Harbours (Shannon Estuary Development Corporation) Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

On the last occasion this Bill was brought before the House I was about to conclude and was outlining the reasons the Bill could not be supported by Fine Gael. Basically it imposes another layer of bureaucracy in the mid-west area which already has quite enough bureaucratic organisations. There is a duplication of purpose in that the Bill seeks to give the proposed corporation authority to deal with industrial development, marine development, recreational development and various amenity developments in the region. These matters are already being monitored and developed by SFADCo who have responsibility for industrial and tourism development.

The Irish Ports Authority have very clearly outlined their concern about the content of this Bill, particularly because it is believed it is to be used as a formula for other ports authorities around the country. This is totally unsatisfactory, especially in the light of developments in the EC, the creation of the single market in 1992 and the essential requirement of quick and efficient transportation from an island country such as ours. Sea transport and port facilities are of vital significance to our economic future. This Bill does not have the necessary clout nor does it have the single purpose of port development. It is essential to have a single structure to develop the ports and ensure long-term economic development.

All the present harbour authorities in the area are totally dissatisfied and reject the proposed legislation. I refer to the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, the Foynes Harbour Commissioners and the Kilrush Harbour Commissioners. It is unfortunate that the Minister, who comes from the region, has not seen fit to recognise the concerns expressed by those organisations and at least to make some attempt in the Bill to deal with the problems they have outlined. I have already dealt with the objections of the respective authorities. In 1986 the Minister, then Fianna Fáil spokesperson for the Marine, spoke about his home territory in Kilrush and said it was very disappointing for members of the Kilrush Harbour Authority to find that after all their years of work a new authority was being established on which they would not have any direct representation. It is curious, now that he has responsibility for this area, that he has not seen fit to give this authority representation. Neither have the Limerick Harbour Commissioners been given representation. I have already dealt with the situation in relation to Foynes.

There is no mention of the pilots on the Shannon and the traditional skills they have developed over the years. Their future and that of their families is not adequately dealt with. Neither is the overall situation of the employees of the respective authorities, be they temporary or permanent. The Bill may attempt to provide in some way for the permanent employees, but the Minister has not outlined how the temporary employees of Foynes in particular will be provided for.

The Bill is full of loopholes and is totally unco-ordinated. It is unfortunate that the Government have seen fit to bring it forward at this time, particularly in the light of the fact that the Department of Industry and Commerce recently asked SFADCo to do a study of the entire Shannon Estuary. That report is to be presented to the Government by June. They would have been extremely wise to consider its contents before proceeding.

The Bill is badly flawed and leaves a lot to be desired. It is not in the interests of port development and is a flawed formula for the setting up of future ports' authorities. It does not seek to provide a structure for the most efficient and capable type of transport to the mainland of Europe. The Bill does not in any way strive to do that. For that reason we oppose it.

Mr. McCoy

The purpose of this Bill as laid out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is to establish a new body to be known as the Shannon Estuary Development Corporation. This new corporation is to have a mandate to promote, co-ordinate and develop investment in marine-related industrial, tourist, recreational and amenity facilities and to encourage activities likely to contribute to the realisation of the marine potential of the Shannon Estuary. The promotion of industrial, tourist, recreational and amenity faciities seems to be the main purpose of the Bill.

These facilities, particularly the tourism and recreational facilities, have already been vested by the present Government in the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, as well as the remit for developing heavy industry in the immediate area. This has recently been consolidated by the inclusion of the constituency of Kerry North into the mid-west region. SFADCo now have an enlarged territory within their responsibility, embracing both sides of the Shannon Estuary, for which they continue to exercise their original function of the promotion of small industries. In addition SFADCo now take over from the IDA the responsibility for the promotion of heavy industry in the mid-west and they take over from Bord Fáilte responsibility for the promotion of tourism in the same area. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why a Bill should now be brought before the House by the Government which has as its main thrust the establishment of a company to carry out specific functions in a specific area, which they have only recently vested in SFADCo.

In the light of these recent Government decisions, and the introduction of this Bill by the Minister for the Marine, which was circulated in April of last year, it is difficult to comprehend the Government's decision to permit the IDA to dispose of the best deep water development site at Ballylongford in north Kerry, especially when the Ballylongford site now falls within the jurisdiction of SFADCo, and the proposed Shannon Estuary Development Corporation, and notwithstanding the fact that this site was acquired under a most expensive procedure.

As I have already outlined, the main stated thrust of this Bill is to promote and co-ordinate and develop investment in marine-related industrial, tourist, recreational and amenity facilities. This Bill has as a secondary provision, almost as an afterthought, the taking over, management and operation of the existing harbours of Limerick, Foynes and Kilrush, giving the new corporation jurisdiction over the waters of the Shannon Estuary from Sarsfield Bridge in Limerick to the sea at Kerry Head-Loop Head.

This is ambiguous as the question of jurisdiction over the Shannon Estuary has been very contentious. Limerick Harbour maintain that they have jurisdiction over the Shannon Estuary except for Foynes and Cappagh Harbours and the other small piers on both the South and the North Banks. It is felt that in the proposed legislation provision should be made to take over the small piers such as Kilteely, Glin, Tarbert and Saleen on the South Bank, and Kilbaha, Querrin, Carrigaholt, Knock, Labasheeda and Kildysart on the North Bank. All of these existing small piers were constructed on the waters of the Shannon Estuary. Some are presently under the control of the county council and the balance are under the control of the Commissioners of Public Works. Therefore, by taking over these piers now we may avoid future legal complications as some of these piers have been used in the past by commercial traffic and commercial interests. It is the opinion that, if this is not done now, it may cause jurisdictional problems in the future. Some of these piers could also be developed successfully for recreational and amenity services. It is worth nothing that Clarecastle had its own harbour authority until recent years and under the previous proposed legislation it was the intention to include Clarecastle in a single ports authority.

