenced in 1966 under the chairmanship of Dr. Brendan O'Regan, former Chairman SFADCo. The mid-west RDO took over from Dr. O'Regan in 1969 following which agreement was reached to set up the Shannon Ports Joint Committee in 1971.
The Shannon Ports Joint Committee consisted of representatives from the harbour authorities of Limerick. Foynes, Kilrush, the Department of Transport and Power and Kerry County Council. The committee worked well for over three years and in April 1974 submitted agreed heads of legislation to the then Minister for Transport and Power, Mr. P. Barry. Subsequently over three years later in May 1977, the Harbours Bill, 1977, which contained provisions for the establishment of a Shannon ports authority was introduced in Dáil Éireann.
The Harbours Bill, 1977 was not in accordance with the agreed heads of legislation submitted to the Minister in 1974 by the Shannon Ports Joint Committee. Provisions of the Bill were not acceptable to any of the harbour authorities of the Shannon Estuary, the FHT being particularly aggrieved. The proposed legislation subsequently lapsed following the change of Government in June 1977.
In November 1981 the then Minister for Transport, Mr. Patrick Cooney, invited representatives of LHC, FHT and KUDC together with Mr. R.B. Haslam and Mr. P.J. Barry to a meeting in Limerick. At the meeting the Minister stated that he believed that the general development of the Shannon Estuary could most effectively be achieved by the establishment of a single ports authority with control over the entire waters of the estuary and that proceeding in this way would facilitate future planning and development and would be of considerable help to local interests in promoting the estuary as a suitable location for further large scale industrial projects.
Following the intervention of the Minister, Deputy Cooney, it was agreed that representatives of the three harbour authorities would resume their discussions under the chairmanship of Mr. Haslam, with a view to securing agreement on the establishment of a Shannon port authority and that if, after a period of three months areas of disagreement still remained, these would be clearly identified, together with the reasons for them, in a report from Mr. Haslam to the Minister.
The discussions concluded in January 1982 when the representatives of the FHT stated that the FHT no longer agreed in principle to a single estuarial authority and wished to maintain their own autonomy and continue with their responsibilities for the port of Foynes as outlined in the Harbours Acts of 1946 and 1947. In concluding the discussions, the chairman, Mr. Haslam, stated that he had no other option but to report to the Minister for Transport that, while the LHC and KUDC were agreeable in principle to the establishment of a single ports authority for the Shannon Estuary, the FHT were not in agreement and, therefore, there was no purpose in continuing the discussions. Recently, in October 1983, the FHT reaffirmed their previous decision not to participate in a unified estuarial authority in a letter to the KUDC.
The situation there is that under legislation dating from 1823 the LHC are responsible for the waters of the Shannon Estuary, with the exception of those warters under the jurisdiction of FHT and the piers vested in KUDC, the county councils and the Office of Public Works.
The waters under the control of the LHC include the Aughinish Alumina marine facility, the Moneypoint coal terminal, now nearing completion, the Tarbert power station oil jetty, the Foynes Island oil terminal (Cement) Ltd, Shannon Airport oil jetty and Limerick Docks.
The LHC have always acted with responsibility in the best interests of the development of the Shannon Estuary and will continue to do so pending the formation of a more broadly based port authority which the LHC believe offers the best way forward for the orderly development of the estuary.
The LHC, in co-operation with other organisations (i.e. Mid-West RDO, SFADCo, IDA, local authorities, other harbour authorities) have always been exteremely active in the promotion and development of the Shannon Estuary over the last 20 years. In recent years over £850,000 has been expended by the LHC in the Shannon Estuary in the provision of essential new facilities and services, in the improvement of existing services and in economic and physical studies, including the construction of the oil jetty at Shannon Airport in 1973, dredging studies for 500,000 dead weight tonnage vessels, and the provision of improved navigational aids, tugs, a new pilot boat and other harbour craft.
There is considerable evidence in support of the claim that the availability of the vital data accumulated in the course of the studies initiated and paid for by the Harbour Commissioners over the years, together with their promotional efforts, were important contributory factors to the decisions of Aughinish Alumina Limited, which provides 800 well paid jobs and is a valuable asset to the country, the ESB, and more recently, oil refining interests to locate in the Shannon Estuary. The LHC's foresight in constructing an oil jetty at Shannon Airport was fully vindicated by the decision of the Soviet airline "Aeroflot" to refuel at Shannon using Russian aviation fuel imported directly through the jetty; this new business estimated to be worth over £4 million per annum provided a most welcome boost to the airport and to the Mid-West Region.
In 1983 we published a report which highlighted the feasibility of developing the navigational channel to cater for 400,000 tonne vessels at the relatively modest cost, in current terms, of £5 million. The findings of that study also disclosed that the subsequent cost of maintenance dredging will be minimal. That report was of invaluable help in promoting the harbour as a deep water location to interested industrialists. I presume that the law is based on the reasonable man. I can understand very well the kind of local patriotism of public representatives and of people on local authorities who are afraid that by this whole concept of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners to develop the estuary as a whole, they were in some way trying to take over responsibility. That is not true.
