Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1995

Vol. 145 No. 7

Harbours Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

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

The Bill, which comprises 105 sections and six Schedules, is the first major revision of commercial harbours legislation since 1946. The purpose of the legislation is to restructure the management framework of port authorities by establishing State commercial companies to manage the 12 bigger ports. Before outlining in detail the main provisions of the new legislation, I wish to mention the existing legislation, the Harbours Act, 1946.

The 1946 Act had its genesis in 1926 when, by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Ports and Harbours Tribunal was established to inquire into the position of the several ports and harbours in the State. The tribunal reported in 1930. Its two main recommendations were, first, that the provisions of the various general Acts relating to harbours should be replaced by a general consolidating Act and second, that the Department of Industry and Commerce be given the general oversight of harbour administration and be placed as regards harbours in much the same position as the Department of Local Government and Public Health occupied in relation to local authorities. The Bill to implement the tribunal's recommendations was ready for introduction in 1940.

However, owing to the abnormal circumstances affecting the ports and harbours of the country which then existed, its introduction was postponed. The Second Stage of the Harbours Bill, 1945, was taken in Dáil Éireann on Wednesday, 28 November 1945. The Bill was introduced by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Seán Lemass, and contributors to the debate included such well known figures as General Mulcahy, Mr. John A. Costello and Mr. Maurice Dockrell. The Committee Stage of the Bill was taken in the Seanad in March 1946 and contributors to the debate included Professor Joseph Johnston, T.C. Kingsmill Moore and Gerard Sweetman. The legislation came into effect in 1946 and still remains the main body of legislation governing commercial seaports.

In the interim years, techniques in shipping and cargo handling have changed dramatically. On the one hand there has been the growth of large bulk shipments while, on the other, the almost universal use of unitised systems — either lift on-lift off or roll-on roll-off.

These changes have provided ports across the world with new challenges. The international response has tended towards the greater commercialisation of ports. Ireland's ports have been severely constrained in their ability to respond commercially because of the restricted legislation under which they operate.

It was for this reason the then Minister for the Marine, John Wilson, established the commercial harbours review group in October 1990. The task of the review group was to identify those aspects of existing legislation which constrained a modern port; the structure of harbour boards needed to be examined as did the extent of ministerial and departmental control on the day-to-day activities of ports. The review group included a broad representation of interests associated with ports — the Irish Port Authorities Association, IBEC, a transport economist, a port user, a local authorities representative, a SIPTU representative and a representative from the Department of the Marine.

The group presented its report and recommendations in July 1992. I would summarise the major findings of the review group as follows. Ireland of all countries in the EU was probably the most heavily dependent on external trade for its future prosperity. The crucial importance of seaports to the economy was highlighted by the fact that in 1990 80 per cent by volume and almost 55 per cent by value of the total external trade of the State passed through seaports. Having regard to Ireland's remoteness from the main European and world markets, there was an urgent need to bring the overall performance of Irish seaports up to a level at least on a par with the best international standards. Cargo handling and shipping techniques had changed dramatically in recent years with the advent of unified and large bulk shipments. The pace of change had outstripped the ability of seaports in Ireland and elsewhere to cope effectively with the challenges arising from it. Current legislation — the Harbours Act, 1946 — was outdated to present day requirements being unduly restrictive with ministerial controls more in keeping with procedures in local authorities. A survey of international trends indicated that seaports were being restructured and commercialised in many countries. Cargo handling activity was identified as a serious disability in many ports.

The key recommendation of the review group was that in order to facilitate commercialisation, commercial State companies should be set up to manage certain ports. The group also recommended that the commercial mandate under which the new port companies would operate should give them flexibility to operate as truly commercial enterprises.

The Bill now before the House is based on the main recommendations of the review group. The Bill provides for the setting up or commercial State companies to manage and operate the ports of Arklow, Cork, Drogheda, Dublin, Dundalk, Foynes, Galway, New Ross, Shannon, Waterford and Wicklow — these ports are at present managed by harbour authorities in accordance with the Harbours Act, 1946; the setting up of a State commercial company to manage and operate Dún Laoghaire Harbour which is at present managed and operated by the Department of the Marine; the function of the companies so established; and a revision of the law relating to pilotage.

I will not deal at length with the details of the provisions of the Bill but I will briefly describe its main provisions. The new companies will be formed and registered under the Companies Acts. The State will be the sole shareholder in each company. Thorough preparations will need to be undertaken before the companies are actually established. Such preparations include the installation of modern accounting systems; the preparation of commercial accounts, including up to date balance sheets; an assessment of pension assets and liabilities; a review of each harbour's trading performance and medium projections of same; a forecast of capital expenditure needs and of how these would be financed and an examination of staffing levels.