I would now like to ask the Minister if any agreements, leases or exclusivities have been given to any private interests over the past number of years in relation to the piers at Clarecastle and Kildysart, because these were public piers and would now appear to be used solely for private purposes. The only worthwhile assets which seem to have eluded this new corporation are the coal handling operation and power station at Money-point and the oil operated power station at Tarbert.

When one considers the wide sweeping commercial and controlling powers that are proposed in the Harbours (Shannon Estuary Development Corporation) Bill now before the House, it is apparent that if this Bill goes through the Government will have to look again at the ESB Bill which came before the House last year and gave to the ESB the power to import and distribute coal commercially as distinct from their requirements for power generation. Or is this to be a Bill which will control the movement and shipping of all commodities except coal and then only when the ESB are the importers?

We will then have a position where ports such as Foynes will be under the jurisdiction of bureaucratic structures where existing coal importers will be exposed to operating conditions and charges in the estuary, where State competitors in the same estuary with the same products have a free autonomous hand. If anybody in this House doubts this assertion, one has only to look at the explanatory memorandum to the Bill which states that no additional Exchequer costs will be incurred as a result of this Bill. If no additional Exchequer costs are to be incurred for the proposed developments in marine related industries, tourism and amenity facilities, it must be assumed that these development activites can only be funded from the existing commerical enterprise which the new corporation will take over.

This view has been echoed by the Irish Ports Authority Association who said, and I quote from the minutes of their meeting of 5 May 1988:

The content of the Bill, especially in regard to functions and membership, was far removed from any recognised concept of commercial port operation. The danger inherent in the Bill that revenues from commercial port users could be allocated to a diversity of noncommercial activites unrelated to port operations was stressed.

This statement comes from the people with the commercial experience of operating Irish ports who see that their commercial base is now under real threat.

It is felt that the proposed functions of the new corporation are inconsistent with the functions of harbours under the Harbours Acts, 1946 to 1947 and conflict with the statutory functions of Bord Fáilte and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company. The main function of the new authority will be to promote, co-ordinate and develop, in conjunction with other statutory authorities, marine-related industrial, tourist, recreational and amenity facilities. Surely this will be a costly duplication of services and will not lead to the better deployment of financial resources. The functions of the harbours at present are mainly to attract port related industries and to develop, maintain and operate the harbours efficiently. Industries such as Aughinish Alumina Limited and the ESB power station at Moneypoint proceeded without a single harbour or authority.

Many industries were attracted to Foynes over the past 15 years mainly because it was efficient and there was a body in operation there which could make fast decisions. When this proposed legislation was circulated in April 1988 there were strong rumours that the IDA were about to sell their land bank west of Tarbert. One of the main criteria for port industrial development is the availablity of land adjacent to deep water. We would like to know now what is the latest policy in relation to the acquisition of land in the vicinity of ports and deep water.

The more worrying aspect of this Bill is the statement that it is to serve as a prototype or model for future legislation affecting other major port areas such as Dublin, Cork and Waterford. The proposed legislation can only weaken the operation and running costs of Irish ports and clearly does not recognise the vital role of the ports in the Irish economy. The dependence of Ireland on external trade was never more pronounced and with the provision of the Channel tunnel Ireland will be the only country within the EC entirely dependent on ports for trade purposes. For this reason, therefore, ports should be allowed to develop and expand in order to give a cost efficient service in the loading, unloading, warehousing and servicing facts of exporting and importing.

Two major ports in the Shannon Estuary whose takeover is proposed in this Bill, namely, Limerick and Foynes harbours, have unrivalled records in the development of trade and port facilities. To downgrade their position and importance as this Bill sets out to do makes a mockery of the Government's stated commitment to regional autonomy and local initiative and involvement. Surely it is the Government's responsibility to help ports that need investment and development so that they can be profitable, self-sustaining, and offer a service of international quality.

What does the Minister propose? His proposal is to back Foynes, Limerick and Kilrush into a corporation which was hastily conceived in an effort to suit individuals rather than the common good. If the development of ports and harbours is the aim of this Bill it is unusual, to say the least, that the ports least in need of development are included, but those ports which are most in need and could benefit from a development corporation are specifically excluded.

The proposed Bill provides for the dissolution of the Foynes Harbour Trustees, Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Kilrush. However, the Bill makes no provision for the dissolution of the Clarecastle Harbour Trustees, nor does it make any provision for the inclusion and control of the following piers; Kilbaha, Querrin, Carrigaholt, Knock, Labasheeda and Kildysart on the North Bank, and Killteerly, Glin, Tarbert and Saleen on the South Bank. Many of the above mentioned piers which are either under the control of local authorities or the Commissioners of Public Works would be ideal vehicles for the tourist, amenity and recreational facilities which are mooted in this Bill. However, their exclusion only serves to highlight this Bill for the inadequate piece of legislation that it is.

The Harbours (Shannon Estuary Development Corporation) Bill would have some credibility if the excluded piers were included and assigned roles in the development of tourism and recreational amenities. However, in controlling the entire Estuary from Sarsfield Bridge to Kerry Head and Loop Head in Clare, the Minister for the Marine has made two kinds of exceptions in the Bill. One relates to the semi-State companies which are under the control of a Government Minister and where the Minister for the Marine has had to keep his hands off. The second exception relates to the smaller piers and jetties which have development potential but would cost money to develop and, since there is no financial provision in the Bill, the Minister does not want to include them.

