Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995

Vol. 454 No. 1

Harbours Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I understand there is no time limit on this debate.

There are 20 minute time slots.

That was not mentioned on the Order of Business.

We must adhere to Standing Orders on these matters.

The word "harbour" is an old fashioned term for larger ports such as those in Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Galway. The smaller ports are dealt with in the Schedule and it would be more appropriate to call the Bill the Ports and Harbours Bill.

Apart from brief periods, I have been a member of the Wicklow Town Harbour Commission since 1967. While this port authority operated relatively successfully under the Harbour Act, 1976, nevertheless it was aware of the anachronisms arising under it. In 1990 the then Minister for the Marine, Mr. Wilson, set up a harbours review group and many port authorities made representations to it over a period. There was an urgency about the introduction of changes in the Harbours Act at that time given the problems experienced by larger ports, particularly Dublin port, where there had been a decline in activity. There has also been loss of trade to the ports in Warrenpoint and Belfast which were set up on a commercial basis. This review gave smaller ports such as Wicklow, Arklow and New Ross which had not suffered under the Act, an input to the changes required by the larger ports. This legislation has been introduced mainly as a result of the need to make the larger ports more commercial.

Even though we are an island nation, people working in harbours and ports have never had much political clout. For example, those who work at sea were not even given a postal vote. Thankfully, there has been a change in that attitude and the importance of ports has been recognised. The airports have a much stronger lobby in this House than harbours and ports. While there has been major investment in the development and extension of airports there has been a lack of investment in many ports. This Bill will encourage more investment in ports which may be less attractive than airports in many ways but which are much more important from a commercial point of view.

I have concerns about the proposal to make smaller ports more commercial. The port in Wicklow which has the same turnover as a medium sized shop in my home town will have to change radically if it is to become more commercial. The only full-time employee in the port is the harbour-master secretary. The clerk, dockers and engineer, who has given us excellent advice over the years, work part-time. The proposal that this port will have to hire professional people gives rise to questions about whether this Bill is the proper vehicle for dealing with small commercial ports. I ask the Minister to take this point into consideration.

The alternative is to hand responsibility for these ports over to local authorities. I have concerns about this course of action. It is said that if something works one should not fix it. This applies to small commercial ports which are of economic advantage to their areas and profitable companies in their own right. If these port authorities which have been working very successfully have to become more commercial then they will incur major expenses in terms of administration costs, etc. Alternatively, if responsibility for them is handed over to local authorities they will not receive the attention they deserve. If small ports want to qualify for EU funding they will have no option but to become more commercial. Recently the Minister allocated substantial funding for the improvement of ports. If small ports say they should not be in the same league as larger commercial ports then they may be deprived of EU funding. If this is the case then they will have no option but to stay in the premier division in terms of ports.

I am glad that ports will be funded with State equity as other semi-State companies such as Bord na Móna which did not get proper State equity at the outset experienced difficulties as a result of its high borrowings. I am glad the Government has seen the light and decided to change the position of this company. I am not sure how State equity will be invested in ports but I assume that the property, etc., owned by each of the companies will be converted into shares. How does the Department of the Marine intend to evaluate these assets? All ports have outgoing liabilities which will have to be taken over by the new companies.

The local authorities have guaranteed overdrafts, etc., for work which had to be undertaken when there was no other capital available. When Arklow was devastated by a storm a couple of years ago Wicklow County Council, with its guarantee of overdraft facilities, ensured that its port continued to be operational. What is the method used to take over liabilities and will Wicklow County Council continue to be liable for guarantees given in the past?

In regard to the appointment of company directors, the former position was that local authorities, chambers of commerce, trade union interests, IBEC, livestock and shipping interests and ministerial nominees formed the boards which are being abolished. In my experience and in the experience of ports throughout the country that worked well. I have outlined the reasons the Bill is being introduced, to bring about a higher level of commercial activity within the port. Nevertheless, I am concerned that changes are being made in that area. In the first draft of this Bill, under the previous Government, local authority members would have been excluded from the boards. I am pleased that position is rectified in the Bill and the acceptance by the Government that local authorities should be represented on such boards. Local authority members should be represented but I note they are not mentioned: the Bill merely says "representation from local authorities". I accept the competence of county managers, county secretaries, accountants and other employees in local authorities. We made strong representations on behalf of continued representation of local authority members and I hope that is the intention in the Bill. The Bill provides that three representatives from local authorities will be on these boards and that the authority taking over some of the smaller ports will comprise not more than 12 members. Does the Minister intend to reduce that number to seven or nine as was the intention in the original Bill? If that is the case will the local authority representation also be reduced for the smaller boards?

I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister that in the case of many of the smaller ports — indeed probably in all the ports — they are part of, and situated within one local authority area. Perhaps I can use the example I know best, Wicklow port and Arklow port which are within Arklow and Wicklow urban areas; they have had two representatives from the county and urban councils. It was necessary that the senior authority, Wicklow County Council, because of the guarantees should have had representation from the county council on it. I hope that directors will be members of local authorities and that there will be continued representation from county and urban councils. For small authorities the remainder of the directors will be appointed by the Minister. The Bill provides that where the number of permanent employees is fewer than 50 one director will be appointed in consultation with the trade union movement. The remainder will come from the professional and business classes and will be appointed by the Minister.

I have experience over the years of Ministers appointing directors or members of harbour boards. It is winner take all depending on what parties are in Government. If this Bill remains in force for 50 years, like the previous Act, the luck of the beneficiaries will depend on what party or parties, is in Government. That worries me. If a Member of one or two political parties has its directors drawn from their parties it will not be good for the operation of these authorities. I recall that on one occasion the Minister's nominee was a trade union member when 40 dockers were ignored by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. They had to work and operate in the port and were ignored in favour of a member who represented office workers. The particular member was not from the local area. I ask the Minister to ensure fair representation for professionals on boards from the area.

I regret the provision in the Bill that TDs and Senators — I am not too concerned about MEPs because they are rarely here — will be excluded. I say that from a personal point of view because I have now served almost 30 years on a harbour authority and I think my service time was useful to that board. The state of that board reflects the fact that I could not make immediate representation to the Minister when a problem arose.

I will take the opportunity, if I am permitted by one of my colleagues, to attend the Select Committee on Enterprise and Employment, to which I expect this Bill will be referred. The exclusion of vested interests is reasonable; some of the people who have the most knowledge and have been beneficiaries of ports throughout the years have, obviously, had vested interests. I would have thought it sufficient, where a vested interest was brought to the attention of a board, that a director who had such an interest would be excluded. I regret that people who have worked tirelessly in a particular job and have provided employment, built up the port and have the knowledge will be excluded from the board while people who perhaps have no knowledge have a possibility of being made directors. The Minister did not refer to gender quota but I am sure this will apply also to directors of the board.

We have been informed that the chief executive will be chosen by the Minister but we have been given no indication of what professional knowledge he would need to have of ports. Will he be required to have a master's ticket or to have a knowledge of the sea? Will he be required, as under the present Act, to have expertise in this area?

I hope I will have the opportunity to contribute on Committee Stage as I have a direct interest in this area and, perhaps, a knowledge which other Members may not have.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. It has been said that Ireland will suffer within the context of the European Union. With the advent of the channel tunnel we will end up being cut off by road from our European partners. Because of that I broadly welcome the introduction of the Harbours Bill, 1995, although I have reservations which I will outline in my address.

Ireland is an island nation and dependent on foreign trade. A crucial part of our prosperity is dependent on the operation of our sea ports which handle approximately 80 per cent of imports and exports. They also handle a significant amount of our tourist traffic. One of the first things that strikes me about the Bill is the influence of the Minister for Finance. Throughout, there are references to various matters which are subject to the agreement of the Minister for Finance, who seems to have more influence than the Minister for the Marine. Indeed he may even have too much power.

Under section 11 the new commercial semi-State companies can enter into arrangements with third parties. This is welcome but it may go beyond the scope of what the Minister intends. Under this legislation the board of any one of these companies will have the power to effectively transfer responsibility for the operation of a port to a company operating in the private sector. This may not necessarily be a bad move but I assume this was not envisaged by the Minister in framing the legislation. If a particular board decides to enter into an arrangement with commercial interests it is possible that the harbour authority will have only one employee, its chief executive.

Under section 15 all leases and contracts for the sale of land will be subject to ministerial consent subject to an exemption by the Minister under subsection (1) (c). Is this unnecessarily restrictive? If the intention is to give these companies more commercial freedom they should not have to run to the Minister each time they want to do something in this respect.