Existing harbour authority boards range in number from nine members to 29 and comprise representatives of local authorities, chambers of commerce, trade union interests, IBEC, the livestock trade, shipping and ministerial nominees. The view taken by the review group was that structures of this nature, that is, large representative authorities comprising up to 29 members, were no longer attuned to the competitive requirements of a modern port and were not the most efficient way of managing ports. The group recommended that the board of directors of the new companies should have seven members, including employee representation, the chairman and the chief executive. They further recommended that the non-executive directors should be appointed by the Minister with a five year term of office and should be drawn from the commercial sector of the economy and that persons with a vested business interest in the affairs of a port should not be given board representation.

However, following publication of the review group's report, there were numerous requests for a continuation of the existing representation. Having considered the matter the Government decided that the number of directors of each company should not be more than 12 and that three local authority directors should be appointed to each port company.

The Bill, as now presented, provides that the number of directors of each company will not be more than 12. The directors, with the exception of the chief executive, the worker and local authority directors, will be appointed and may be removed from office by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Each director, except the chief executive, will be appointed for five years and will be eligible for reappointment.

As regards worker directors, I should point out that the norm in the public sector, such as Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, An Post, etc., is that worker directors make up one third of the board's full membership. However, the numbers employed by harbour authorities and to be employed by the new port companies are small compared to other semi-State bodies such as An Post, and one third worker representation on the new port boards could be viewed as over-representation.

Accordingly, the strategy that has been developed is that the staff of companies, whose employees exceed 50 in number, will elect two worker directors; the staff of companies, whose employees are more than 30 but not more than 50 in number, will elect one worker director. Where the staff of the company is less than 30 in number the Minister will, following consultation with recognised trade unions, appoint a person as the representative of the interests of the employees of that company.

There was a strong demand for continued representation of local authorities on the new port companies as such representation would maintain the close relationship between city, town and port. It was argued that local ports play a key role in the economic life of the town or city associated with the port and that there must be close day to day interaction between the port and the local authority. Local authority representation, it was suggested, on the port authority provided a long established and effective means of ensuring full co-operation between both bodies. The Government agreed that such close co-operation was essential and considered that the inclusion of representation was merited on those grounds.

Accordingly, the Minister for the Marine will appoint three persons, nominated in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority, to be each a director of a company. Regulations prescribing the manner in which such persons are to be nominated will be made by the Minister for the Marine. The chief executive of each port company shall, by reason of his office, be a director of the company. The remaining directors will be appointed by the Minister for the Marine with the consent of the Minister for Finance and will be drawn from the professional and business community. Deputies, Senators and MEPs will be disqualified from becoming directors of port companies.

That is terrible.

I will now outline the powers and duties of the new port companies. The principal objects of each company will be, first, to take all proper measures for the management, control, operation and development of its harbour and the approach channels thereto and provide reasonable facilities, services and accommodation in the harbour for vessels, goods and passengers, second, to promote investment in its harbour and third, to utilise and manage the resources available to it in a manner consistent with the foregoing objects.

In addition, each company will be empowered, first, to engage in any business activity, either alone or in conjunction with other persons, that it considers to be advantageous to the development of its harbour; second, to take such steps either alone or in conjunction with other persons as are necessary for the efficient operation and management of its harbour; third, to promote leisure activities that may be carried on in its harbour or which relate to the marine generally; fourth, to appropriate any part of its harbour to the exclusive use of any person; fifth, to engage in activities outside the State related to functions in respect of its harbour which will promote the interests of trade and tourism in the State; sixth, to charge rates in respect of vessels using the harbour, goods shipped, transhipped, unshipped or stored within the harbour and any service provided by the company; seventh, to lease, acquire and dispose of property and eighth, to make by-laws for the use of the harbour, safety of navigation within the harbour and generally for the regulation of the harbour.

Furthermore, the Bill provides that it shall be the general duty of each company 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.

Each company will be required to submit annually to the Minister a copy of its annual accounts and the auditor's report on the accounts. The accounts will be audited by commercial auditors. Each port company will be empowered to borrow with ministerial consent up to a limit of 50 per cent of the company's fixed assets. The Minister for Finance may, in certain circumstances, guarantee borrowings by port companies.

Persons who immediately before vesting day were employees of a harbour authority or, in the case of Dún Laoghaire Harbour, of the Department of the Marine, will not, while in the service of the port company, be brought to less beneficial conditions of service or of remuneration to which they were subject immediately before vesting day. Each port company will be required to establish and maintain a superannuation fund.