This left the Minister with the plums of the estuary, the ports with developed infrastructures, business and profits. This was where he could source the cash for his grand plan which lacked funding. These ports are now to pay the price for local initiative, business acumen and sound management.

It is a sad state of affairs when individual representation has been denied to the harbour boards by the Department of the Marine in the preparation of the regional integrated plans. It calls into question the whole basis of these plans and shows little regard for the commercial development of the Shannon area. It now appears that the regional plans — when I wrote this script this was a fear I had but it is now a reality — will be welded together by the Department of Finance. However, there is no guarantee that the basis on which the moneys were applied for in Europe will be the basis for redistribution.

The port of Foynes in particular has constantly sought exclusion from the Shannon Ports Authority Bill taking the view that it had succeeded under the direction of Foynes Harbour Trustees admirably in the past 25 years by sound management and flexibility in its services to shipping and all its ancillary activities. Foynes has developed more rapidly than any other public harbour in this country in the past 25 years, with a current asset valuation in excess of £25 million which contains a Government grant element of less than £0.5 million or only 2 per cent of its asset value.

The Minister, in his speech, gave the impression that he had prolonged and detailed discussions with the various interests in the region. He also led people to understand that there was a consensus among the interested parties in favour of a single harbour authority but of course this is not true. Since the Minister was appointed in 1987 he had only two discussions with Foynes Harbour Trustees, the first of which took place in May 1987 when he stated that it was his intention to proceed with legislation for a single port authority which would include Foynes. It was indicated to the Minister on that occasion that Foynes was opposed to its inclusion in the single harbour authority. The decision of the trustees was consistent with decisions made by previous boards of Foynes Harbour. They had no objection to the Minister proceeding with the Shannon Ports Authority, which would exclude Foynes. The Minister has proposed to continue with the legislation and exclude other piers specifically.

On the second occasion the trustees met the Minister, 4 May 1988, a detailed written submission was made to him on the Harbours Bill, 1988, and the Minister indicated that he would consult further with Foynes prior to the legislation being brought forward. Nothing further has been heard since that date from the Minister's office on the proposed legislation or the submissions which the trustees made. The Minister would not want to give the impression to the other Members of this House that the existing harbour authorities, namely, Limerick and Foynes, are in favour of this legislation as both harbours are strongly opposed to it. It would appear that this position would want to be rectified publicly.

The Foynes Harbour Trustees in their press release have unanimously expressed very strong opposition to the proposals contained in the Bill for many reasons. However, the most important reason is that the free market which has existed heretofore enabled Foynes to be competitive and flexible. There is no recognition in the Bill for the major investment by port users and no provision for the continuity of competitive harbour dues, charges and services. There are no hidden tonnages in the Foynes record and tonnage handled has increased in 20 years from 40,000 tonnes to 800,000 tonnes, employing 320 people in a full time capacity plus 200 casuals on a seasonal basis. This is a record of progress and development with little State help and is unparalleled anywhere else in the country. This growth has been achieved by reinvestment of surplus generated by the harbour authority, private investment and excellent labour relations.

Since the Bill was published, of all the interested parties including statutory bodies, local authorities, port users, unions and commercial organisations, not one of them has been able to support this proposed legislation. Indeed, when the previous Government proposed a similar Bill, Fianna Fáil opposed it tooth and nail for exactly the same reasons as I am opposing it now. For what reason they have seen fit to introduce it now is best known only to themselves and in seeking to get local support some hastily thought-out provisions have been inserted which really seek to highlight the ill-conceived tenor of this SEDCO Bill.

Ireland's dependency on trade is exceeded within the EC only by the Benelux countries, which share land boundaries with other member states. European Community transport policies regarding intra-community trade, take little or no account of sea transport as an island country's only lifeline. The opening of the channel tunnel in 1993 will have a major impact on Ireland which will then be the only member state without direct road or rail links to the rest of the Community. It is obvious, therefore, that Ireland will be totally dependent on port facilities in stark contrast to its Community partners.

What we need therefore is a ports development policy unencumbered with marinas, amenities or tourism. Ninety-nine per cent of Ireland's trade is by sea and the British National Union of Seamen's strike in 1988, which caused havoc even in this country, should be a salutory warning for those who would seek for unknown reasons to downgrade the importance of port operation and management. Successive Governments have been slow to grasp the essential of port facility development which has been much more recognised and advanced in member states.

It is estimated that 20 per cent of the utilised trade of the Republic of Ireland was induced to move through Northern Ireland because of lower cost. Positive action is required to enable port authorities in the Republic of Ireland to compete on equal terms with Northern Ireland ports and thereby service the nation's trade. Any proposed ports legislation should not contain elements which would detract from a port's ability or responsibility to meet its primary duties and its future national obligations post 1992.

Mr. O'Dea

I want to congratulate the Minister, Deputy Daly, on his appointment and his record in the Department of the Marine. I am very glad to have the opportunity within the lifetime of this Dáil to do so. His record has been a proud one. He has been involved in some controversy which, in my opinion, was not of his own making but his achievements have been recognised and supported by the vast majority of the people and that will continue to be the case.

I have listened to Deputy McCoy and I read the earlier contribution of Deputy Taylor-Quinn, both of whom referred to the economic facts such as that Ireland is a small open economy and that the size of the internal market is limited, as if those facts were not known to the Government. We on this side of the House are as aware as the people on that side of the economic background to this legislation. Reference has been made to the challenges with which this country will be faced after 1992 when the trade barriers throughout the European Community come down. There will also be tremendous opportunities, and that is what this Bill is all about.