While section 15 is restrictive the power given in the following section to compulsorily acquire land for portal development is to be welcomed. Without this power the growth of many ports could easily be stunted. While local authorities currently have the power to issue a CPO, port authorities do not. It is possible that a local authority may not get on too well with a port authority for whatever reason. Accordingly, this section is to be welcomed.

The requirements as regards borrowing by a company cause some concern. Under the legislation the Minister's consent will be required before money can be borrowed for capital purposes. It is also stipulated that such borrowings may not exceed 50 per cent of the value of the company's assets which are treated as fixed assets for accounting purposes. Within this limit the company should have freedom to act subject to the normal commercial constraints imposed by a lender. The basis of the valuation of these assets should also be taken into consideration. This has not been specified. I presume the Minister will eventually set down the basis of calculation. Whatever basis is used it should be the same for all companies. The method of calculating depreciation should also be uniform whether it be the reducing balance method or the straight line method.

I am surprised at the content of section 27 which deals with the preparation of a cash flow statement. This is not required under the Companies Act. Why will such a statement be required for port companies? A sources and application of funds statement will be prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. This should suffice.

On the composition of the boards of the new companies, I broadly agree with Deputy Kavanagh. The Murphy report of the review group on commercial harbours and pilotage and policy recommended that the board of directors of each of the new port companies should have seven members including an employee representative and the chief executive. I do not agree with this recommendation and I am glad it is not being acted upon since the review group sought to exclude public representatives from the board. This is wrong. We live in a democracy and at the end of the day public representatives are the only people directly accountable to the general public. Over a period the powers and influence of democratically elected public representatives have been eroded. This is not a healthy development.

While I am glad there is a reference to nominees from the local authorities it is not stated specifically in the legislation that it must be an elected representative. As the legislation now stands, this could be a paid official. In addition, the Minister will only be able to appoint three persons nominated by the prescribed local authority. I assume there can be more than one prescribed local authority to be consulted in respect of each board. I hope the Minister will note the views being expressed that a member of the local authority rather than a nominee of the local authority should be appointed as a member of the board.

On the question of prescribed local authorities, I assume in some ports more than one local authority will be represented on the harbour authority. At present four nominating bodies, Waterford Corporation, Waterford County Council, Kilkenny County Council and Tipperary South Riding County Council, are represented on Waterford Harbour Commissioners. The Minister will have to decide which of these bodies will no longer have a role to play in portal activity in Waterford harbour.

On the question of ministerial nominations, in making appointments the Minister will have to bear commercial criteria in mind. Will the directors come from the local community or can we expect a rash of appointees from the Dublin area? This would place additional costs on any State board.

I am conscious of the need for gender balance. If the chief executive, the worker director and the three local authority nominees are all male, five of the remaining seven directors to be appointed by the Minister will have to be women to achieve the 40 per cent minimum set down by the Government. I hope the Minister will be able to find the people with the necessary commercial experience to achieve this objective.

I am surprised that the Bill does not include a requirement that directors should have commercial expertise. Perhaps the most important requirement will be membership of either Fine Gael, the Labour Party or Democratic Left.

I note the requirements as regards worker directors. Most of the 12 harbour authorities will have less than 30 employees. As a consequence there will be no worker director on these boards. The Minister will appoint someone, not necessarily an employee, to represent the interests of the workers. This is not satisfactory.

Section 34 raises an interesting point about the position of a member of staff elected to either House of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament. It stipulates that such an employee can be seconded to the board while serving as a member of any of these bodies. However, time served in parliament will not count for pension purposes. Does this apply to other semi-State companies? I understand that the pension entitlements of teachers for instance are not affected while they are Members of this House. This appears to be discrimination against members of harbour boards. Members of this House who are also members of harbour authorities and have accumulated vast experience are also being discriminated against.

The question of pensions needs to be examined closely. Will arrangements be made similar to those made for employees of Telecom Éireann or will the port authorities have to fund any shortfall? As things stand, it seems that the liabilities will have to be calculated on vesting day and funds transferred to pension trustees. The same will apply in respect of liabilities as regards current employees. If this interpretation is correct Waterford, for example, will have to provide a sum of £5 million which it does not have while the figure for Dublin will be close to £50 million.

An unnecessary attempt is being made in this Bill to control the level of harbour charges. Competition should be allowed to dictate the level of charges above the basic minimum. A stipulation should be included, however, in relation to the minimum level that might be imposed as the larger, more powerful ports will be in a position to attract traffic away from smaller ports by means of below cost selling. This should be actively discouraged. At present Waterford harbour is taking business from Cork harbour by attracting the larger banana boats from South America and so on. If Cork harbour decides to sell below cost it will be able to attract this business once more. That should be actively discouraged on the ground that it is unfair.

The Bill does not refer to rates. Under existing legislation harbour boards are exempt or partly exempt because they are in public ownership for a public purpose. As a semi-State company they will be in public ownership but not for a public purpose and therefore it is likely they will be subject to full rates on all properties including wharfs. It is calculated that at present throughput this will put an additional cost of up to 40p for each TEU unit on all container traffic in Waterford. Obviously this increased cost will be passed on to the customer. I am not aware of the position in Northern Ireland — I did not have a chance to check it out — but if its ports are exempt from rates it will have an unfair advantage over ports in the southern part of the country. This matter needs to be seriously considered.

This legislation will put certain additional costs on ports. Initial costs will include the cost of valuation of assets for transfer to the new companies and also the cost of incorporating these companies. There will be additional annual costs such as the cost of preparation of a report to the Minister under section 28, the cost of a performance audit under section 29, rates, corporation tax and a dividend to the Minister. It is obviously intended that the companies will be liable to corporation tax. The tax regime is important in terms of whether the new companies will be liable at a 10 per cent or 38 per cent rate of corporation tax. At present the 10 per cent rate applies to ship repairs and qualifying shipping activities. It also applies to Irish ships working as supply vessels for offshore oil installations. It has been suggested that the existing exemption for harbour authorities in section 343 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, will be retained. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the taxation system when replying.

There are recommendations on pilotage in various harbour areas. The present position is that basically pilots are self-employed. Under the new legislation they will perhaps opt to become employees of the various commercial semi-State companies because of the additional benefits that might confer on them. There are also pension difficulties involved and I am sure the Minister will address that matter.

The purpose of the Bill is to make ports more commercial and cost effective and to give them commercial freedom. While it sets out to do this, there are so many restrictions on borrowing, commercial leases, sale and purchase of property, harbour rate changes and the general powers given to the Minister under section 44 that the thrust of the legislation seems to negate the underlying principles set out in the review committee report. The present harbour boards are de facto representational boards. What was expected were commercial boards for a commercial business but what we are getting is a repeat of representational boards. The proposed structure in terms of local authority members, trade union members and ministerial gender nominations without an obligation to have regard to commercial representation will result in a reconstituted representational board undoubtedly weakened by the method of appointment. It is my information that nobody in stevedoring or port industries will be appointed to the boards. Under the last Government it was policy to appoint to the boards people involved in the ports industry, but unfortunately this Bill does not refer to that matter.

I hope the Minister when considering Committee Stage will bear in mind the many points I have raised in order that an enhanced Harbour Bill will be enacted.

I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to this important Bill. As a member of the Cork Harbour Commissioners I am very interested in any new legislation to improve the operation of ports, particularly Cork Harbour which is one of the finest natural harbours in the world and is a prime area for job creation. Up to recently Verolme Cork Dockyard built some of the finest ships and bulk carriers in the world but due to the recent slump in shipping this facility ceased to operate, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. A previous Fianna Fáil Government sold this fine facility to a foreign company with the promise of 300 or 400 jobs four years down the road, but none of these has been delivered.

There is also the Ringaskiddy roll-on roll-off berth, a very fine facility for tourist traffic which has increased each year since it was first opened. The future looks bright in terms of tourism traffic in the Cork harbour area. There is a cruise berthing facility in Cobh, beside the Queenstown Heritage Centre, which is expected to cater for 100,000 visitors this year. Cork Harbour Commissioners have invested a great deal of money in upgrading the berthing facility at the deep water quay in Cobh. We must maintain the highest safety standards in Cork Harbour and indeed all our harbours.