I will touch briefly on the pension liabilities of harbour authorities and also deal with an important amendment in this regard which was introduced with Government approval on Report Stage in Dáil Éireann. The amendment in question was accepted by the Dáil and provided for the insertion of a new subsection (9) in section 41 of the Bill. The new subsection (9) provides that the Minister for the Marine may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, pay to the trustees of certain pension schemes moneys in respect of certain liabilities that have arisen prior to the relevant vesting day. This provision applies only to port companies to be established under the Harbours Bill.

Historically, harbour authorities operated a "pay as you go" system for pensions rather than having a specific pensions fund. This system is no longer in accord with acceptable standards. Under the Pensions Act, 1990, and the provision of this Bill, harbours must build up pension funds. This is a costly operation and while some harbour authorities are in the process of building up a fund others are only beginning to do so now and it will take some time for them to put fully endowed funds in place. In particular, Dublin Port and Waterford Harbour have serious shortfalls in their pensions funds.

The Government is taking action to secure pensions and ensure harbour authorities build up the necessary funds. Consultants have been employed to do a comprehensive study of the financial status of harbour authorities, including the long-term funding requirements of ports and how these are to be achieved, taking due account of measures to meet the appropriate funding standards for pensions schemes under the Pensions Act. I expect this study will be available shortly.

If it is found that some harbour authorities cannot build up the required funds within the timescale set out in the Pensions Act, it will be necessary to remove from the scope of Part IV of that Act those pension schemes or parts thereof which do not meet the required funding standard. The purpose of the new section 41 (9) is to allow for this. The effect of removing pension schemes from the scope of the Pensions Act is that such schemes will avail of Exchequer cover; in the unlikely event that port companies cannot meet their pension obligations the State will undertake to do so.

This provision will also allow for the payment of moneys by the Exchequer into a pension fund to build up that fund. The provision is enabling only and will only be invoked in the direst of circumstances where the Minister for the Marine and the Minister for Finance are satisfied that an Exchequer contribution towards a pension fund at a port company is absolutely necessary. Any such contribution will only be made on foot of a plan agreed by the Minister for the Marine and the Minister for Finance with the company and the trustees of the pension scheme which provides for building up the pension fund over a specified period. Policy will be to minimise the Exchequer exposure in this regard through ensuring that every effort is made by the harbour authorities and port companies to provide for the funding of pre-vesting day pension liabilities themselves.

I want to state clearly and strongly here today that, first, the purpose of the new subsection is only to provide a backstop guarantee against the eventuality that certain harbours may be unable, through trading performance or closure, to meet pensions liabilities. I also want to make it clear that Exchequer intervention will only occur in the direst of circumstances. Second, harbours will be expected to make every effort to fund all pensions liabilities through improved trading, asset sales, etc. The strategic plans of the boards will be required to provide for a mechanism by which funds are brought up to the funding standard requirements of the Pensions Act; the Exchequer's backstop guarantee will only operate until such time as the boards can reasonably attain that status. Third, there will be a stringent case by case approach; for example, notwithstanding the text of the amendment there will be no question that certain categories of liabilities, such as pre-vesting day, will be automatically Exchequer funded for all bodies.

Fourth, the intention is that when the study which has been commissioned into the current and prospective viability of the harbour authorities is completed, I will consider further, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance and the harbour authorities, how best to put the necessary measures in place to enable the pension schemes to meet the funding standards of the Pensions Act. The DKM study is now almost completed and the consultant's report and recommendations should be available within the next two weeks or so.

The Bill contains a provision whereby port companies may apply to the Minister for amalgamation and the Minister, if of the opinion that for sound business reasons the ports concerned should be amalgamated, may, by order, provide for such amalgamation if the companies concerned are agreeable. An amalgamation order will have to be confirmed by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

In respect of each port company the Minister will be empowered to issue directions to the company relating to safety, the levels of harbour charges, the acquisition and disposal of lands, the development of harbours and any other matters. He will also be empowered to stipulate, in consultation with the company, financial or other targets, including the payment of dividends in respect of shares in the company, to be achieved by the company.

Each port company will be required to organise pilotage in either of two ways — by employing pilots directly or by licensing self-employed pilots to undertake pilotage operations. Each port company will be empowered to make by-laws for the operation and organisation of pilotage services, qualifications for pilots, the grant of pilotage exemption certificates and for other matters related to pilotage.