The Government, and all of us on this side of the House, recognise that in order to fully avail of the opportunities which 1992 will present, the ports of this country will have to be managed, equipped and operated in such a way as to ensure the most efficient and effective transport of goods. We are aware of that and we are also aware that it will be of even greater significance after 1993 when the opening of the Channel tunnel will mean that Ireland will be the only truly island nation in the Community. I am happy, however, that this legislation does recognise the importance of ports to the economy and the central role that ports will play in the economy of the future. Contrary to the fears being expressed by Foynes Harbour Commissioners, Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Opposition Deputies I am satisfied that there will be no downgrading of port management functions and that this Bill does not involve any such downgrading. The objective of the Bill is to create a new estuarial authority which would have additional functions and which would, I hope, complement the port management functions.

Before I deal with the main provisions of the Bill I want to advert to the fact that the predecessor to this legislation was interrupted by the last general election. That Bill which was introduced by the Coalition was debated in the Seanad in 1986. During that debate reference was made to the record and activities of Limerick Harbour Commissioners. In that debate Senator Howard said and I quote from the Official Report, Volume 113, column 900:

I referred to certain frustrations that private enterprise in the northern bank has encountered from the Limerick Harbour Authority. They have experienced a dog in the manager type attitude. CW Shipping at Fountain Cross, Ennis, County Clare, are an Irish company. They recently purchased tugs for use on the Shannon in anticipation of the movement of coal from the Money-point station. They employed fully qualified staff. In fact, their vessel captain has the highest qualifications of any similar officer operating in the Shannon Estuary. They applied to the Limerick Harbour Authority for permission to operate on the River Shannon. They were led on a merry-go-round which brought them nowhere. The Limerick Harbour Authority claim to have the authority to issue an exclusive licence for tuggage or towage on the Shannon Estuary. That is given to a company called Shannon Marine. When one tries to establish what Shannon Marine is, one is led into a maze of associate companies — Marine Transport Services in Cork, Clyde Shipping, Irish Marine Holding. It is almost impossible to discern which company is which, with overlapping shareholding interests and so on.

I am not here today to represent Limerick Harbour Commissioners in any way but in making a statement like that one is abusing the privilege of the Upper House and abusing the privilege of the Oireachtas. The record of Limerick Harbour Commissioners——

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a convention in this House that we do not comment on or criticise the actions of Members of the other House.

Mr. O'Dea

I just wanted to refer to that statement and my views on it are now a matter of record. I will not elaborate on them. I would like to refer to the record of Limerick Harbour Commissioners as it is relevant to do so in the context of this Bill. During the last 25 years Limerick Harbour Commissioners have succeeded in increasing the volume of trade through the port of Limerick and the Shannon Estuary by 1,400 per cent, from 400,000 tonnes to 5.6 million tonnes in imports and exports. No other Irish port and indeed no European port has rivalled this achievement over an equivalent period. During the last 25 years ship sizes coming into the Shannon Estuary have increased from 10,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes, a 15-fold increase. The volume of goods loaded and discharged has increased from a level of 400,000 tonnes to 5.6 million tonnes, a 14-fold increase. Investment in maritime related industrial plants adjacent to the waters controlled by Limerick Harbour Commissioners has achieved a level of almost £2 billion. That is a tremendous achievement.

Limerick Harbour Commissioners are to be congratulated also on their initiative in developing the deep water navigation channel and for providing vastly improved services which have been widely acknowledged and appreciated not only in the region itself but throughout the European Community. The development of the deep-water navigational channel entailed intensive hydrographic surveying, up-dating of navigation charts, the installing of modern and sophisticated navigational lighting and other aids as well as extending the existing port control and radio communication system. The type of vessel now coming into the estuary is so valuable that it demands a very high level of expert assistance in coming in and out. Limerick Harbour Commissioners are now the largest navigational lighting authority in the State with the exception of the Commissioners for Irish Lights who have responsibility for the entire coast.

Tremendous improvements to port services have also been made by Limerick Harbour Commissioners on their own initiative. These services include the training and equipping of pilots, oil pollution controls, fire fighting and other emergency services. In addition to all of this, Limerick Harbour Commissioners constructed the oil jetty at Shannon in 1973 which had the initial effect of attracting Aeroflot to Shannon and it generated a massive spin-off in revenue throughout the mid-western region. Limerick Harbour Commissioners have also been responsible for carrying out extensive hydrological studies which have proved that the estuary could be adapted at minimal cost to cater for vessels over 400,000 tonnes. They have introduced a dock labour rationalisation system which has brought efficiency and peace to the Limerick docks. In current money terms, the cost of these services to the country today would be somewhere in the region of £4 million if all were to be undertaken together.

Limerick Harbour Commissioners carried out these functions and provided these services and improvements largely from their own funds. This record of achievement in service to the area illustrates how ill-informed, negative and unfair the criticism of Limerick Harbour Commissioners has been. Their record of achievement stands on its own and would stand up to scrutiny. In saying this I am in no way denigrating the achievements of Foynes Harbour Commissioners but they have not been subjected to this unfair, negative and irresponsible criticism.

I will now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. The main objection to the Bill seems to be that functions other than port management functions are given priority. Deputy Taylor-Quinn referred to that matter. For the information of Deputies participating in this debate a document issued by Limerick Harbour Commissioners also referred to it as did a document issued by the Irish Port Authorities Association. The document issued by Limerick Harbour Commissioners stated in referring to the economic background against which this legislation was introduced that the downgrading of the most important port management functions in section 4 of the Bill in favour of marine related, industrial, tourism, recreational and amenity facilities is a matter of great concern for port authorities generally, particularly as these areas of activity would appear to be adequately catered for by other agencies. A similar statement is made in the document issued by the Irish Port Authorities Association and this morning, too, the same kind of statement was made by Deputy McCoy. Deputy Taylor-Quinn likewise made a similar statement.