Cork is the centre of the chemical industry. A large number of vessels transfer chemicals in and out of Cork Harbour and therefore we need to mantain a very high safety standard at all times. Pilots play a big part in maintaining the high level of safety required and they should be more involved in drawing up safety standards for ports. In the Murphy report Cork Harbour is designated specifically as a chemical industry harbour. The number of dangerous cargoes carried through the harbour has increased significantly. Inside the harbour is the only oil refinery in Ireland, which also contributes greatly to the number of dangerous cargoes continually traversing Cork Harbour and on the river Lee to Cork city. The role of pilots is important in any port structure and in the case of Cork Harbour their importance cannot be over-emphasised. The continuing presence of pilots on vessels carrying dangerous cargoes is absolutely essential. The Murphy Report on Commercial Harbours and Pilotage Policy and Legislation recommends that PECs, pilot exemption certificates, should not be granted to masters of vessels which carry dangerous cargoes.

It is proposed that the three local authorities in the Cork Harbour area will have representatives on the new board. There is slight confusion about this matter because there is in existence Cobh Urban District Council, Cork County Council, Cork Corporation and also Passage Town Commissioners. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether there will be one representative from each local authority or whether three members will be nominated from one authority.

The oil refinery is being upgraded with a massive investment by the State. We hope for an oil find off our coastline, and the oil could be refined in Cork Harbour at Whitegate oil refinery. The Cork Harbour Board, an example to the country has been run very efficiently and profitably by the present board for a number of years under the directorship of Pat Keenan its Chief Executive. It is very disappointing that changes are proposed at board level, particularly in regard to representation by TDs. As a TD who represents Cork County Council on the board it will be very disheartening for me to have to vacate my position on it. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter because it is vital that TDs represent public bodies.

The naval base is situated at Haulbowline in Cork Harbour. Many promises were made down the years that extra ships would be made available. That would increase the traffic in Cork Harbour.

In recent months there was much publicity about the use of the Cork coastline for the importation of drugs. I am sure the new representative body which the Minister for Justice is about to establish will effectively tackle the drugs problem. It is vital that ports are properly policed. The pilots in Cork Harbour are playing a vital role in terms of supplying information on the movement of ships in the area. Having regard to the chemical industry based close to Cork Harbour it is essential that such pilots are retained on ships.

I welcome this long awaited Bill which had many false starts. I welcome the improvements and efficiencies to which its provisions will give rise. The main provision which sets out the establishment of 12 State commercial companies is not necessarily a bad one. The same criteria that apply to any other economic activity must be applied to our ports and harbours. Harbours and ports by their nature are not museums but places of industry and must be judged by the same economic criteria. My party and I are not afraid of such commercial activity and the Bill would be lacking an essential element if it was not based on economic and commercial criteria.

The Bill may contain too many areas which will necessitate referral back to the Minister. I would not like too many impediments and handicaps put in the way of the commercial operation of ports and harbours. Activities which do not require ministerial decision should not be referred to the Minister. Ports and harbours should be given a certain degree of autonomy. If they are operating efficiently they should be encouraged and unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy should not be put in the way of their development.

I am critical of the proposed names of some of the new harbour authorities. In the Limerick and Shannon area Shannon Port Company is the name that will be given to the new authority. That name is ambiguous because the word "Shannon" forms part of the name of many other companies, such as, the Shannon Development Company. It is confusing to call a harbour authority the Shannon Port Company and clarity is required regarding its name. A more appropriate name for the authority would be the Shannon Estuary Authority or the Shannon Estuary Administration which would better define the area of the authority than the title Shannon Port Company, which is too loose, ambiguous and confusing. I ask the Minister to consider this matter as I do not make this criticism for narrow reasons. Coming from that area, I consider the name assigned to that authority is inappropriate and one which specifies what the authority is would be more appropriate. That is a minor but important point.

As we have a myriad small ports, I support the concept of a central authority to manage areas like Cork Harbour or the Shannon Estuary. It is inefficient and nonsensical for a potential industrialist, a representative of a foreign company or a foreign government official to communicate with various port authorities when it would be more efficient to communicate with one central port authority. It is welcome that this will be achieved to some degree in the Shannon Estuary, but it is nonsense to attempt to develop our harbours and estuaries without establishing a central authority to administer their activities. In the past Limerick Harbour Commissioners administered most of that area well and gave a good account of their stewardship. I favour good central administration and efficiency at all levels not merely regarding harbour activities, but also in the administration of companies and harbour authorities.

I also favour good industrial relations and efficient work practices, not only in my area of Limerick and Shannon but throughout the country. In a previous incarnation the Ceann Comhairle worked as a trade union official — I often worked with him — and he has considerable knowledge of the Shannon Estuary area. It is necessary to consider some of the earlier points about work practices and casual labour employed in ports. I am much older than the Minister of State, but I remember the inhuman treatment in the daily employment of casual labour on the docks in Limerick. We recall Strumpet City by James Plunkett, a trade union official and member of the Old Workers Union of Ireland who saw that at first hand. It was degrading and inhuman that some men, most of whom were married, had to go to the docks daily to be employed by stevedores. A small number were given employment and the rest were told to go away. Dockers are a tightly knit community. I also come from a closely knit community of stonemasons, but it is not as closely knit as that of the dockers. A cliché was often used in Limerick long ago that unless one's father was a docker one could not be a docker. One could be a doctor, but very few sons of dockers became doctors. One had to be the son of a docker to get employment on the docks and those who were not were regarded as casual labour and subject to daily hire, although many did not get work. It was most degrading that dockers in Limerick were paid on a daily basis. To some extent that practice still operates at Foynes Harbour.

There are three types of labour, permanent workers, semi-permanent workers who work on a casual basis and, when the port is busy, a third group of workers who do not have employment rights or security of tenure are hired. Those casual workers encounter all types of ambiguous difficulties in their dealings with the Department of Social Welfare. Their income may peak when on overtime for a short period, but their earnings are spread over a period for the purposes of social welfare benefits. I ask the Minister to consider the decasualisation of labour in harbours and Shannon Estuary to give the workforce stability through the employment of a certain number of workers.

At one time there were hundreds of dockers working on the water front in Limerick, but how many dockers are working there today? There are eight port employees, who are no longer called dockers. Many of them drive highly mechanised cranes and other machines around the port. Containerisation is a feature of the modern world and more efficient work practices. I do not object to that advance as the old system was inhuman and we cannot turn our face against progress. I ask the Minister to consider addressing some of those practices in the Foynes area.

I was surprised to hear Deputy Kenneally chide the Minister about placing appointees on boards, as if the Deputy had arrived from Mars yesterday.

Fianna Fáil more than any other party has ruled in this country since the State was founded. We have heard the cliché about all things being equal, but putting that aside, his party was ruthless in filling posts. I will not take any lectures or homilies from Deputy Kenneally or anybody else in that regard. As far as possible I would attempt to bring efficiency into all aspects of public life. In the past too many State boards and companies were staffed with appointees of his party's persuasion and did not give a good account of their stewardship. It is important that people with ability are appointed to such positions. I hope a new era of openness and transparency will dawn when party hacks are not put into important positions. Otherwise the thrust and purpose of the Bill will be negatived.

Often I travel from Limerick to Dublin by train and admire the many Victorian stone buildings in stations on the way. Some buildings, unfortunately, have been dismantled. Many of our docks comprise stone buildings, embankments and boundary walls and it would be tragic if, following the enactment of this Bill, they were levelled to the ground by bulldozers and the stone dumped. Even though they were built under a British Administration they are good buildings and should be retained. There should be a provision in the Bill to ensure that local authorities, harbour commissioners and port authorities respect the heritage with which they have been entrusted. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water. There are many fine structures at our harbours and ports and members of my family worked on some of them. They should be incorporated into modern buildings or if they must be knocked down the stone should be recycled.

Limerick city straddles Clare and Kerry and the glorious River Shannon forms into a V at Limerick where the Danes were able to ford the Shannon. The headquarters of the Shannon Port Company should be set up in Limerick city. It would not make sense to move the headquarters of the Cork harbour company to Ringaskiddy or some other small port in County Cork. Limerick city is the natural location for the headquarters of the Shannon Port Company. We can learn from the way other countries have tackled difficulties in adjusting to modern mechanisms for loading and unloading ships at ports.

Members referred to the role of pilots, a job which was frequently passed down from father to son. In general pilots have given a good account of their stewardship. Under earlier legislation they were self employed and worked for the good of ports and harbours, but the contents of their pension scheme would baffle Einstein. They should be incorporated into a proper pension scheme. They carry out very important work often in dangerous waters in the Shannon Estuary and their service to the community should not be ignored. Many seamen and pilots were killed during the Second World War. Seamen employed by the Limerick steamship company gave their lives when travelling across dangerous seas to bring essential goods to this and other countries. While pilots are not necessary for all craft, they are essential in the Shannon Estuary and, therefore, should be incorporated in the Bill under the role of the Shannon Port Company.