I now wish to refer to the limits of jurisdiction of Foynes Harbour. Following publication of the Harbours Bill, 1995, I appointed Mr. Patrick J. Murphy to act as an independent mediator between Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Foynes Harbour Trustees in the matter of an application from Foynes for an extension of its area of jurisdiction. At present Foynes only exercises control over a small area of water in the immediate vicinity of the harbour. An extension of the limits of Foynes Harbour would involve an encroachment on the area over which Limerick Harbour Commissioners have traditionally exercised jurisdiction. The limits of Limerick Harbour have never been defined in any statute that can be traced. However, traditionally, Limerick Harbour Commissioners have exercised jurisdiction over the entire Shannon Estuary with the exception of the harbours of Foynes, Cappa Pier at Kilrush, Glin, Tarbert and Kildysart.

The mediation process commenced in October and the mediator's report and recommendation was received on 16 November 1995. The mediator has recommended that the western limit of Foynes Harbour be extended and that the extension should comprise the entire area below high water mark lying between an imaginary line drawn from Battery Point on Foynes Island and a point in the estuary north of the White River at Loghill. I am pleased to advise the House that I have accepted the mediator's recommendation and that I propose to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to redefine the limits of Foynes Harbour.

The Shannon Estuary is a wonderful natural resource which Ireland must exploit to its fullest potential in a farseeing way. The extension of the limits of Foynes Harbour together with the enshrinement in legislation, for the first time ever, of the limits of Limerick Harbour should make for a very vibrant and competitive import/export environment in the Shannon Estuary in the future as larger vessels become the norm.

In relation to pilotage in Waterford Estuary, ships travelling to New Ross Harbour must pass through the Waterford pilotage district. Pilotage is compulsory in both the Waterford and New Ross pilotage districts and this means that pilotage dues are payable to both pilotage authorities by ships bound for New Ross. During the course of the passage of the Bill through Dáil Éireann, efforts were made to abolish compulsory pilotage in Waterford Harbour for ships bound for New Ross.

On average a total of 1,100 ship movements are piloted to and from New Ross Harbour each year and consequently pass through the Waterford pilotage district. This is in addition to approximately 1,600 movements per annum to and from Waterford Harbour. I am of the view, because of this fact, that, in the interests of safety, compulsory pilotage is necessary for all ships from Dunmore East to Cheekpoint, where the New Ross pilots take over. Having said that, however, it is likely that pilotage exemption certificates will become more freely available once the new harbours legislation is in place. The persons in charge of ships travelling to New Ross Harbour on a regular basis will be able to apply for such certificates in respect of the Waterford pilotage district if they so desire and if they satisfy the conditions laid down in section 72 of the Bill, thus cutting overall shipping costs.

Both Waterford and New Ross Harbour Commissioners were invited to round table talks in my Department on Monday, 6 November 1995, to discuss the Waterford Estuary pilotage question. At the meeting it was agreed that a review of the entire pilotage operation in the estuary would be undertaken. It was further agreed that a review group would be set up by the Department of the Marine to examine the pilotage in detail. The group will comprise one nominee from Waterford Harbour Commissioners, one nominee from New Ross Harbour Commissioners, one official of the Department of the Marine and one independent member — with the necessary technical expertise — to be nominated by the Department of the Marine and agreed by both parties.

The terms of reference of the group will be drawn up by the Department and it was agreed that the group will be requested to concentrate on cost effectiveness of existing pilotage and any new operations proposed, safety, management, logistics, jurisdiction, pilotage exemption certificates and their effects under the new legislation and comparison with relevant situations elsewhere in the EU. It was agreed that the Department would convene the group as soon as possible with a view to receiving the group's recommendations within three months.

The Bill, as drafted, will, I believe, enable any of the review group's recommendations to be carried out. Section 79, for example, provides for the redefining of pilotage limits and section 43 allows for the amalgamation of interests provided the companies concerned are in agreement.

I want to outline the objectives of the Harbours Bill. The new legislation is designed to ensure that the ports will be able to operate as truly commercial and self-sufficient enterprises free from undue control by the State. The reorganisation of the commercial seaports together with a continuation of EU aid for port development will give the ports the flexibility they need to operate as truly commercial enterprises and will greatly improve their efficiency and effectiveness to the benefit of exporters, the agricultural and industrial sectors of the economy and our tourist trade. The main thrust of the new legislation will be to relax ministerial control while increasing accountability for operational and financial performance.

In tandem with the new legislation, a port development policy is also in place and significant investment in portal development will take place between now and 1999. The objectives of this investment are first, to facilitate the expansion of industry and agriculture, second, to facilitate the expansion of tourism and third, to facilitate regional development.