When one looks for the evidence on which these assertions are based it is not putting it too lightly to say that it is extremely hard to find. A number of arguments have been advanced by the Irish Port Authorities Association, Limerick Harbour Commissioners and by Deputies on the other side.

We have been told that the short title of the Bill indicates that port management must now take a secondary place to the other activities, such as recreational facilities. The short title of the Bill is the Harbours (Shannon Estuary Development Corporation) Bill, 1988, and there is nothing there which indicates the priority of the various functions with which the new estuarial authority are to be charged. We are also told we must look at the long title of the Bill which states that it is an Act to provide for the establishment of a body to be known as the Shannon Estuary Development Corporation, to define its functions, to provide for the dissolution of certain harbour authorities, for those purposes to amend and extend the Harbours Acts, 1946 to 1976, and to provide for other connected matters. There is nothing about priority or that indicates that any one function of the new estuarial authority will have priority over any other function. The fact that this sort of meaningless argument is resorted to makes me suspicious that some people, particularly bodies outside this House, are so anxious that this legislation will not pass they are prepared to say anything to confuse and hinder its passage.

The next argument advanced in favour of some sort of priority being given to non-port management functions referred to the order in which the various functions of the new estuarial authority are laid out in section 4 (1) (a) which provides that the function of the corporation shall be to promote, co-ordinate and develop investment in marine related industrial, tourist, recreational and amenity facilities. In relation to the functions of the corporation, paragraph (b) states that they should promote, assist and develop the use of their functional area by commercial and trading enterprises for such activities as are likely to increase the use of that area for activities of a marine related nature. Paragraphs (c) and (d) relate specifically to port management and development functions of the corporation. Paragraph (c) gives the new authority the power to manage, maintain, operate and develop the existing harbours. Paragraph (d) provides that the new estuarial authority will have power to provide, maintain, operate and improve such harbour services and facilities as the corporation consider necessary or desirable in its functional area.

Are the Irish Port Authorities Association, the Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Opposition Deputies seriously advancing the argument that if paragraphs (a) and (b) in section 4 appeared in paragraphs (c) and (d) and that if paragraphs (c) and (d) appeared at (a) and (b) the whole ethos and modus operandi would change?

Mr. McCartan

A lot of change all round is needed.

Mr. O'Dea

If that is their argument they should read the section and think again because it is taken illogically to its ultimate conclusion. The Minister indicated he is prepared to change the order of priority within the section, but I do not think it will make any difference in practice.

On the Second Stage debate in this House on 28 February 1989, referring to the various divisions in the section, Deputy Taylor-Quinn stated that the effect of putting paragraphs (a) and (b) into the Bill in the first place would be to divert the attention of the management of the new estuarial authority from the port management function. It is not too difficult to discover where that argument came from because there is a similar statement on page 3 of the document circulated by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners and on page 10 of the document circulated by the Irish Port Authorities' Association.

The answer to that argument lies in the wording of section 4 (4) which makes it very clear that far from having some sort of secondary or ancillary role, the port management is the primary function of the new estuarial authority and that the other activities referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) are merely, ancillary or complementary functions of port management. If that is not correct, why does section 4 (4) specifically provide that the corporation cannot, when carrying out the functions in paragraphs (a) and (b) spend any money — not even their own — without getting the prior consent of the Department of the Marine? If they have to borrow, they cannot borrow more than £200,000, which is a partly sum nowadays, without getting the prior consent not only of the Department of the Marine but also of the Department of Finance, which are not noted for their wild economic liberalism or their spendthrift nature.

There is no such restriction on the powers and functions of the new estuarial authority in relation to paragraphs (c) and (d) which refer to the port management functions. Yet we are asked to accept an argument by Deputy Taylor-Quinn, Deputy McCoy and the two outside bodies who are interested in the Bill now being passed, that the functions which the two authorities can carry out, untrammelled by any necessity to get permission from the Department of the Marine, the Department of Finance or anybody else, are secondary to the functions which are so carefully restricted and limited by the specific terms of this legislation. I do not know the logic of the argument but I cannot accept it. The Minister does not accept it and anybody thinking straight and reading the section as it stands could not accept it either.

Deputy Taylor-Quinn in her contribution on 28 February also adverted to a related matter in the section. She quoted section 4 (4) which states:

The corporation shall not, when carrying out any of its functions referred to in subsection (1) (a) or (1) (b) of this section, incur expenditure (including borrowing) without having—

(i) satisfied itself that any proposed investment is capable of achieving a commercially acceptable rate of return on capital employed, taking account of all possible costs and potential risks.

She continued:

One would have to question how this will operate because we are talking about appointing a board and it is not clear that there will be members on that board capable of making the decisions that this subsection requires...

The board consists of members of local authorities — Limerick County Council, Clare County Council, Limerick Corporation, Kerry County Council and a representative from SFADCo. There is also a representative from the ports' users and four other people are to be appointed by the Minister. In relation to these appointments, section 8 (5) specifically provides that a person, other than a person nominated under subsection (3) (a) of this section, shall not be appointed a member of the corporation unless he is, in the opinion of the Minister, a person with wide experience of, or capacity in, finance, commerce, shipping, law or management. Is Deputy Taylor-Quinn seriously asking us to accept that a board consisting of all those people will not have the capacity to make the decision that expenditure in which they are involved offers a commercial rate of return?

It is insulting to the membership of the board, and members of local authorities represented on it, to advance that argument. It is an unfair argument to put forward. Deputy Taylor-Quinn is as aware as I am that many people who do not have paper qualifications are capable of making that type of decision. Even if her fears, wild though they may be, turned out to be well founded we must remember that there is a double control in the sense that the Department of the Marine must be satisfied that expenditure being embarked upon by the new authority will offer a suitable rate of return.