There was great soul searching by people like me who were public representatives on the Limerick Harbour Commissioners when we put forward these proposals because we agreed to do so in a manner which would have the effect of limiting the powers of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners and extending them to people in the surrounding areas like the ports. I am talking about Kilrush and Foynes in particular. I have a vested interest in that proposal because I am the regional secretary of the ITGWU for Limerick and Clare and I dealt with the labour people on all sides of the estuary. Therefore, I was very anxious that there be manifestly fair and just representation by all the port authorities in which my union, the ITGWU, play a very constructive, significant and worthwhile role as anybody who understands the situation knows very well.
Therefore, it was with great distress and anger that those of us involved with the Limerick Harbour Commissioners read the downright unfounded and misguided statements by people in the Seanad and from other areas about alleged ulterior motives of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. As I mentioned in quoting from our submission to the Minister, all the evidence from all over Europe has indicated that we are best fitted to qualify to an optimum degree for European grants from what funds are available to us if we do so with an overall remit or mandate for all of the estuary. This was proven in Rotterdam and it applied on the Clyde in Scotland, both of which areas have developed intensely as a result of applying that format. This and nothing more was what the Limerick Harbour Commissioners had in mind. It was statesmanship, nothing else, the belief that the vision must always be finer than the view, and we did not want to get into the area of colonising the surrounding districts or taking them over. There was nothing of that nature and I want to disabuse anybody who holds that idea that there was.
The belief, the understanding and the accepted position of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners was that in the event of an overall unified ports authority Foynes, not Limerick, would become the nerve centre. This was because Foynes unquestionably in the entire estuary has the physical resources and the wherewithal to deal with big ships that are capable of coming in. This would benefit everybody in the region; not just Foynes and Limerick but Clare and Kerry and up as far as your own county, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, of North Tipperary, so ably represented for many years on the Limerick Harbour Commissioners by your colleague, Labour Councillor Tom Shanahan.
In the brief time left let me wear another hat as Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. I refer to a proposal which will affect directly the operations of all the existing harbour authorities on the Shannon Estuary. That is the proposal by the ESB to become involved at Moneypoint in the bulk purchase of coal and its sale for commercial redistribution. That will have a disastrous effect on employment and industry not alone in the mid-west region but here in Dublin. I have before me a document, a letter from Coal Distributors Limited of Dublin, in which they outline their extreme concern at the fact that the ESB have drawn up plans to enter the coal trade through their new importation facility at Moneypoint. The letter is addressed to me as chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies and dated 7 April of this year. They say a planning application had been lodged with Clare County Council for permission to erect the necessary plant and that more recently the Minister for Energy was reported as saying he would be introducing legislation to permit the ESB to proceed with their plans. The company are upset that the State, which already controls or heavily influences 87 per cent of the primary energy input, was now seeking through the ESB to gobble up the remaining 13 per cent which is represented by the private sector in the form of the coal trade. They maintain that such a development would have very undesirable consequences, including the total concentration of primary energy sources in the hands of the State, causing unemployment for the very large number employed by the coal trade.
They go on to make the point that the ESB should not be afforded this right by way of legislation in that they could very well be ultra vires the rules of the EC in that they might be forming some type of State monopoly to go into other interests in that area. It might seem incongruous for a member of a socialist party to appear to be opposing the expansion of the State sector. I am not saying that. I am saying that more than £835 million has been sanctioned by this House for spending on the Moneypoint project. It is the largest ever single investment by the State and has not yet been completed. Before the ESB become involved in any ancillary activities they should complete what they set out to do. Moneypoint generates 915 MW, almost 50 per cent of output requirements of the nation on the wettest and coldest day of the year. They should first be going about that business effectively. I am not saying they should not engage in ancillary activities. That is all very commendable when done following consultation with other interests in that field. There should be no legislation that would allow the ESB to get involved in a project that would cause terrible disruption in my city.
We have had not one dispute in the docks in Limerick since the introduction of Limerick Cargo Handling Ltd., a model of its kind, following the Con Murphy report. They will be completely wiped out as will employment in the coal distributing industry in Limerick city, in Clare and in Kerry.
On a point of information, we need some jobs in west Clare.
The ESB need legislation to move into this distribution area and I am deeply concerned that they have already become involved in it without getting any mandate from this House, without Oireachtas permission. Is this a "test market"? I am anxious to establish that their present activities will confer no rights on the ESB in this area. We are talking about taxpayers' money. When the House approved this massive expenditure on Moneypoint no reference whatever was made then to this coal distribution and sale. It is not directly related to the ESB mandate. It is primarily to generate electricity, and it could be said that they are competing against themselves, because if I do not want to use electricity, maybe I should buy coal.
Debate adjourned.