In line with these objectives the following features of Irish ports are being addressed — the need for more intensive competition; the inadequate frequency of services; the poor quality/outdated infrastructure leading to inefficiencies; some selective capacity deficiencies; the inadequate port handling equipment; capital dredging and the repair of structural faults.

The investment programme of £135 million is designed to achieve the elimination of bottlenecks, an expansion of port throughput by end 2000 of 46 per cent in the case of unitised freight -ro/ro and lo/lo — and 40 per cent for bulk freight, a 15 per cent real reduction in combined port and shipping costs, and the stimulation of a reduction in shipping charges which will have a significant impact on the productive sectors of the economy. The port development programme together with the reorganisation of the commercial seaports will gear the ports to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

I would like now to turn to other provisions of the Bill. On the future administration of the small non-commercial ports, the review group recommended that responsibility for harbours of lesser commercial significance, 13 in all, be transferred to local authorities. The harbours involved are — Annagassan, Bantry Bay, Ballyshannon, Baltimore and Skibbereen, Buncrana, Cappa Pier (Kilrush), Kinsale, River Moy (Ballina), Sligo, Tralee and Fenit, Westport, Wexford and Youghal. This proposal was discussed in detail with the majority of the harbour authorities concerned and the City and County Managers Association and it did not attract general support. The Government, having considered the matter, agreed to the proposal that, rather than providing for automatic transfer, the Bill should contain a framework which would allow these small harbours to, first, continue to operate under the Harbours Act, 1964; second, to be set up as commercial State companies or, third, to be transferred to local authorities.

The Bill, as now drafted, contains these empowering provisions. The position to be adopted in this regard will be considered on its merits on a port by port basis once the new legislation is in place. Decisions will be taken based on the present and anticipated level of commercial traffic at the ports concerned and the present and anticipated financial position of the ports concerned. Any proposals to transfer responsibility for any of the smaller harbours to the relevant local authority will be subject to the consent of the Minister for the Environment. Likewise, any proposal to establish a State commercial company in respect of any of the harbours concerned will have to be confirmed by the resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

As Senator Fitzgerald is in the Chamber, I want to refer to Dingle Harbour.

The Minister may say all he likes about it.

The Bill contains an enabling provision which empowers the Minister to designate Dingle Harbour as a fishery harbour centre once the new legislation is in place. This means that responsibility for the harbour would be transferred to the Department of the Marine which already manages and operates five fishery harbour centres. However, the general question of the management of fishery harbours falls for review in the context of a major review, announced by the Minister on 1 March 1995, of the organisation and management structures of the fishery services including the fishery harbour centres. I will be assessing the future management plans for Dingle Harbour and other major fishery harbours in the light of the outcome of the review which it is intended to have completed later this year.

In the course of preparation of the legislation a comprehensive consultation process on the purpose and context of the Bill has taken place with interested parties — mainly the harbour authorities concerned and the social partners — and, in so far as was possible, their views have been taken on board. I am confident that the principles of the Bill will be generally acceptable.

In conclusion, throughput at the commercial ports in 1980 amounted to 19.4 million tonnes; the corresponding figure for 1994 was 30.9 million tonnes — an increase of 59 per cent. The importance of our ports to the Irish economy cannot by over-emphasised. The measures outlined here today — (a) restructuring of the management framework of port authorities through the early introduction of commercial semi-State enterprises; (b) an emphasis in investment on strategic corridors so as to increase frequency of service and benefit of economies of scale; (c) the taking of appropriate steps to ensure adequate competition within and between ports and in shipping services and (d) a major programme of investment, supported by Community funds, in port infrastructure and facilities — are designated to ensure adequate and internationally competitive capacity.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister and this legislation. As a person involved in the sea, I want to be associated with the remarks made in the Chamber this morning with regard to the people who lost their lives and are still missing in Donegal. I sincerely thank the rescue services around our coasts and, in particular, those involved in these rescues. I sincerely thank the people of Great Britain and Wales, in particular the RAF and those who came so quickly to our assistance. It would be wrong for some people to criticise the manner in which they did so.

I also thank the Minister for acting so quickly and I congratulate him. From media reports, it appears he is putting a night-flying helicopter in place fairly quickly in the Dublin area or on the east coast.

Turning to the Bill, and this is where I will give the Minister a real welcome, I want to thank the people who have been involved in the preparatory work. It did not just appear here today. I thank the review group and, believe it or not, the five Ministers to date who have handled this Bill. In particular, we should remember the late Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan who was really handling this Bill.