The Department will have to be satisfied that the risk involved is minimal. If borrowing in excess of £200,000 is involved the Department of Finance will have to be satisfied and that is a most onerous requirement. If any criticism can be made of section 4 it is that it is too restrictive. It confines the non-port management powers of the new estuarial authority within too narrow a limit.

Section 6 provides that the corporation shall maintain their principal office at Foynes in the county of Limerick. Arguments could be advanced in favour of establishing the headquarters in Limerick rather than at Foynes. I have advanced that argument here and outside the House and I would prefer if the headquarters were to be in Limerick rather than at Foynes.

Mr. McCartan

The section should not be in the Bill at all.

Mr. O'Dea

I will deal with that later. I do not need the Deputy's assistance; I am well able to deal with the issue. I am sure Deputy Kemmy will advance arguments in favour of Limerick and that other Members will advance similar arguments.

Mr. Deenihan

What about Kerry or Kilrush?

Mr. O'Dea

I have no doubt that Deputy Foley will advance arguments in favour of Kerry and I am sure that the Minister could advance arguments in favour of Kilrush. Ultimately, the siting of the headquarters is a political decision for the Minister. The Minister has advanced arguments in favour of Foynes but I would not come to the same conclusion. However, like the position in regard to section 76 of the Finance Bill, I cannot say that the Minister reached his conclusion unreasonably. I can understand why the Minister concluded that Foynes would be the appropriate place for the headquarters.

Another argument can be advanced in regard to this. The board of the new authority will be running the show and they should be allowed decide where their headquarters will be. There is an unhealthy tendency in western democracies to push difficult political decisions that have to be made by members of Government on to boards and authorities. The location of the headquarters of the new authority is a political decision and the Minister has not hidden behind any board or delegated that awkward political decision to anybody else. He has made the decision and named the site of the new headquarters in the Bill. He is to be complimented on not relying on any board to decide the location of the headquarters, although I do not agree with the conclusion.

The Minister cannot be accused of political cowardice. He has been open in making his decision. Without suggesting that the Minister would do anything underhand, I must point out that the legislation states that the appointment of the board is a matter for the Minister. If he decided, before the appointment of the board, that the headquarters was to be located in one place rather than another, I am sure he could take the appropriate steps to see to it that that was done. I congratulate him on not hiding behind the board and making a political decision.

Another argument put forward is that there should be a different type of board. However, those who put forward that argument have not told us the type of board we should have. The Limerick Harbour Commissioners, in their submission, stated that there was a need for a broadly based board with fair representation from local authority, industrial, commercial and trade union interests in the mid-west region and Kerry. Section 8 provides that the board will include representatives from the county councils of Clare, Kerry, Limerick and Limerick Corporation. The board will also include one representative from SFADCo, two to represent port users, two members of Foynes Harbour Trustees and four others qualified in finance, management, shipping law and so on. In my view that will make for a broadly based board. I do not know what other interests or representation the Limerick Harbour Commissioners had in mind, apart from their point about trade union representation. I agree with their point in regard to the latter and I hope the Minister will consider allowing trade union representation on the board.

The section specifically states that there should be two members of Foynes Harbour Trustees on the board. I presume that the argument being advanced by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners is that they should have equal representation. I am inclined to agree with that view. Certainly, in view of the known record of Limerick Harbour Commissioners, the Minister should consider appointing representatives of the commissioners on the board. I do not think it will be necessary to amend the legislation to do so. The Minister has discretion to appoint four representatives on the board and when he is making his appointments to the new authority he should bear in mind the achievements of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners.

Representations have been made to me, and other Members, about the position of pilots under the Bill. It is my understanding that there is not any definite arrangement or contract between the various bodies which are being amalgamated under the Bill and the pilots who operate in the Shannon Estuary. Deputy Taylor-Quinn said there was a loose arrangment in existence but there is nothing in the legislation to indicate that the arrangment that is in operation will change. I should like to ask the Minister to confirm that when replying to the debate. If the function and role of pilots changes it will be because of economic and industrial circumstances. That will change it in due course. We cannot write into legislation that provides for the amalgamation of a number of harbour authorites that will ensure that the present arrangements pilots have with those authorities will continue for all time. It would be facile to suggest that.

Representations have been made to me, and others, about the status of the staff of the various authorities which will be taken over. Limerick Harbour Commissioners, in the course of their submission on the Bill stated that there was no recognition in the Bill in the form of special representations for the commissioners, their officials and staff, despite their outstanding achievements. They went on to refer to the insecurity of employment of the officers and servants of the commissioners who will now become the officers and servants of the new estuarial authority. This matter is dealt with in section 14, a provision that appears clear to me. It may be that Deputy McCartan, and others, will see something in that section that is not obvious to me. That section provides that every person who, immediately before the day on which the new authority comes into being, is in the service of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, the Foynes Harbour Trustees or the council of the urban district of Kilrush, shall not receive less remuneration than the remuneration to which he was entitled immediately before he became such officer or servant, and shall not be subject to conditions of service less beneficial than those to which he was subject immediately before he became such officer or servant. In other words, the people now employed by the various harbour authorities and who will be taken on by the new estuarial authority will have the same conditions of service and the same remuneration as they had on the day before the new authority came into operation. I do not see how anybody can find fault with that provision.

