Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Jun 1995

Vol. 454 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Harbours Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Deasy

Normally I would not be very enthusiastic about setting up 12 new State companies, including one in Dún Laoghaire, as proposed in the legislation, but I accept the Minister's word that the overall effect will be to relax ministerial control. If that is the case, I can justify supporting the measure. My political philosophy is averse to the creation of State companies. I find it hard enough to suffer those in existence and normally I would find the creation of an additional 12 companies unacceptable.

I was a member of one of the existing harbour boards. Waterford Harbour Commissioners, for a number of years and I have a reasonable insight to the manner in which they functioned in the past. Their constitution is somewhat loose. It was interesting to be a board member as a wide range of interests were represented on those boards. It gave every business section of the community interested in shipping an opportunity to be represented, a democratic and desirable way to do business.

Under this legislation it has been decided to increase the number of board members from nine to 12 to facilitate local authority representatives. It is sad to relate that in my experience, and this may have been particular to the Waterford harbour board, generally the worst attenders were local authority members. I do not know if they receive expenses, I did not receive any although I had to travel 30 miles to meetings. It must have been difficult to make room for three local authority members on those boards when they were such poor attenders at board meetings in the past.

I notice that TDs and Senators are prohibited from being members of the new boards. I regard that as petty because a harbour board would be assisted by having a local TD, Senator or MEP on it. It would enable the board to have contact with national politics, Ministers and the European Union which provides a great deal of funding for developing and expanding harbours. I fail to see the logic of excluding Deputies, Senators and MEPs from membership of such boards.

I have always objected to the election or nomination of worker-directors to State boards. Under the Bill, depending on the size of the workforce in the harbour, a number of worker-directors must be appointed to the board. I do not favour the worker director-system as it tends to undermine the running of boards. Worker-directors believe they have an obligation to inform the workforce of developments and, while that may appear logical, in many cases companies must keep their strategies and plans close to their chests. It is difficult to run a company if people who attend board meetings inform others of the developments in the company. I will not accept the need for worker-director representation on State boards.

The idea of worker-director representation was mooted in the mid-1970s by a Labour Party member of the then coalition Government, but a serious mistake was made in making comparisons with similar boards on the Continent. Worker-directors are not appointed directly to boards on the Continent, they are appointed to a subcommittee which reports back to the board. Under this Bill worker-directors will be directly represented on boards and that is not acceptable, particularly in the context of major State companies. As Minister I had many State companies under my control one of which, the Sugar Company, faced difficulties and the presence of worker-directors on the board was more of a hindrance than a help in solving those difficulties. This is the forum in which to air such grievances. The worker-director system was not intended to mean direct representation. Trade secrets should remain behind doors and we should have confidence in those nominated to State boards.

The Minister stated that the Minister for the Marine will nominate the members of the board with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Once again the heavy hand of the Department of Finance will control the activities of another Department. Such a qualification is undesirable. If the legislation is introduced by the Minister for the Marine and the boards operate under his aegis, total control should rest with him. The recent trend of giving the Minister for Finance a veto on matters relevant to other Departments should be outlawed.

The Minister stated that existing harbour boards comprise representatives of local authorities, chambers of commerce, trade union interests, IBEC, the livestock trade, shipping and ministerial nominees. I worked with a number of trade union members who did excellent work on the Waterford Harbour Board. Rather than having worker-director representation, would it not be more acceptable to have direct trade union representation on such boards?

The livestock trade — the shipping of live animals to other countries — is a very contentious issue at present. This country is so heavily dependent on the export of live animals that it is imperative the matter is put in proper perspective and we ensure there is no undue cruelty to animals transported by sea. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in the past and almost weekly we read horrific stories in our newspapers about hundreds of cattle dying or being maimed en route to a country in the Middle East. Farmers depend to a large extent on the live animal trade, but the public are very aware of the cruelty it may involve. That trade will come under serious threat unless steps are taken to eliminate cruelty. I sound a note of caution in this regard. There is a danger that public reaction will become so strong it will be impossible to ship animals from the south of Ireland through the Gibraltar Straits which is an unsettled turbulent stretch of water. It is always going to be difficult to ship animals through that region without their incurring serious injuries or fatalities.