I have been asking for this Bill for nearly as long as I have been here — for at least four years. I want to be critical, not of the Minister personally or anyone in particular in his Department but of the time which it has taken to introduce it. It has taken far too long. The review group said this matter should be acted upon with urgency, yet it has taken almost five and a half years and five Ministers to bring it to the House.

I attended the launch of the report in Dublin Castle and was under the impression that the Harbours Bill would be published two or three months later. How can this country progress if it takes this length of time to bring legislation before the House? There are many review groups but one would almost need a review group to ascertain why this process took so long.

This Bill is, and was, urgently needed to facilitate the aims of the report which are to develop fully the potential of the 12 harbours mentioned in the Bill and to make certain other amendments with regard to other ports, including my own town of Dingle. When I discuss section 86 I will explain why I am annoyed about the delay. It is not the Minister's doing but it has taken far too long to get things going and, in the meantime, we are losing money.

If I have responsibility for an area I make the decisions. However, nowadays every Department has review groups. They spend a year or more reviewing a matter on which the people in the Department should make decisions. Those people are there to run a Department, not a review group. I have to be critical of the Minister's Department in which there are at least three reports being compiled at present. There was one relating to BIM and another on the fishery harbour centres. Why can the people in the Department with all the knowledge not make the decisions and draft legislation? I will return to this point in the context of section 86 because Dingle is very important.

I do not intend to be mischievous because I want to be constructive about the Bill but I will indicate where amendments are necessary to give the Minister an opportunity to introduce them himself. Many sections are weak but they may sound different when clarified. The objects of the company, as outlined in the Bill, should be statutory duties rather than aspirations. They are not hard and fast and the company has no statutory duties as it stands. It is similar to a development plan for a county which one tries to follow as best one can but there is no obligation to carry out the duties.

The 1946 Act was a strong Act and, rather than introducing a new Bill, we should have amended it. The definition of "Minister" in that Act refers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce while this Bill refers to the Minister for the Marine. Times change and not every administration has a Minister for the Marine or a Minister for Fisheries. The relevant individual is often a Minister of State. That could be covered by providing that "the Minister" means the Minister in charge of marine affairs; it could be the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Finance.

The provisions relating to the master of a ship present a small problem. Is an individual still the master of a ship if he is under arrest or if the ship is being towed into port? For example, a ship was arrested off the coast of Kerry for gun running activities and was ordered to go to Cork. On the way, a propeller fell off and she could not proceed and had to be towed. That is an interesting case which could lead to compensation. Who was in charge of that ship which was being towed and where crew were under arrest? There may be provisions in other Bills which relate to the arrest of a boat.

I have a big gripe about the port penalties in section 6. A person can be found guilty of an offence under 15 sections of the Bill. If a boat goes into Dunmore East and commits an offence, such as disobeying the harbour master, it carries a penalty of £10. However, under this Bill if one disobeys the harbour master in New Ross, the penalty is a fine of £1,500, six months in jail or a fine of £100,000 on indictment. I want the Minister to repeal the 1946 Act and bring it into line with the penalties in this Bill or amend the penalties in the 1946 Act. A harbour master in Dunmore East has the same qualifications as a harbour master in New Ross or any other port but if one disobeys a harbour master in any port other than the 12 ports mentioned, the penalty is between £5 and £10. The penalty should be £1,500 for all these offences. If the Minister cannot amend the 1946 Act I will introduce a small Bill to amend it and bring it into line with this legislation.

Section 9 of the Bill relates to the limits of a company's harbour. I am glad the Minister stated that the Bill, as it relates to Foynes, will be amended. There is a hard working group of people at Foynes. They have drawn up development plans for the harbour and are proceeding with them. Without the extra limits the harbour is now getting, all their efforts would have been in vain. The findings and recommendations of the mediator must be included in the Bill, otherwise I will be compelled to put down an amendment to this effect.

While the companies' limits and the problems at New Ross and Waterford have been discussed elsewhere, and while I agree with the arguments that have been made, I do not agree with the Minister's remarks today that there is a need for compulsory pilotage from The Hook up to Chief Point because there is no compulsory pilotage on the way out. If there is compulsory pilotage on the way in, why is this not the case on the way out? In bad weather, the pilots cannot board and the ships proceed upstream accordingly.