I notice that in regard to remuneration section 14 specifically states "....receive less remuneration than the remuneration to which he was entitled....". I do not know the significance of the use of the word "entitled" in that section. I would prefer if the words "receiving" or "in receipt of" were used than the word "entitled". I presume the staff are entitled to what they are receiving at the moment by way of remuneration. I find the use of the word "entitled" rather than the words "in receipt of" somewhat curious but there may be some statutory reason for including it in this section.

The staff who will come into the service of the new authority will be subject to conditions of service which are not less beneficial than the conditions of service they have at present. I want to advert to the fact that many of the staff of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners are at present residing in Limerick and working to a headquarters in Pery Square in Limerick City. If these staff have to travel to Foynes, I wonder if some court could come to the conclusion that that is a less beneficial condition of employment than the conditions they operate under at present. I do not think that it would be less beneficial and even if a court or the legal adviser to the Department came to that conclusion, the matter could be sorted out by way of monetary compensation. I do not think that, just because the staff have to travel from Limerick City out to Foynes, this will make their conditions of employment less beneficial. The place where a person lives is where he or she chooses to live.

It is quite clear to me that there is provision for the continuation of employment and section 15 is drafted in such a way as to ensure continuation of employment. This means that the legislation on the Statute Book for the protection of employees, such as the unfair dismissals legislation, redundancy legislation and minimum notice and terms of employment legislation, will apply to the new employees.

Representations have also been made in relation to the status of the pension rights of the employees who will be taken over by the new authority. Sections 15 and 16 have been included in the Bill specifically to protect those pension rights. Section 15 (2) states that a member shall not be subject to less favourable conditions in relation to the grant of superannuation benefits than the conditions which applied to him immediately before the date of appointment. In other words, the ratio of what a person has to pay into the pension scheme to what he gets out of the pension scheme will not change. The officers and staff who are taken over by the new authority will continue to pay their superannuation contributions in the same way as they are paying them at present and they will be entitled to the same benefits as if they were to go on pension at present.

Section 15 provides for this until a separate superannuation scheme is set up and section 16 obliges the new estuarial authority to set up a separate superannuation scheme. I presume — and I should like the Minister to confirm this for me — that the new superannuation scheme this section 16 envisages being set up will be subject to the provisions of section 15; in other words, when the new scheme comes into operation, the terms will not be less favourable than the terms which operate at present.

Section 16 states that "The Corporation shall, as soon as may be after the establishment day..." from experience I thought the general wording should be "as soon as possible" or "as soon as practicable". I do not know the significance of the words "may be." On balance I do not think it makes a great deal of difference but I should like the Minister to confirm that the new scheme to be established under section 16 will be subject to the conditions in section 15. From my interpretation of the section I think it will be, but I should like the Minister to confirm this for the peace of mind of the staff involved.

At present the people working in Foynes have their own pension scheme which is operated by Irish Pensions Trust. The staff of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners do not have a similar facility. I understand that they tried on a number of occasions to establish a similar facility but that the departmental approval needed for doing this, was not forthcoming. I understand that the staff of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners have a pension arrangement similar to that operated by local authorities where pensions are paid out of general revenue rather than a separate scheme. I should like the Minister to tell us what sort of system he envisages being operated when section 16 comes into force. Will there be provision for a separate fund along the lines of the one operated by Irish Pensions Trust or will the situation which obtains at present in relation to the Limerick Harbour Commissioners apply?

I believe that some of the people from the Opposition benches who have spoken on this Bill genuinely believe what they said. The kernel of this debate is whether the function of the port management, which will be central to the future of the Irish economy, should properly be carried on in conjunction with the other recreational facilities and developmental functions which the estuarial authority will be given or whether it is right and proper for those functions to be carried out by some other authority. The functions laid out in section 4, and the examples given by the Minister of what is meant by those functions, make it clear that the functions are all marine related and will be carried out in or near a marine setting. I believe — and I am not an expert nor do I claim any expertise in this area — that the functions outlined by the Minister in his opening speech would be more properly conducted by the authority who are managing the harbour. Far from there being a conflict in giving one authority two functions, I believe one will complement the other.

Fears have been expressed — and I have no doubt that the people who expressed those fears did so genuinely — that the new authority will spend money wildly on developing marinas, water skiing facilities, etc., and that in order to get the money to do this they will increase port charges. This would be a disastrous development given our dependence on the external market. I do not think this Government or any Government in their right mind would intend that development to come about and that is why section 4 (4) specifically provides that this cannot and will not happen. We could argue all day about the proper type of authority to carry out the new recreational job creation functions which the Minister is talking about. I believe the Minister is right that the harbour authority are the proper authority to carry out those functions. There will be no conflict between those and the main port management functions; in fact, one will complement the other.

If we look at the United Kingdom at present and in particular over the past five years we see that there are estuarial authorities in existence. For example, the Clyde Estuarial Authority carries on traditional port management functions but the legislation establishing it was passed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War when the potential for these new recreational facilities was not recognised. In fact, the recognition of that potential is of very recent origin. There are ports in the United Kingdom, such as Felixstowe, which are managed as ports because there is no potential for other type activities as there is in the Shannon Estuary.

However, if we look at what entrepreneurs such as Peter de Savary is doing in Cornwall, what the Brent Walker Group are doing, what Shorewater — a company which was set up in 1986 — are doing in places such as Southampton and if we look at the Royal Albert Docks in Liverpool, we see that the direction in which they are moving is precisely the direction in which the Minister for the Marine is moving in this legislation. I think it will complement the port management functions. It will add to employment in my region. It will give a great stimulus to the economic life of the mid west and to the economic life of all the area adjacent to the Shannon Estuary. I compliment the Minister on getting the legislation this far. I hope that in the lifetime of this Dáil we will see this legislation on the Statute Book.