We shall have to examine this matter very carefully. Any reading of newspaper reports in recent months will have demonstrated that the farming organisations, shippers, the companies involved and the general public all are at loggerheads on this issue which will become even more contentious. Ultimately, it may mean that we will be allowed ship animals across the Irish Sea only from Rosslare to Fishguard, Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead or Greenore to Holyhead, the remainder of the journey being overland. This is a contentious issue which will become more so. I do not think people have fully faced up to or realised the degree of hostility among the general public about the type of activities which have been condoned and allowed take place over many years. I predict they will not be allowed continue.

This is a very emotional issue that must be addressed. Fine words, promises and threats thrown around like snuff at a wake will not allay public fears in this respect; some constructive measures and action are needed. The livestock trade must be saved, but the way we are going we will not save it. We are heading into a confrontation in which the livestock producers, shippers and dealers cannot win. One cannot fly in the face of the public since there are enormous cruelty problems involved. We shall have to devise a less damaging, less hurtful, much less cruel system.

Under the Bill I note that 11 ports will be transferred to the State in the form of port companies. Dún Laoghaire Harbour is already under the control of the Minister for the Marine, as are five other fishery harbours. I note that Dingle will be the sixth to come under his control.

In the latter part of the Minister's contribution he said there was a review being undertaken of the financing and control of these harbours. I ask the Minister of State to expedite finalisation of that review since some of these major fishery harbours are in a very poor state of repair. Dunmore East in my constituency, one of the six involved, is dreadfully under-financed. Considerable sections have already fallen or are in danger of falling into the sea and the harbour in great need of considerable extension. The Minister should speed up production of that review and, if necessary, introduce legislation so that we can discuss the problems in those six fishery harbours which provide thousands of jobs and which, if expanded, could provide additional jobs. There is no more appropriate sector within which the State can generate employment than these fishery harbours. It is a shocking state of affairs that such employment should be inhibited through our reluctance to repair or extend those harbours.

Mr. Clohessy

Given our country's island status and extraordinary dependence on exports, having to export in excess of two-thirds of everything we produce, it is crucial that we have totally commercial, top quality port facilities to enable efficient export to various markets abroad. The sad fact is that that is not the case. The need for dramatic reforms is underlined by the fact that so much of our trade and commerce is conducted through the port of Larne in Northern Ireland despite the considerable extra distance involved for long distance hauliers.

The key to success is to be found in reasonable port charges, efficient operations and frequent sailings. The very success of the port of Larne is an indictment of the operations of our main ports in the Republic, particularly Dublin Port. If an exporter based in the midlands, midwest or west finds it more economical to drive to Larne rather than to Dublin Port, which is so much nearer, it will readily be appreciated that the position is serious and warrants regular review. The reforming measures in this Bill to commercialise the operations of our 12 larger ports are welcome and long overdue. I particularly welcome the proposal that these ports be run on fully commercial, business lines.

A query I might raise on behalf of my party is whether the possibility of privatising the operations of any of those ports was seriously considered. That course has been pursued successfully in other countries. Since it is the intention to run our ports on a commercial basis, why not go the whole hog and investigate their privatisation? The Minister stated that it is the intention of the Government, on the enactment of this Bill, that our ports will operate as truly commercial, self-sufficient enterprises, free from undue State control. As my colleague, Deputy Deasy, pointed out a few moments ago, the heavy hand of the Department of Finance appears to hang over such ministerial decisions. That begs the question whether any degree of hands-on State control is necessary once a proper legislative framework has been put in place for the operation of these ports. Should they not be allowed get on with the job without any State interference whatsoever?

I hope the plan outlined in this Bill will enable ports like Dublin, Cork, Drogheda, Foynes, Limerick, Waterford, New Ross and Wicklow to meet the needs of our exporters on a much more efficient, commercial basis. The key to success will be more competitive port charges, speedier handling of all cargoes and more frequent sailings to Britain and the Continent. To that end I welcome the objective of reducing port and shipping costs by 15 per cent and an increased tonnage of practically 50 per cent by the end of this decade. The real test of this Bill will be whether, over the next couple of years, we witness not alone a dramatic expansion in the volume of trade passing through our ports but also a shift in the volume of business from Larne to ports in the Republic.