I understand these matters are before the review group and they will be considered again on Committee Stage, but I agree with the suggestion that, in the interests of safety, the boats proceeding to New Ross should take on their pilots in Passage West and then proceed. When a pilot boards a boat at Chief Point, he must go through the Barrow Bridge within two minutes, which is 80 foot wide. To put this into context, how would the Minister like to drive my car out the gates of the House? He would have two minutes to do this, and with my old banger, he would probably crash into the gates. In the same way, the pilot must get the feel of the ship. If he boarded at Passage West, he would have approximately 15 minutes to carry out this manoeuvre and would then be in a position to proceed through the Barrow Bridge.

Is the Deputy seeking compulsory pilotage on to Kildare Street?

No. I strongly recommend that the pilotage be rearranged. The Minister is aware of the problems.

The objectives of the companies, as addressed in section 11, are only aspirational but I believe there should be a statutory duty and obligation to undertake them. Despite this, there are no words on fishing, here or in the rest of the Bill, despite references to matters such as fisheries harbours and accepted vessels, which are fishing vessels. There is nothing in the Bill to tell companies at Galway, Waterford, Cork, etc., that there is also an onus on them. For example, is there an onus on them to look after fishing? If so, they must do so.

I am very unhappy that there are many aspects left out of the Bill which should be included. The 1946 Act was very strong. While time has caught up with it and parts of it should be strengthened, it deals more specifically than the Bill with the duties of a harbour authority. Surely it is in the interests of the companies to promote fishing if fishing boats are using their harbours. Are they simply going to turn their backs on the fishing industry? Their task is to develop all aspects of their harbours.

The fishermen have been sold down the swanee over the past 20 years. Since 1972 we have sold their seas and have given them to Europe and have only developed five fishery harbour centres, which has been at the rate of approximately one every five years. What is happening to the fishing industry is ridiculous and I will return to this when I address the situation in Dingle.

Section 13 requires an agent for a shipping company to take out a bond in the event of the non-payment of rates. This should be deleted. It places an added expense on a shipping agent to take out a bond. The Bill does not specify the size of the bond, the amount of money involved and so on. The bond must be taken out so that the harbour company can recoup it in the event of any charges outstanding on a ship that has absconded. However, section 14 addresses this issue adequately. Its provisions are so strict that a ship which has been detained could not leave the harbour. These include procedures for detaining the ship, its goods, the sale of its goods, etc.

I now want to discuss unfair competition. A company running a harbour could become a shipping agent. Is such a company required to take out a bond to protect itself from arrears, or of moneys owed to it? This would not make sense. The Minister is creating unfair competition between the shipping agents and the company. On Committee Stage I will be seeking its deletion from section 13.

Section 13 (8) refers to charges by other ports. Doubtless, the Minister is aware of the problem at New Ross on the issue of charges. A ship coming into Waterford pays the same charge as a ship coming from The Hook as far as Cheap Point. This means there is an excess charge on ships coming into New Ross, and this is creating unfair competition. Whatever it costs to run that section of the estuary for the year should be divided between Waterford and New Ross rather than Waterford imposing an excessive charge on the New Ross company. I will move an amendment to delete this section and insert a new one which will provide for the charges to be laid out in a different way. What is the reason for the present situation? Is it because there is more water off Waterford or because the Barrow has more water than the Suir? The charges imposed on New Ross by Waterford are excessive. A review group has been set up and we will see what it will say on the matter.

Section 15 deals with the buying, selling and leasing of land. We have heard enough about the selling of land over the last few weeks and months and there should be a tightening of the procedures relating to such selling. I thought Kerry County Council was behind the times, but for years it has operated a system with regard to buying, selling and leasing whereby three valuers are selected from all the valuers in the county to value land. This section should be amended to provide for the valuation of land by three independent valuers. One such valuer can be influenced in some shape or form, but a person would want to great detective to influence three valuers in the fixing of a price.

Section 17 (3) deals with the directors of harbour companies. I will have a great deal to say about directors on Committee Stage. I want to make sure that members of chambers of commerce will be appointed as directors and I will move an amendment to that effect.

Section 9.5 of the report of the Review Group on Commercial Harbours and Pilotage Policy and Legislation points out that Limerick harbour adjoins three counties — Clare, Kerry and Limerick — and Limerick city. The report states that:

The future restructuring of ports should take into account the territorial boundaries of harbour areas... It is important, therefore, that proposals for a new port company reflect this geographic spread in the membership of its Board...

I would like to see the Bill entitle people from the three counties adjoining the Shannon Estuary to become members of the board. People from these counties should have a proper say in the running of the estuary. The Harbours Act, 1946, provided for the appointment of members of chambers of commerce as directors and this has done no harm to harbours.

