Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995

Vol. 457 No. 5

Harbours Bill, 1995: Report Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 11, line 25, to delete "or 89 (2)" and substitute ",89 (2) or 92 (10)".

On Committee Stage a new section, section 92, was inserted in the Bill providing for the preservation and availability for public inspection of harbour records and archives. Section 92 (9) provides that a person shall not conceal, damage or destroy archives held in accordance with the section and shall not remove, publish or reproduce the whole or any part of such archives without the written consent of the company or harbour authority concerned. Subsection (10) of the same section states that anyone who contravenes the provisions of subsection (9) will be guilty of an offence. This means that section 6 must now be amended by the inclusion therein of a reference to this new section. The amendment, therefore, is consequential to the insertion of section 92 on Committee Stage. The amendment provides that a person guilty of an offence under section 92 (10) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.

I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, line 30, to delete "to".

This is purely a technical amendment correcting the inadvertent duplication of the word "to" in section 6 (3) (a).

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 6 is related, amendment No. 5 is an alternative to amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 7 is an alternative to amendment No. 6. I propose that we take amendments Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together, by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 14, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(c) promote leisure activities that may be carried on in its harbour or which relate to the marine generally,".

On Committee Stage Deputy Michael Smith tabled similar amendments. The reference to the heritage of a harbour has been inserted at the request of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. On Committee Stage it was agreed that Deputy Smith's amendments would be considered for Report Stage. I am happy I am now in a position to put forward amendments on similar lines to those proposed by Deputy Smith and which also take on board the wishes of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the promotion of leisure activities and the protection of the environment and heritage are enshrined in the objectives and general duties of the new harbour companies. Amendment No. 4 creates the freedom for ports to develop recreational facilities if they so desire. It is my policy, and that of the Department, to encourage such development. The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to require the port companies to have due regard to the amenity, environmental and heritage consequences of their operations.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I thank the Minister for accepting the suggestions made by Deputy Smith on Committee Stage. It is important that ports have an opportunity of developing in the area of marine leisure activities, particularly with respect to tourism development. It is appropriate that environmental and amenity operations are protected and enhanced. I also welcome the suggestion by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht that heritage is included.

Mr. Cullen

The Minister was wise to include these activities in the Bill. As we all know, the activities in many estuaries have broadened substantially in the past few years. The areas of leisure, heritage and tourism offer much potential and should be developed, particularly in small communities where the possibility for the creation of jobs exists along river shores with increased activity in the tourism and leisure area.

This raises another question concerning the volume of activity on many of our rivers and estuaries including bulk, cargo and container shipping as well as general fishing activities by small trawlers and individuals and the growth in leisure activities. While it is important that these areas are covered in the Bill, it is important also that the question of safety on our rivers and estuaries is addressed. There is little point in including these activities in legislation if we do not ensure they occur in an orderly manner. I am thinking in particular of the accident involving a tug recently on the River Suir which highlighted the volume of activities on the river and the lack of rescue services on many rivers throughout the country.

Discussions with many people from varied interest groups revealed the large number of activities on our rivers and the fact that we do not have sufficient rescue services on rivers and estuaries. We must ensure those services are put in place because life is precious and trying to provide a river rescue service from, say, the main lifeboat facilities is not sufficient because they have a particular job to do. I raise the matter in the context of this amendment because the Minister should be alerted to this problem. The question of river rescue services must be addressed and funding must be made available so that at least skeleton services are provided on many of our rivers and estuaries.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 6 has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 14, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"(d) to have due regard to the consequences of its activities on the environment, the heritage (whether natural or man-made) relating to its harbour and the amenities generally in the vicinity of its harbour.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 10 is in the name of Deputy Kenneally. I call on Deputy Kenneally to move the amendment.

Mr. Kenneally

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 16, line 14, after "ship" to insert the following:

", unless the vessel makes any use of the facilities including navigational, buoys and lights or any service available in the other harbour; and in such instances the rates chargeable for the use of such facilities or services shall be those being charged immediately before the enactment of the Harbours Act, 1995 in respect of vessels so passing through such limits, or such rates as may be determined by the port company from time to time".

This amendment arose from suggestions to the effect that in Waterford, for example, the port authorities were not in a position to levy charges on vessels passing through the port on their way to New Ross. That was ludicrous because certain facilities are provided by Waterford Port which are availed of by vessels passing through the port on their way to New Ross. The intention of the Bill as originally drafted was to replicate that contained in the 1946 Harbours Act but, unfortunately, it did not do that.

Significant funds are expended on, for instance, the provision of local lights, buoys, etc. I do not know the exact figures but large amounts of money are expended and it is right that if someone is availing of those facilities, they should pay for them. The argument that these vessels are only passing through the port and not using the facilities is similar to my saying I should not have to pay the toll going across a motorway on the outskirts of Dublin on my way from Waterford to Belfast because I am only passing through Dublin. I note the Minister tabled a somewhat similar amendment but I hope he will be in a position to accept my amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

Chairman, may I clarify whether you are taking amendment No. 11 with No. 10? That was my understanding.

Acting Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Cullen

If that is the case, may I come in before the Minister?

Acting Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Cullen

Following the Committee Stage debate, I am glad the Minister of State has moved to clarify the position. Much discussion took place on this matter and the Minister recognised that the original amendment was lacking in clarity and required further amending. I am glad the Minister's amendment addresses the questions raised at that time. The reality is that commercial operations must live in a commercial world. Charges must be imposed to support the commerciality of businesses operating in all sectors, not least those involved in shipping and activities that occur on rivers.

Traffic traversing the port of Waterford on its way to the port of New Ross does not negate the fact that these facilities must be provided by the port of Waterford in the Suir Estuary. It is only right, therefore, that ships plying their trade through those areas are entitled to use those facilities but, equally, the port authority is entitled to charge for those facilities, otherwise we would negate the meaning of commercial operation. The Minister in his amendment has accepted that reality bearing in mind the discussion we had on Committee Stage.

Mr. Deasy

I support the amendment tabled by Deputy Kenneally and I congratulate the Minister on his amendment. Amendment No. 8 refers to the Shannon and Foynes port companies so I think we are entitled to refer to the New Ross and Waterford port companies. If boats are proceeding to New Ross through an area administered by the Waterford Port Company, they should have to pay for the services provided. That is the objective of these two amendments which are perfectly logical.

The whole question of pilotage on that stretch of water must be clarified and it must be made clear that any boat proceeding up the River Suir, whether to Waterford or New Ross harbours, must have a pilot on board. We have reason to believe that boats proceeding through the Waterford Harbour area to the port of New Ross are attempting to avoid paying pilotage dues. I would like the Minister of State to clarify the position in that regard because a major problem arose on 16 October when the ship Marwan went aground at Cheekpoint, primarily because there was no pilot aboard. Ships travelling to New Ross are taking a chance by going from Dunmore East or from the Hook as far as Cheekpoint without a pilot. That is a serious contravention of the laws of the sea. There has already been an accident but more serious incidents could occur in future if the legislation is not clarified.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.