On a more parochial note, the port of Limerick/Foynes/Kilrush, one of the finest deep water ports in western Europe, deserved the additional funds devoted by the Minister's predecessor and demonstrated Government confidence in the operations of ports in that area. The road servicing the port of Foynes, the N64, is totally inadequate to cater for the type of traffic it carries. It is in need of upgrading but, in the meantime, some remedial work should be undertaken by the Minister, widening various bends and narrow portions. This is a very important port for our economy. Stretches of the River Shannon from Limerick to the sea, on both sides, are exceptional development land suitable for all types of industrial activity. Moneypoint, Aughinish Alumina, the cement factory and White's of Askeaton are all built along the estuary. Vast tracts of land are suitable for industrialists interested in establishing industries there.

I wish to refer to the problem of the illegal importation of drugs. Not long ago, a large consignment of drugs which had come through Rosslare port was seized at Shannon. Adequate support should be given to our major ports to ensure that as few of these drugs as possible are brought into this country. Drugs will destroy the lives of our young people and we must ensure that their importation is as limited as possible.

In general, I accept the spirit of the Bill and hope it will be passed. I am pleased that members of local authorities may be appointed to the membership of the new authorities but Deputies, Senators and MEPs should not be debarred from such membership. These people have vital contacts with Ministers and can bring problems to their notice more rapidly than the people in the port authorities. Perhaps the Minister might reconsider this proposal. Members of Chambers of Commerce, and even dock workers, should be considered for appointment to these boards because they deal with issues affecting their livelihoods. If our ports are not managed properly, they will soon deteriorate.

Mr. Boylan

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution. Being from the inland constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, I am not directly involved with this issue but I am indirectly involved and dependent on others for the provision of good harbour facilities. We depend on our ports for getting our goods to markets outside the country and for the importation of essential raw materials for our manufacturing industry. We also depend on our ports to bring tourists here.

This Bill represents the first real examination of harbours legislation in almost half a century. Most people would accept that since the previous legislation was passed in 1946 there was a need to update it. I have a limited knowledge of harbours. When holidaying in Wexford I would often travel to Rosslare to see what was happening there. To my knowledge the facilities there are outstanding and the people involved should be commended on the way the harbour has developed over the years. I believe the facilities in Rosslare are as good as those in any other country, although there are some outstanding problems which have been referred to by previous speakers.

Deputy Deasy referred to the fact that membership of the new boards is restricted to members of local authorities and that TDs and Senators are debarred from membership. That is a slight on people in high office. If TDs or Senators are willing to serve on these boards they should be considered for membership. Deputy Deasy made the point that members of local authorities are often bad attenders at meetings but if a person fails to attend three successive meetings, he or she should be replaced unless they can give very good reason for their non-attendance. People are often anxious to become members of local authorities, committees etc., but their attendance and contributions are often negligible. That is not good enough and if a person nominated to be on one of these new boards does not attend meetings, he or she should be replaced.

The Minister stated this new legislation is designed to ensure that ports will be able to operate as truly commercial and self sufficient enterprises free from undue control by the State. I welcome that. It will be for the local harbour boards to determine whether development or upgrading of harbours is necessary.

The export of live animals is a topical subject at present and one which has led to much heated debate and unfounded criticism. I recently read comments by a member of a harbour authority to the effect that a ship leaving this country with a large number of cattle on board had to abort its sailing because of the illness of a member of the crew. There were further comments about the condition of the cattle on that ship. I do not accept that cattle are abused in this manner because of the people who are dealing with them. If one is selling goods to overseas purchasers they must arrive at their destination in good condition. If they do not, the purchaser will not accept them because they are of no benefit. We have a lot to learn in this area.

The people involved in the licensing of boats for the movement of cattle must be properly trained. I accept there has been substantial losses of cattle but that cannot be attributed to abuse or negligance on the part of farmers. Ships carrying cattle are not properly structured for this purpose. I am talking about boats with a capacity for carrying 2,000 head of cattle. I assure this House that no farmer worthy of his name would abuse his animals but negligence can occur because of various difficulties that can arise on a farm through old age, etc.

Shipping cattle from this country is a whole new area for us and we must consider the knowledge that shipping companies have in caring for animals on journeys lasting approximately 12 to 14 days. Port authorities will have a role to play in this regard. They will have to ensure that the boats carrying these cattle are properly structured with adequate facilities. With all due respect to people working in our ports, they have very little knowledge of cattle and, in that respect, a farmers' representative, qualified in cattle husbandry, should be employed by port authorities. I would have such knowledge because I grew up on a farm and I have cared for animals.