The role of the port is changing. Ships can be loaded and unloaded at a much faster rate and as a result there are many port structures for which harbour commissioners and others do not have a use. Docks all over the world have a bad reputation because of the grimy nature of industry located there and the ladies of the night that frequent those areas. I am aware that many people do not wish to frequent pubs in the docks area at night out of fear of getting a bad reputation, but that is changing. People have invested money in urban renewal and revitalised those areas. There has been a tremendous upsurge in urban renewal in Limerick harbour and port. I would like to see more people living in those areas because offices and buildings that are locked up at night are often an invitation to criminals. It is my ambition to see the harbour and port in Limerick revitalised so that more people can live in the area.

Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Limerick Corporation have co-operated to undertake refurbishing and renewing Limerick city. Many commercial companies, including large oil companies, have located there and many new houses have been built. The area has taken on a new character and should be used as a prototype for other harbours and ports. We should not write off an area because of old-fashioned and grimy buildings. With an enlightened urban renewal programme, good design and modern building materials many ports can play an important role in the life of the towns and cities surrounding them and commerical business can prosper side by side with large shipping companies. Limerick harbour and port are good examples.

The Bill will herald many charges in the months and years ahead, perhaps we can bring back the glory to our ports and harbours.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Sargent.

I am sure that is agreed.

As chairman of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners I welcome the Bill. Deputy Kemmy stated that many political appointments were made by my party, suggesting that none would dare be made by his. It is regrettable he has left the House. I was not appointed to the chairmanship of New Ross Harbour Commissioners because I was a member of a particular political party but because I had easy access to Ministers and the people who make decisions. That was the sole reason I was appointed to the position. I am also happy that the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, came to New Ross to inform us that we had been successful in our application. I had met him on many previous occasions and found him extremely courteous. I take this opportunity to thank all involved in securing those moneys, not least the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin.

While generally accepting and commending the Bill to the House, I have particular difficulty with barring MEPs, Senators and TDs from membership of the new port companies. I was a member of my local harbour board, and had access to departmental officers, which might prove more difficult for the members of the new port companies. I want the option retained of allowing membership to public representatives to whom I referred. While accepting that constitutes Government policy, public representatives are demeaned by debarring themselves from membership. That takes me back to what Deputy Deasy said last week — that he feels sometimes he is little better than voting fodder for the Government. This demeaning of ourselves must be addressed, not to protect ourselves but for the overall benefit of our ports. It amounts more or less to a vote of no confidence in ourselves from which we should be divorced. I have particular difficulty in accepting that proposal.

The main thrust of the provisions of this Bill is the creation of a system of local control of our principal commercial ports. The change from the present system, under which a large measure of control is vested in the Minister for the Marine, is welcome and long overdue. We must remember that ports operate within a commercial environment and therefore it is fitting that their management is also conducted commercially. The ability of the proposed port companies to take speedy decisions without reference to the Minister is a key, welcome feature of this Bill. My experience of having served as chairman and member of my local harbour board adequately demonstrated that, for the simplest project, we had to consult the Minister and his officials whose reaction was often much slower than we might have wished. I do not offer that as a criticism of the Minister or his officials but as an example of a problem that has existed for too long. Therefore, the removal of this element of bureaucracy will be beneficial overall.

The number of directors of the boards of the new port companies may amount to 12 in total. In the case of New Ross, that would amount to one fewer than its current membership. In the case of smaller ports, like New Ross and others, it is felt that a membership of between seven and nine, proposed in the 1992 review of commercial harbours, would be more appropriate. Will the Minister seriously consider that number in the case of smaller ports?

The arrangements for the transfer of staff of current harbour boards appears to be reasonable, affording employees adequate protection which I welcome. I am sure the Minister of State agrees that our minimal staff in New Ross are of excellent calibre capable of undertaking the maximum amount of work. Recent media reports of a possible State underwriting of the pension liabilities of some harbour boards are disturbing since such action would militate against such ports, like ours in New Ross which has made arrangements to meet its future pension liabilities in full. The Minister of State might comment on where we stand vis-á-vis the new proposals.

Section 22 deals with the payment of dividends. Heretofore any surplus generated within a port was retained to fund its further development. By and large, port developments has been funded by individual port authorities without significant State aid, which was the case also in New Ross up to quite recently. We welcome the recent input of the Minister of State since we are about to engage in major redevelopment. The Bill proposes that the Minister will become the sole shareholder in all the new port companies and may collect dividends from them. The current programme of investment in ports, under the Operational Programme on Transport 1994-99, has, as a primary objective, a reduction in port costs of 15 per cent. The Minister of State must agree that this aim is at variance with the Minister's intention to collect dividends from the proposed port companies, on which he might also comment.

Section 43 deals with the transfer functions from one company to another. While the level of competition between ports is likely to increase after the Bill's enactment, this should benefit our economy through lower port costs achieved by greater efficiency and economies of scale, the real purpose of the Bill. In time it is possible that some existing ports might be amalgamated, leading to a reduction in traffic through certain ports.

Anybody who has had any dealings with ports will have pilotage and the activities of pilots high on their agenda. The provisions of the pilotage service is governed by the Pilotage Act, 1913. It will clearly be seen it is time that this legislation was updated, which is certainly welcomed by my local harbour board.

Section 56 deals with the employment status of pilots, addressing their current vague status, by offering the new port companies the option of employing pilots as staff members or licensing them as self-employed contractors. This has been a bone of contention in New Ross and in all other ports for some time past whereby, whenever it suited them, pilots were deemed to be self-employed and, whenever it did not suit them, were deemed to be staff members, leading to a considerable predicament in our case and others.

Section 59 deals with the pilotage agreement between company and licensed pilots. Whenever a company decides to provide pilotage services by means of self-employed, licensed pilots, it must conclude an agreement with them concerning, inter alia, the number of licensed pilots, the collection and recovery of pilotage charges, superannuation benefits and administrative duties. The Bill appears to imply that, subject to deduction for administrative expenses and other lawful deductions, the income from pilotage charges must be disbursed to the pilots. That constitutes a fundamental, unwise change from the position whereby income from such pilotage services is deemed to be the revenue of the pilotage authority, disbursed as the pilotage authority deems appropriate and that is how this should remain.

The provisions of the Bill in regard to the payment of the port company in respect of expenses incurred in administering the pilotage service are welcome. At present, harbour authorities are unable to recover these costs from the pilotage authority. Section 60 proposes that each port company shall decide the circumstances in which the pilotage will be compulsory within the pilotage district and shall make by-laws accordingly. It is also proposed that the Minister will have the power to give a direction to a port company in regard to the circumstances in which the pilotage will be compulsory.

Vessels bound to and from New Ross pass through the Waterford pilotage district. At present, these vessels are required to avail of the services of a Waterford pilot until they reach the River Barrow at which time they take on a pilot employed by the New Ross Harbour Commissioners. The New Ross Harbour Commissioners believe that this situation is based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of the Pilotage Act, 1913. Some discussions have taken place with Waterford Harbour Commissioners but the problem is currently unresolved.

The payment of two pilotage dues puts our port at a tremendous disadvantage. The need to avail of the services of both Waterford and New Ross increases our overall costs and places us at a competitive disadvantage. This may seem a minor issue but because we are now facing stronger competition we must pare our costs as much as possible. If this Act has been incorrectly interpreted, the Minister can help to put matters right.

In these circumstances the provisions of the Bill give one port company undue influence over the trading position of another neighbouring port. It is felt that the issue of compulsory pilotage should be determined on the basis of a set of objective criteria and should not be left to an individual port company to determine.

I wish to comment briefly on the importance of the port of New Ross to the economy. It has long been accepted that the port of New Ross is the hub of our economy. Even for social reasons it is vital that New Ross retains or increases its present status. Ships of 4,500 tonnes currently pass through the port of New Ross. We want to be in a position to compete in the new climate where commercial transport, be it by road, sea or air, is on the increase. We must retain our competitive position.

I intended referring to the ports of Rosslare and Waterford but I promised to share my time with Deputy Sargent. In considering the position of these new port companies, the problem of the illegal importation of drugs must be addressed. We are all familiar with this problem which affects our ports in the south east and throughout the country. I believe that prevention is better than cure in dealing with this problem. The Customs and Excise dog known as "Jake", which detected approximately £6 million worth of drugs in the port of Rosslare in a seven-month period, has highlighted this whole issue. I understand that only 10 per cent of drugs illegally imported here are detected by Customs officials. Any increase in that figure would have an enormous impact on this area and I urge the Minister to ensure that some provision is included in the Bill to address this problem.