Mr. McCartan

On behalf of The Workers' Party I should like to make some brief comments on the proposed legislation. The Minister, and many of the Deputies who have spoken since indicated very globally the importance of port development to the Irish economy and its future development. The point has been made time and again that we are the second most dependent country in the European Community after the Benelux countries on external trade. Once the Chunnel is opened we will be the last major island nation within the European Community and consequently the development of port traffic to a modern standard is essential.

It is true that the Limerick-Shannon Estuary is a unique geo-physical phenomenon, probably unequalled anywhere else in the European Community and certainly not in the western isles. The question is whether the legislation, as drafted by the Minister, recognises these facts. It represents the formula whereby the uniqueness of the estuary can be exploited and developed to its fullest potential to contribute as strongly as possible to the development of the Irish economy on an export-import basis.

The Workers' Party, having considered the legislation carefully and having listened to many of the debates and arguments put forward here, have come to the conclusion that the Bill is, unfortunately, flawed in fundamental respects. In referring to section 4, Deputy O'Dea suggested there is no significance to be attached to the order in which the functions and powers of the new proposed corporation are laid down. He maintains that one can juggle them about and that it does not make a great deal of difference. In fact, in his closing remarks extolling the achievements — if one could call them that — of the Brent Walker Group and the like — many of whom are now on their financial knees — he exposed himself to one of the first and most fundamental problems with this legislation.

The essence of a port is job creation and it is one that must be linked to industrialisation. There is no other way in which a port can give meaningful employment. Certainly as a means of bringing goods in and taking goods out, it has an essential function. If it is to develop in this day and age as an employment base, it must have, close to or within its own land authority on the sea water, manufacturing industries based, in many instances, on raw materials, if necessary imported, processed and re-exported or, indeed, moved into the economy as a basis of trade. It is essential, therefore, that we should have some commitment from the Government, in practice and on paper, to that concept of the use of a port or harbour area as a major area of employment. Dublin Port is an instance and I understand that the position in Limerick is very much the same. Certainly, from superficial observation on visiting the area, the degree of dereliction that exists in the port area and the related unemployment figures which are available for the city of Limerick, where the major concentration of population exists and, indeed, for the city of Dublin tell a story in themselves.

Successive Governments have failed to appreciate the essential importance of a port as a job creation area and facility. One looked to this legislation to see if it contained a clear statement recognising this fact. What do we find? Section 4 states that the function of the authorities will be to develop investment in marine-related industrial, tourist, recreational and amenity facilities.

I accept that the order in which these matters are listed is not important. Statutorily they have effect. There is a political significance to be attached to the fact that the concept of "tourist, recreational amenity and facilities" is put ahead of the development of activities of a marine-related nature and commercial and trading enterprises as contained in paragraph (b). One has to put the legislation against the record of this Government in regard to marine development and their initiative in this area since they took office in February 1987.

Within my own constituency, Howth Harbour represents a classical illustration of the point one tries to make about massive investment in that development primarily, if not exclusively, on the recreational marine-related and tourist side. It is estimated in the Howth area, for example, that one and possibly two jobs have been created as a result of investment in the order of £12 million in the port development. I understand that the Minister may in time take charge of the harbour. One hopes that in time he will consider the establishment of an Authority there but certainly an Authority based on the priorities laid down in this Bill would not be an acceptable development. Howth, like many other harbours — I instance it only because it is particular to my own area — requires a complete redirection and utilisation of the resources there to create jobs onshore, closely related, processing and other types of industries to create jobs and get people to work.

Dublin Port is a classical instance being the largest port in the country. I am glad the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach has joined us in the Chamber because it is remarkable that in Dublin the port Authority boast of a chairman who is a Member of this House. One would imagine that, as chairman, he would be a promoter of the five year development plan for the harbour and the port of Dublin. Given their way the Authority may well begin to do something they have failed abysmally to do over the decades and provide intensive job creation oportunities within their area. The Minister of State, as a member of the local authority, has been singularly involved in trying to do down the objectives of the port development plan by seeking to block the redevelopment and reclaiming of a small area on the north side of the port which was intended to assist in providing the essential facility of increased roll-on roll-off space for the port Authority. An essential important factor in that five year development plan has been thwarted.

In Dún Laoghaire, another major port facility, the emphasis is on the building of a marina, filling in port space, the recreational development of the breakwater type concept that Deputy O'Dea was extolling earlier on. That was the entire commitment to the idea of developing port space in the Dún Laoghaire area. There was no plan for job creation, for creating industrial jobs related to the uniqueness of that facility.

In relation to the Limerick/Shannon Estuary area, the worry is about the new corporation envisaged, given this political statement contained in section 4 where the emphasis again will be on this type of recreational concept. It is not good enough to say that everything is there in section 4. It has to be taken with the realities of what is happening throughout the country at the moment, and the failure of the Government to recognise the essential importance of port areas in the creation of industrial jobs.

That failure is significant but there is an even greater significance when one looks at the Shannon Estuary. Limerick Harbour is the oldest harbour in the estuary region. Limerick city developed around the harbour because of its important geographical location in terms of trading. The harbour is essential to the city. Every other major harbour in this country is essential to the city that has developed around it. Unless there is a strong commitment to the development of the harbour, Limerick city will suffer badly. The major concentration of population in the region is in the city and consequently the major thrust of development must be there also. Foynes is no more than a village catering for a population of hundreds. It does not make sense for the Government to shift the emphasis on Authority and on the concentration of power and investment away from Limerick to Foynes.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 27 Apr 1989

Harbours (Shannon Estuary Development Corporation) Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

Acting Chairman

Acting Chairman

Acting Chairman

Acting Chairman

Mr. O'Malley

Mr. O'Malley

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Apr 1989