I recently visited a boat which I believe would be suitable for the transportation of cattle but I would like to be assured that that boat had the facilities to carry sufficient drinking water and fodder. There is a question mark over the quality of fodder being loaded on ships for cattle leaving this country. Fodder is measured in weight, a person selling fodder will guarantee the weight, but what about its quality? That must be borne in mind but the ports authorities will not understand this. Quality fodder is not necessarily heavy fodder but if one is selling it by weight, it would be very easy to add water to the fodder to make up that weight. Good fodder with water added will soon begin to overheat and the result is poison. If animals become ill while being shipped abroad, the fodder being provided to them should be examined because that is probably where the problem lies.

The number of cattle per pen during transportation should be decided by the weight of cattle. If 11 500 kilograms cattle can fit in a standard sized pen, one would need a larger pen for 14 similarly sized cattle. The manner in which our animals are exported is giving us a bad name and we need to ensure that the best facilities are in place for these exports, which are of vital national interest. This major export market is vital to the farmers in my constituency and in the region. There is an old saying in the cattle business that it takes the live trade to keep the dead trade live. The farmer benefits from competition between exporters of live cattle and the meat factories. Harbour boards dealing with the export of live animals should have a farmer representative to ensure there are proper facilities for the animals.

It is vitally important to create a good impression at our harbours. I am very impressed with the reception areas and facilities at Rosslare Harbour. I am also impressed by the ease and speed of disembarkation and the facilities available onshore for passengers. That has to be the yardstick by which we judge ports around the country. I cannot speak as favourably of Dublin Port but it would be unfair to be over critical because I have not made a close examination of it. First impressions are very important and reception areas should be attractive.

Members have mentioned the problem of drugs and I have raised this at the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The harbour authorities have a role to play in this area. Obviously the Garda Síochána and the Customs and Excise officials are doing an excellent job. The amount of drugs seized in recent months is frightening but I am told it is only the tip of the iceberg. I have been told that ten times the amount that is confiscated is getting in by other means and that it is only a decoy for the Garda and the port authorities. It is our duty to protect our young people. We must address this problem and work in co-operation with European Union member states to stamp out drug trading and drug dealers using this country to offload drugs for further transportation. It is quite obvious that the market is flooded when the price of drugs has come down from £10 to £3 for a tablet. Everybody has a role to play and the harbour authorities have to ensure proper policing at our ports.

I hope my earlier comments, which are very important, will be taken on board.

Mr. Bell

I congratulate the Minister for bringing forward this Bill so quickly. We badly needed to revise the 1946 Act. Let me express my personal thanks on behalf of the constituency of Louth for the attention the Minister has given to both Dundalk and Drogheda ports. Comprehensive proposals for the development of both ports are under active consideration. I hope the Minister in his wisdom will sanction those proposals in the very near future. As a former chairman of the Drogheda Harbour Authority and a board member for a considerable number of years I welcome this development. I will probably go down in history as the last Member of the Oireachtas to be a member of that harbour authority. Whether that is good or bad, I have that honour, but it is right that Members of the Oireachtas should not be involved in the type of organisation that is proposed in this Bill.

With all due respects to the officials from the Department of the Marine, with whom I have dealt on many occasions and found courteous and helpful, I believe bureaucracy stymies initiative and does not allow for the type of flexibility needed in modern trading. For example, we have never been able to improve the facilities at either Drogheda or Dundalk harbours to the extent that they would be able to take larger ships. The largest ships that can travel up the River Boyne are 95 metres and that means that larger ships have to unload at other ports such as Belfast and Warrenpoint. That is not a good idea and does not help to secure existing or new business. Ships are getting bigger and the question of channels in ports will have to be considered with a view to improving and deepening them to cater for the tonnage of modern vessels. It is not an economic proposition for a ship to have to dock in two or three ports to unload a portion of its cargo. I am aware that the Minister has been briefed by members of the Drogheda and Dundalk harbour commission.

The Bill's proposals on membership are welcome. I think the board has been overcrowded with local authority members. With all due respects to my local authority colleagues, we need people on the board who are more in tune with the commercial world. I welcome the proposal to have a worker director on the board. I expect a docker representative. It is important in this era of high powered mechanisation to have a link between the workforce, the shippers and the business community. The original idea was that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions would nominate people to the board but party representation became more important than trade union representation.

Debate adjourned.