Ba mhaith liom mo buiochas a ghabháil don Teachta Byrne.

The debate on this Bill provides us with a welcome opportunity to discuss what has been a long neglected area, namely, our ports and harbours. Like our railways, they were built to last and, with minimum maintenance, they would last but the neglect of our ports and harbours has put them to the test in this regard.

Part V of the Bill is headed "Miscellaneous" and deals with issues which I consider to be quite scandalous. They involve the harbour areas of Balbriggan and Skerries, in my constituency. These areas have been the responsibility of Dublin Port for many years and, as a result, the sense of pride felt by people living in these areas has foundered greatly due to their neglect by that authority. Deputy Byrne referred to the need for people to be in touch with Ministers but it underlines the sense of helplessness and alienation felt by local communities when they do not have a direct line to the authority and are required to ask Dáil Deputies to make representations on their behalf.

I wish to refer to six specific problems affecting both Skerries and Balbriggan. A lighthouse was electrified in Balbriggan in 1961, the glass top of which was never restored. That has been an eyesore since that time and highlights the utter neglect of that harbour. Dublin Port claimed that safety was assured at all times during necessary works but on an occasion when there was a breach of the stone wall, the authority workers simply filled it in with concrete. Sewage, which is pumped continuously into the harbour, now has another outfall but it remains an affront to users of the harbour. Dredging of the harbour has been completely neglected despite the fact that with the benefits of modern technology such work could be carried out far more easily than in the past. There is a lack of dumping facilities in the harbour. There is nowhere to dump refuse and the result is further pollution at sea in the vicinity of the harbour. There are no demarcation lines between the amenity area and the working area in the harbour. The effect is that any amenity work carried out is quickly destroyed by people working in the harbour area. It is difficult to distinguish the amenity area from the working area.

I raised this issue with the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, and I said at that time that I welcome the allocation of funding to Dublin Port. I reminded the then Minister that Dublin Port's responsibilities extended further than Dublin city and that capital investment would put the two harbours in question on a footing which would allow the local authority to be responsible custodians of them. It is senseless to transfer responsibility for derelict harbours to a local authority which basically has a parks department and is often hard pressed to stick a few flowers in the ground.

Section 52 provides for a ban on nuclear cargoes in harbours. I hope the Minister is aware of the decision of the House of Commons select committee to transport nuclear shipments, particularly Trident and Polaris missiles over the Irish sea instead of over land. I urge the Minister to extend the ban to the Irish sea so that we are not subjected monthly to the threat from unstable warheads being transported near our harbours and ports. Carriers of nuclear warheads may not want to come into our harbours but they come as near as makes no difference should an accident occur on board. This issue will have to be addressed by the Department of the Marine and the Department of Foreign Affairs. I urge the Minister to ensure it is not left on the long finger because the transportation of such cargoes is now more threatening.

It is almost 50 years since similar legislation was enacted and it is time we revise it, taking cognisance of what is happening in our ports. I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber and acknowledge his recent visit to Foynes Harbour. Following his visit the then Minister for the Marine, Deputy Hugh Coveney, allocated over £5 million towards the development of Foynes Harbour to provide new berthage and a good storage facility. It is significant that Foynes Harbour has been there since 1890 and when one considers the £1.3 million of State investment in the last 100 years it is a significant milestone achievement that this Government could fund it to the extent required.

I was delighted to bring the members of Foynes Harbour Board to meet Deputy Coveney. Although we had a long term development plan for the harbour our immediate priority was to minimise delays which were occurring at the port by increasing berthage. It was anticipated that it would cost £8 million and we were absolutely thrilled when half of that came from the Government. I acknowledge what the Government has done which is very much appreciated in Foynes and I hope it will signal further advances at Foynes Harbour in increased tonnage.

I was a member of Foynes Harbour for ten years but I resigned recently because with the increasing workload in the Dáil, committees and as a member of the county council I found I could not give it the amount of time necessary. I appreciate why comments have been made on precluding Senators, Deputies and MEPs from serving on these boards. We all admit that our workload in Leinster House has expanded considerably.

There were nine members on the Foynes Harbour Board and I endorse Deputy Hugh Byrne's comment that this is the ideal balance for a port of that size, but it is being increased to 12. I concede that having 29 representatives on Limerick Harbour Board makes it totally unwieldy and is not compatible with what is happening with regard to boards of directors. Deputy Kenneally commented that the membership of the boards would be from Democratic Left, Labour and Fine Gael but I would like to think when the Minister nominates members to the boards he will take cognisance of the prevailing situation and advance the interests of the port and that businessmen who would inject their enthusiasm would contribute towards the advancement of the port. I would like to see a degree of balance in the local authority representation because the local authority members represent the local community and can empathise with it, but they do not necessarily have a commercial interest in the port. In the past it was mainly shipping and stevedoring interests that were represented on the board and it could be said that they would have an interest in developing the port. However, from my ten years experience, regardless of whether a board member had a shipping or local authority background his ultimate objective was the advancement of the port.

There has been much discussion on piloting ships. I more than anybody can empathise with pilots because I come from a port and my father spent his life as a harbour pilot in Foynes Harbour operating under the 1913 Act. I remember the insecurity that prevailed since he was regarded as a self-employed member, an employee of Limerick Harbour Board and as such his income was totally dependent on the shipping generated in the port. I welcome the fact that the pilot as well as the harbour master will be an employee of the harbour board and anything that enhances their job security is welcome. In the Shannon estuary certain families, such as the Melicans and the Brennans are synonymous with the estuary. They gave much and were subject to uncertainty. That uncertainty should be removed and it is welcome that they have the option to be employees of the harbour board. It was unfair that their income depended on the whims of commercial shipping activity.

Harbour boards did not necessarily have to have the Minister's consent to lease a warehouse in the port but I understand the Minister's consent will now be required. That is regrettable. If the prevailing situation is effective and the objective is to ensure the semi-State bodies are not stifled by bureaucracy it should be possible for harbour boards to lease whatever is required.

The Bill provides for annual audits by an outside company with performance audits every three years. Having been a member of the Committee of Public Accounts and seen the internal investigations by the Comptroller and Auditor General, I regret that there is not a role for the local government auditor. If there is not a role on an annual basis is it not possible that he would carry out the performance audit every three years? Realistically an accountancy practice is dependent on the whims of the directors as to whether it can continue as the commercial company providing the expertise to a harbour board. A local government auditor, as the watchdog of the public purse, is not dependent on the whims of the company directors. In the past bigger companies failed, often because specific difficulties were not pinpointed in time. Is there still a role for local government auditors in the context of harbour boards? It may be that that decision has been taken out of our hands.

The Bill provides for dividends to be paid back to the Government. I wonder what type of dividend is in mind. Will those new companies be subject to corporation tax at 38 per cent? In that case I would be concerned that, having told those people to venture into pastures new, seek new business and expand and become very much involved in their commerical mandate, there would be an implicit penalty in regard to the success of those operations in that the Government takes more money from them, and that that might retard the activities of a port.

Within the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1987 there was concern about the future role of Moneypoint and that much of the coal brought in there in panamax containers would be off-loaded and brought around the country in trucks, doing much damage to our road structure which is suffering extreme problems at present. A protection mechanism was included in the Bill to ensure that where trans-shipment took place the coal would be taken from Moneypoint to the various ports around the estuary and the surrounding areas when required. That, by its nature, generates a certain amount of extra commercial activity in the ports. However, if it is not properly policed the coal may be transported by road. Recently Moneypoint was given extra funding to improve its bulk handling facilities. If there is a spin-off activity to other ports, I would like to think it would be by way of coal being transported from Moneypoint direct to a port and then on to the customer.

For many years the Shannon Estuary has been called the jewel of the western world because of the depth of water and the type of shipping it can accommodate. Parallel with that is the industrial activity along the estuary, for example, developments at Tarbert Island, Foynes, Aughinish Alumina, at Wyeth in Askeaton and Cement Limited. A huge number of trucks use the N69 which is classified by the Minister for the Environment and by all officials as a national secondary route. In the 1995-99 roads programme it is stated that this road may get funding. This is essential if those ports are to develop. There cannot be an inferior road structure serving them. The Minister for the Marine will have to consult with the Minister for the Environment with a view to providing funds for the Foynes to Limerick route, the N69.

The question of the jurisdiction of ports needs to be examined. Foynes was established as a port in 1890, over 100 years ago. At that time its jurisdiction was just one mile. One hundred years later we have seen tremendous changes. In 1890 ships weighting 250 tonnes used that port. Now ships up to 35,000 tonnes dead weight use it. Parallel with that, £2 million was spent on a dredging programme to develop that port, but the span of activity is still just one mile. Because of a mythical dart thrown in the past, Limerick claims jurisdiction over the entire estuary which, on both sides of the coastline, is 120 miles. Foynes Harbour Board submitted a proposal to the Minister requesting the extension of the jurisdiction of Foynes Harbour to the county boundary between Limerick and Kerry. This would extend the jurisdiction to about 12 miles, 10 per cent of the overall area serviced there. If Foynes is to develop in the future in accordance with the plans it has submitted and if panamax ships which are currently used in Moneypoint are to come in there, its jurisdiction must be extended. The area I refer to is not being used at present. There is scope to recognise the passage of time and the commercial success of Foynes and give it that extra coastline. We are no trying to take from the Aughinish Alumina port which is exactly one mile from Foynes and from which we do not get a brass halfpenny to develop Foynes Harbour because that money goes into Limerick Harbour Board's coffers. We are asking to develop an area which is not developed at present and which extends to the county boundaries.

In regard to the board, will the chairman be appointed by the Minister? I am aware that the chief executive of the harbour board will be on it. I want to acknowledge the tremendous dedication and commitment of the staff of Foynes Harbour Board who are small in number but who have achieved much over the years. This has been recognised in recent times by allocations of money for further works.

Deputy Kemmy referred earlier to casual working at Foynes. This is difficult to avoid because Foynes Harbour cannot be compared to Limerick Harbour. At Limerick Harbour there is little activity and only about eight dockers in full-time employment. At Foynes, depending on the type of activity, there could be 300 or 400 employees. The nature of the activities dictates that the work will be casual. It appears to operate successfully, and some of the ships generate much revenue in the port.

The Bill is timely. I hope its passage will not be delayed and that we can move on the Committee Stage and probably suggest further refinements to it. I hope it will be implemented as soon as possible because it could herald a new dawn for our ports. I am not criticising the officials of the Department of the Marine for keeping a watchful eye, but the ports should be given their status and freed from the bureaucracy of the Department. They should be allowed to expand and develop and I think we will see a continuation of the success story that prevailed in the past and a brighter dawn for all these ports.

We have been divesting ourselves of power to raise issues in the House. This Bill sets up commercial State companies and I wonder if this is the last time I will be able to raise in the House matters concerning Drogheda port or any other port. All Governments have brought in legislation to modernise various aspects of life which effectively debar us from raising issues here. We are told we must write to the secretary of the company involved.

This Bill has its genesis in the last Government. I was hesitant about it. When a Government falls certain Bills go by the board and I thought that might happen to this one. However, it has been brought forward. I accept the need to modernise the port structure. Three members of local authorities will be appointed but Deputies, Senators and MEPs are debarred. Local authority members will be more powerful in raising issues concerning ports than Deputies.

If I want to raise an issue concerning the major national roads which go through my constituency. I must write to the National Roads Authority. I cannot raise the matter in the House. The same system applies to regional technical colleges. I heard Deputy Deasy refer to this on local radio. He was talking ostensibly about privilege and what was perceived by some as a way of muzzling Members but the conversation came around to this area. We talk about accountability but are we going down the right road in setting up these companies in such a way that the Oireachtas is not in a position to examine specific issues relating to them?

There was a member of the local authorities on the review group which recommended that no local authority representatatives should be appointed to the new companies. I understand the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government proposed to appoint two local authority members. Local councillors must go before the people and are more answerable than company directors in other walks of life.

We agree with the Bill in principle. Perhaps the matter I raise could be better dealt with through the committee system where Members would have a better input into the framing of legislation before it comes to the House. I hope the Minister will reply to the question of whether we will be in a position to ask specific questions and raise specific issues concerning ports on the Adjournment or by way of Private Notice Question.

The Minister raised the question of pensions and superannuation and said there were difficulties in some areas. I am aware of a case in Drogheda where problems have arisen. This area must be looked at. I compliment the Minister for addressing the issue and hopefully as a result of the report he is commissioning the position will be ameliorated.

In Drogheda we have had competition from Warrenpoint and Larne. The Minister gave the figures for exports from our ports but I doubt if they refer to exports through Northern ports. I compliment Dublin port for the way it has countered some of the competition from Larne. In this era of looking at Ireland as a whole we should not castigate Northern ports but we must develop communication between the ports in order to facilitate the better movement of goods from the island as a whole. It is imperative that we get our act together in order to compete properly with the facilities which exist at Larne where there is a quicker turnover time and lower costs.

The port at Greenore is privately owned. But for the investment of the family who own it, it would not be what it is today. Is there any possibility of the State being involved in the development of this strategic port in order to assist it compete with its Northern counterpart and enhance the job opportunities which exist in the area?

The Minister referred to the pier at Annagassan but not to the one at Clogherhead. These piers are probably in different categories but I believe people from the area would be surprised to see Annagassan pier included in the list of non-commercial ports. The Minister will decide whether a port should be included in the list on the basis of its merits. There is a substantial amount of fishing off Clogherhead pier which is in a very bad condition. While EU funding has been earmarked for the pier unfortunately there is a difficulty in regard to the additional funding which is in the hands of the local authority which has other priorities for example, filling potholes, etc. Even though it may not come under this legislation I exhort the Minister to look at this issue.

Our party spokesperson referred to marine leisure and the possibility of giving ports a greater role in this area. The Minister said that the new companies will be entitled to engage in activities outside the State which will help to promote the interests of trade and tourism within the State. The ports in my area have great potential to become involved in marine activity. In my home town of Dundalk there is an estuary and a thriving port which is adjacent to the bridge being built on the main Dublin-Belfast road. During its construction local interests were in favour of installing a marine leisure facility on the west side of the bridge. By holding back some of the estuary water it would have been possible for people to engage in marine leisure activities such as sailing. While proposals were put forward to the Department of the Environment there was no consultation between the interests involved. Local engineers had put forward plans and the port authorities were involved in deciding whether this facility should go ahead. I accept that holding back some of the estuary water might have given rise to problems but this case is indicative of the lack of co-ordination between some State bodies. If the Department of the Environment, which would have provided the funding, had given a commitment and there was adequate co-ordination between the local interests and the port authorities then this facility, which would have been of great benefit, could have been provided at no great cost.

I wish to refer to the sale of private land in a port area owned by individuals or companies. Difficulties have arisen when the land has been sold to people not involved in port related business. If this is allowed to continue then ports will contract and accessibility to them will be greatly reduced. The Department should look at this issue very closely and ensure that land adjacent to port areas is sold or transferred in such a way that there is no disadvantage to the port. The Minister should also consider this point in the context of setting up the new companies. I am concerned that a person who agrees to buy a facility where he will store a different product from the one for which planning permission has been given will not require further planning permission. The Department should give further consideration to this point.

When the capacity in Drogheda needed to be expanded it was hoped that Mornington would be included under the new tranche of EU funding. It goes without saying that some interests have ensured that this will not be a possibility in the near future. One of the disadvantages of this part is its proximity to Dublin. Will the Minister outline his plans for the development of Drogheda port either in the immediate vicinity or in a place like Mornington which is ideal for a deep port facility?

There is much competition between ports along the east coast and smaller ports such as those in Dundalk and Greenore which have had to compete with ports in the North. The port in Warrenpoint is experiencing difficulties at present and is in conflict with other ports. While I welcome the Bill in principle we are making it more difficult for public representatives to have a hold on what is going on. I listened carefully to the points made by the chamber of commerce in my area which does not think the Bill goes far enough. I am a great believer in giving local representatives on committees adequate power.

While welcoming the whole idea of modernising the structures under which these ports are retained I exhort the Minister to be careful about divesting us of the power to examine how these ports are run. I hope the day will not come when a Minister will say to me or to my colleague, Deputy McGahon, or any Member from my constituency, that he cannot deal with our query about Dundalk or Drogheda ports as this was a matter for the directors. I think that is what will happen. I warn the Minister that that is the wrong road to go down. We should be responsible.

In regard to the ESB and what is happening there, we cannot raise any questions about the ESB shops in the House. The public want to know why but I think it our fault. I will not labour the point but we should look at the issue in a broader context. I have had problems with this legislation from day one because it is divesting us of power and perhaps on Committee Stage the Minister will address some of the points I raised.

As dtús, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Bhille seo. Is Bille tábhachtach é agus tá sé á thabhairt isteach go tráthúil ag an phointe seo. Baineann sé go príomha le calafoirt tráchtála ar fud na tíre, atá an-tábhachtach ar fad do chúrsaí eacnamaíochta. Ní cóir dúinn dearmad gur oileán í an tír seo agus go bhfuil an fharraige thart orainn uilig. Tá gach calafort sa tír an-tábhachtach, cé acu calafort iascaireachta nó calafort tráchtála atá ann.

Táimíd ag brath ar na calafoirt tráchtála seo fá choinne na n-allmhairithe, fá choinne na dtáirgí a chuirtear ar fáil sna monarchana agus sna tionscail ar fud na tíre atá ag brath ar na calafoirt sin chun ár gcuid earraí a easpórtáil ar fud na hEorpa agus ar fud an domhain.

Sílim gur dhúirt an tAire ar maidin go dtéann 80 faoin gcéad de na táirgí amach trí na calafoirt tráchtála. Mar sin, tá sé iontach tábhachtach go mbeadh na calafoirt seo thar a bheith éifeachtach agus go mbeadh siad ábalta dul ag iomaíocht le calafoirt eile sa chuid eile den tír. Téann 55 faoin gcéad de luach ár gcuid earraí trí na calafoirt sin chomh maith. Tá sé thar a bheith in am an Bille seo a thabhairt isteach. Tá sé beagnach 50 bliain ón uair dheireanach a tugadh Bille den chineál seo isteach. Ba i 1946 a tugadh an Bille deireanach cúnta isteach agus is iomaí athrú atá tagtha ar rudaí ó shin. Tá an saol athraithe, na longa agus na báid fharantóireachta freisin. Tá na nósanna imeachta, oibre agus bainistíochta athraithe go mór idir an dá linn. Sílim go bhfuil sé thar am go mbeadh Bille mar seo á phlé sa Dáil againn i láthair na huaire.

Anois agus arís bíonn orm féin agus go leor daoine ó Dhún na nGall úsáid a bhaint as calafort tráchtála Latharna agus muid ag dul go Sasana nó go hAlba. Ceann de na rudaí a chuireann ionadh agus alltacht, b'fhéidir, orm ná an méid leoraithe agus trucailí ó gach áit sa phoblacht a bhaineann úsaid as Calafort Latharna. Sílim gur chóir dúinn ceist a chur orainn féin cén fáth go dtarlaíonn sé seo. Go minic téann siad ó Latharna go Stranraer agus as sin caithfidh siad dul síos go Londain, agus cén fáth nach mbaintear níos mó úsáide as Baile Átha Cliath, Corcaigh, Ros Láir agus as na calafoirt eile ar fud na tíre.

Is docha gurb é an príomhfháth leis sin ná gur féidir dul trasna ó Latharna go Straenraer i bhfad níos saoire ná gur féidir dul ó Bhaile Átha Cliath go Holyhead nó ó Ros Láir go Fishguard. Ta sé in am dúinn mar thír agus mar Rialtas ceist a chur orainn féin cé fáth go bhfuil sé níos saoire do thráchtáil na tíre seo nó do chéatdán den tráchtáil dul amach trí Latharna in ionad dul amach trínár gcuid calafort féin. Níl mé ina choinne sin ach más féidir le trucail dul ó Chorcaigh go Latharna agus trasna uaidh sin níos saoire sílim gur chóir dúinn ceisteanna a chur agus freagraí a fháil ar na ceisteanna sin.

Baineann an Bille seo go príomha le cuanta tráchtála. Ach tá mír amháin as an Bhille — alt 86 — a dhéaneann tagairt do chalafoirt iascaireachta. De réir an ailt sin tá Calafort an Daingin le grádú mar cheann de na calafoirt iascaireachta is mó sa tír agus a bheith ar aon chéim leis na Cealla Beaga agus leis na calafoirt iascaireachta mhóra eile mar Chaisleán Bhéarra, Dhún Mór agus Bhinn Éadair.

Chomh maith leis sin, feicim ón mBille go bhfuil forlámhas ar 13 de na calafoirt bheaga á thabhairt do na húdaráis áitiúla, sé sin do na comhairlí contae. Is dócha gur mhaith an rud é go mbeadh baint agus páirt agus bainistíocht ag na comhairlí contae agus ag na húdaráis áitiúla ar 13 de na calafoirt is lú.

Rud a ritheann liom, nuair a bhímid ag caint ar chalafoirt, ar chuanta agus mar sin de go bhfuil an-chuid dreamanna agus údarás sa tír a bhfuil cúraimí orthu. Uimhir a haon, tá na calafoirt tráchtála ann; tá údarás le bheith orthu sin. Ansin tá na calafoirt níos lú trádála a bheidh faoi na húdaráis áitiúla. Tá na calafoirt iascaireachta ann a bheidh faoi cheannas Roinn na Mara chomh fada agus is eol dom agus ansin tá calafoirt sa Ghaeltacht a bheidh faoin Roinn Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta. Sílim go bhfuil sé iontach tábhachtach go mbeadh ceangal agus comh-thuiscint idir na heagraíochtaí sin uilig agus go mbeadh fhios ag dream amháin cad a bhi ar siúl ag an dream eile.

I welcome the introduction of the Bill. It is timely because it is 50 years since a similar Bill was introduced in this House. We are all aware of the huge developments that have taken place in sea transport and in harbours since. As an island nation, harbours are of great importance to us because the majority of our exports pass through our commercial ports.

When introducing the Bill the Minister said that 80 per cent by volume and 55 per cent by value of our exports passed through our harbours in 1990. For a country that is so dependent on exports and imports it is very important that our harbours are efficient. This Bill addresses that problem.

I have had occasion in recent years to use one of the harbours in Northern Ireland, Larne, to go to Scotland, like most Donegal people and I was surprised to see a number of articulated trucks, lorries, and other vehicles from various parts of the Republic — as far south as Cork and other parts of Munster — using the harbour as a port of departure to the UK with their goods. Why do they have to travel so far north in going to the United Kingdom and, ultimately, the European market? There are questions to be answered. It seems that Larne is run more economically and cheaply than some of our own harbours. If this problem can be addressed and rectified in this Bill it should be welcomed for that reason. I have nothing against those who use Larne. Nevertheless, in the interests of efficiency, people should not find it attractive to travel from the south of the country to Larne and save money in the process.

This Bill deals primarily with commercial harbours. Under section 86, however, Dingle is to be designated as a fishery harbour. This will place it on the same footing as other major fishery harbours such as Killybegs in my constituency, Dunmore East, Howth, Castletownbere and so on.

I remind the Minister and Minister of State that there are a number of important harbours in County Donegal. There is an urgent need for investment and development at the premier harbour, Killybegs. Burtonport which is close to where I live could double as a fishery and commercial harbour as it is used extensively by fishermen and for commercial reasons. It was used on a number of occasions in the past by the industrial estate in Gweedore to import raw material. Steel was also imported for the radiator factory in the industrial estate in Bunbeg. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case due to difficulties in gaining access to the harbour which badly needs to be extended. A sum of £250,000 was allocated last year to dredge the harbour but this has not been a complete success. The previous Minister addressed this problem. I hope the Minister and Minister of State will deliver on the commitment to dredge and eventually extend the harbour. This was first promised by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, but little or nothing has happened since. The harbour is in a bad state and there will be no further development unless something is done.

The harbour on Tory Island gives cause for concern. The Minister of State, Deputy Allen, visited the island during his term as Lord Mayor of Cork when he experienced the hospitality and friendliness of the people. Arrangements are being made to bring a painting exhibition to Cork. He had the good fortune to travel by helicopter. There is no better way of getting there than by ferry, but unfortunately if the ferry does not arrive at the right time one has to travel ashore by currach or small boat. I hope that the promise to build a harbour will be delivered on shortly. There is now a hotel on the island which was visited by 14,000 to 15,000 people last year. The ferry sails to the island two or three times daily. It will be a great pity if landing facilities are not provided there and on the mainland at Magheraroarty.

Responsibility for a number of smaller commercial harbours is to be transferred to the local authorities. This is an imaginative step. It is a good move to provide for local participation in the management of these harbours. I am concerned, however, that a number of bodies will be responsible for harbours throughout the country from now on. Harbour authorities will be responsible for the major commercial ports, the local authorities for smaller commercial harbours, the Department of the Marine for fishery ports and the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht for harbours in Gaeltacht areas. It is important that there be understanding and co-operation between these bodies.

I welcome the Bill. It is important that our harbours and ports be safe, commercially viable and competitive as they are the lifeline through which goods and raw materials are imported and exported. The efficiency of the economy depends largely on the provision of efficent ports through which access can be gained to and from the country.

I welcome the Bill. I must confess, however, that when I first glanced at it I said to myself "not another layer of bureaucracy" but on mature reflection I accept that it is better to have the State involved in running harbours. I have come to this conclusion because since the foundation of the State our harbours have been neglected. There are hundreds of smaller harbours where no improvement or maintenance works have been carried out since the days of the British.

In recent years our harbours have been neglected in favour of airports and other infrastructure, such as roads of reasonable quality, on which a significant sum has been spent. This has been to the detriment of our harbours. More goods are exported by ship than by air or lorry. There is one particular ship which can carry the same amount of cargo as 14 miles of lorry. This is a tremendous endorsement of the efficiency of shipping. Another advantage shipping has over other forms of transport is that in inclement weather in the depths of winter while lorries are snowbound throughout Europe this is not the case with shipping. That is the reason most exporters transport their goods by ship.

A new Harbours Bill is long overdue — it is 50 years since the last one was enacted. More money needs to be directed not only to harbours but to the shipping industry. I have in mind a hugely successful young Cork man, Frank Allen, a former sea captain in his late 30s who lives in my local town of Dundalk. He now has seven boats valued at £14 million, which ply all over Europe. He is hugely successful and hopes to put yet another boat on the high seas — his last boat cost £3.5 million. He is a credit not only to Dundalk but to the Irish shipping industry.

There should be greater State aid for people and companies involved in the shipping industry. Of all the bureaucratic aspects of Government, there is no agency from which a person can get State aid to put a ship on the seas, thereby creating employment. In the case of all other industries there are various State agencies to whom they can go for assistance. There has been a belief in Government circles that people who fund shipping are high rollers who have no problem providing money and that, consequently, they do not need State aid. However, every industry needs State aid. Since we are an island nation, cut off from the mainland of Europe, we should consider increasing investment in the shipping industry, particularly in harbours to modernise them.

I listened to my friend and colleague, Deputy McGinley, speak of the need for investment in harbours in Donegal. I agree but there has been a huge investment in harbours in Killybegs and Greencastle while there has been a contrastingly derisory and paltry investment in my native County Louth. It is a small county and State allocations have always been small. Clogherhead port is the third largest in the country with a fishing fleet of 33 vessels, many of whom have to land their catch at Howth — to which the catch is accredited — because they cannot get into the harbour. Clogherhead has been included in the Department's programme for virtually as long as this country has been a Republic but it has been shamefully neglected. Many Ministers have come to Clogherhead on propaganda visits but the people of Clogherhead do not want any more fact finding missions. The Department has victimised and neglected Clogherhead. I hope the Minister will change that position and allocate money so that the harbour wall which has subsided into the sea can be rebuilt.

While I am hardly articulate enough to attract people from their tea, it is remiss of the Opposition not to have one person in the Chamber. Perhaps it is because this Bill is not likely to get RTÉ television coverage, but if we were debating a matter that had a hint of scandal they would be here. Is their absence a sign that they have no regard for the need for this Bill or is it that while they were in office they allowed many harbours to subside into the sea and do not wish to be told about it?

I welcome this Bill. On balance the decision to include three members of the local authority on the new board is justifiable, but from my knowledge of membership of Dundalk Harbour Board, the people who make the most meaningful input to running the harbour are nominees of business firms who do business with the harbour. They have expertise in the commercial running of the harbour, they export and import through the harbour and have a vested interest in ensuring it is run as efficiently as possible.

In view of the fact that over the years harbours were neglected by Departments it was very difficult for members of harbour boards to get money for the maintenance and dredging of harbours, some of which were in a dangerous state of decay; on occasion there were fatalities when people drove over the edge of the harbour. The creation of State bodies will ensure a more ready and plentiful supply of money. If the companies to be set up are to have any merit, they must be given an allocation of money. State involvement will benefit harbours.

In Dundalk the harbour is efficiently run. In recent years under the guidance of a vibrant harbour board great plans have been made which I hope, with assistance from the Department, will be implemented. In County Louth there is also the port of Greenore in Carlingford Lough which, while a private harbour, is responsible for much of our cattle exports, a business which in recent years has been a viable one. Has the Minister considered the possibility of a joint venture with the Northern Ireland authorities to build a deep sea harbour in Carlingford Lough which would benefit people living on both sides of the lough from Kilkeel to Newry and Carlingford to Dundalk? Such a venture has exciting possibilities. It has been mooted over the years and I hope it will be considered in the future.

I welcome the Bill. The setting up of State companies in 12 areas should provide a fair supply of State money to allow the maintenance and development of the ports. I am concerned about responsibility of small harbours being handed over to local authorities. I fear that measure will be the swan song regarding the potential of small harbours, like the picturesque harbour of Annagassan in County Louth, because local authorities are so starved of cash and have so many priorities in terms of spending money that they will not spend it on developing such places as Annagassan. Some other umbrella authority should be responsible for small harbours. It is a cop out to give responsibility for them to local authorities because they will give roads and other areas greater priority and the small harbours will be relegated to the bottom of the list. That is understandable, but the transfer of responsibility for small harbours to those authorities is a cop out.

I ask the Minister to give an assurance that people who have served on harbour boards and have a vested interest in them, as described in the Bill, will be retained in the interests of the development of various ports.

I welcome the Bill. I understand the previous legislation dealing with harbours was introduced in 1946. One of the finest harbours was in my home town of Westport. As a young boy I remember waiting for the boat to come in to deliver the slack, manure and coal. People were well paid when the boats came into the harbour. For the last number of years boats have not come in and the old people regret that. At one time boats left that harbour to bring people from Achill, Belmullet and Ballycroy to America and Britain. I regret the decline in Westport Harbour over the years.

It is regrettable that, similar to railways, harbours have declined. In Dublin there is talk of bringing a railway line into the centre of the city, a project which will cost million of pounds. Articulated trucks travelling from Dublin all over the country are causing traffic problems in towns and damaging our roads. Why do we not make more use of our harbours and use ships to carry goods from Dublin to Westport, Ballina and Achill? Such a measure would reduce traffic on roads and create employment. I remember people in the past waiting for boats to come into the quay and getting paid over the odds. Such traffic created industry in the town and generated a buzz as money was more plentiful. It is sad those days have passed. I talked to people on the quays last Sunday and they agree the derelict state of harbours is shameful.

Given that it is proposed that responsibility for non-commercial ports will be handed over to local authorities. I ask the Minister to ensure that such authorities are given adequate funding to develop harbours to a proper standard. I compliment the Westport Harbour Commissioners for the work they carry out on a voluntary basis because of their love of the area. I hope people serving on such boards will be retained as they do that work out of a love of the harbour, the quay and the boats. When responsibility for those harbours is handed over to local authorities, we must ensure that, unlike in the past, county managers, assistant county managers and county secretaries are not nominated to those boards while the people from the areas are denied representation on them. That would be wrong.

I hope the Minister will consider measures to revitalise such harbours and introduce legislation to reduce the volume of articulated trucks, relieve traffic problems and make greater use of harbours in the transport of goods, thus creating employment. I hope people serving on harbour boards will not merely be thanked for their service and told they are no longer needed. I hope they will be retained and county managers will have only a small representation on them. I am sure this legislation will have greater effect on larger rather than smaller harbours. I compliment the Minister for introducing the Bill.

I join with other Deputies in welcoming the Bill. During the past three years on the Order of Business I asked many times when the Harbour Bill would be introduced and various undertakings were given by the previous Taoiseach. When my party entered Government I told the then Minister for the Marine, Deputy Coveney, that I wanted the Bill introduced as quickly as possible and I am glad that has been achieved after only five months in office. I take this opportunity to welcome the new Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, and wish him well in his new post.

One of the advantages of being in Government is that one is in a position to approach a Minister or parties in Government and outline what needs to be done. I was pleased to be in a position to outline to the Minister the case for adding Salthill to the line of seaside resorts in Galway designated for renewal. I am glad that was achieved after only five months in Government.

After strong representations made by harbour boards to retain the balance of local authority members on boards, the Minister has conceded that three persons will be nominated by the prescribed local authority. I am not sure if such persons must be members of the local authority, but I presume they must. It is essential that there is close liaison between the harbour boards and the local authorities, particularly with the local authority in which the harbour board is located.

Regarding Galway Harbour Board, I presume it will involve three members of Galway Borough Council as the harbour board is located in Galway city. Since the 1946 Harbours Act Galway has been declared a full county borough with full responsibilities and the county council no longer represents the city. Such liaison between the local authority and the harbour board should continue because, despite the expertise and interests of other members of the harbour board, it is generally members of the local authority who provide the neutral opinion on the harbour board because they are not involved in the daily running of the board.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share