Section 28 deals with the annual report. Companies are to be given six months after the end of each accounting year to make a report to the Minister. It is laughable that the Minister, other members and I receive reports on our desks for 1993 and 1994. Today we have computers and other technology. I present annual reports at annual general meetings of Dingle Harbour Board. Within a few weeks these reports are given to the Minister. Matters affecting a harbour company could go totally wrong and it could be sold down the swanee during the six months the Minister is waiting for its report. This period should be reduced to about a month. Any company worth its salt always has its affairs up to date. Large shops can press computer buttons to find out exactly what is happening. We should be able to do the same in this day and age.

Section 29 deals with performance audits. It refers to the appointment of

...a person to carry out an examination as to the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the performance by a company...

Is making ends meet our only worry? I will propose an amendment to this section which will provide for the appointment of a person to carry out an examination as to the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the performance by the company of all the objects laid out in section 11. I would not select only certain items for such an examination but would make sure that performance audits relate to the objects and aims of companies which are clearly stated in section 11.

I do not see any references in the Bill to the qualifications of harbour masters even though it sets out what the qualifications of pilots should be. This Bill, as is the case with the 1946 Act, should set out what the qualifications of harbour masters should be or should state whether the Minister is given the power to decide them. The Bill gives a harbour master the power to authorise a company to do anything he or she wants it to do. In effect, a harbour master could ask his wife or anybody in the company to look after the harbour while he is away for a few days. We must introduce regulations on the qualifications a deputy harbour master must have. There is no doubt that a harbour master must have certain qualification. It is crazy if the Bill allows harbour masters to authorise any persons in their companies to run harbours in their absence. What happens if something goes wrong?

I will propose an amendment to enable harbour masters attend meetings. It will receive much support in the House and the Minister should take note. There are several reasons why harbour masters should be included. I have knowledge in this regard from meetings of the harbour board of which I am a member. I must ask the harbour master about the obligations placed on the board regarding every item which arises.

For example, a company meeting is held this evening but the harbour master cannot attend. The meeting goes on for three or four hours during which matters are discussed and decisions made. The instructions are passed on to the harbour master so he can carry them out the following morning. However, he takes one look at them and says they are impossible and he cannot enforce them. The result is that another meeting must be held.

It would be much easier to give the harbour master the rights he deserves. The harbour master is the boss and he can overrule any person in the port, including the managing director of the company. If the managing director does something wrong, the harbour master can say the matter comes within his remit. I intend to put down an amendment to ensure the harbour master may attend meetings, albeit without a vote. This will ensure he can contribute to meetings. If the case arises at times that matters need to be discussed in the absence of the harbour master, it is easy to ask him to leave so that certain items may be addressed.

I intend to seek the support of the House to amend section 52. This House, the Lower House, the Minister, the Government and his party have protested about the explosion of nuclear bombs in the south Pacific. We have also been doing our best to ensure the closure of Sellafield. The Bill provides an opportunity — I want two new sections — to totally ban the entry of any ship, vehicle or conveyance to our harbours which is either powered by nuclear energy or carrying nuclear material or anything which will case harm or damage to people and property.

I will have the full support of the House and the public for this amendment. After it has been considered, I intend to go further and call for a nuclear free zone around our coast. Until we make a move ourselves, our voices will not be heard in other places. The purpose of the amendment will be to ensure a total ban on the entry of any ship, vehicle or conveyance powered by or carrying any type of nuclear substance. The Minister should take serious heed because I spoke to the Independent Members of the House about this matter and they said they will support it. The Bill provides the Minister with a golden opportunity to strike a blow in our campaign to get rid of Sellafield and the other protests. I am warning the Minister that my party has considered this matter and I have received clearance to move an amendment to ban nuclear ships from our coast.

Such ships are entering our harbours. For example, there was a large protest in Cork about a submarine. We do not want any more ships of this type in our harbours, but an exception could be made if there is a need to bring in a minute amount of radioactive material for use in industry. For example, some years ago I moved a motion in the House to ban strychnine. A Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry pleaded with me not to move it, but I had more support than the Department realised and strychnine was banned.

However, small amounts of strychnine for medical purposes were exempted and are still entering the country. This substance is contained in medication, such as Waffron tablets, which I take. If small amounts of nuclear material are necessary, they may be exempted, but I intend to push this matter to the limit to secure a total ban on the entry of any ship which is powered by or carrying nuclear material.

I do not understand why so much power is given to the harbour police. A good police force already exists but under the Bill the harbour police can arrest a person for committing offences mentioned in the legislation. For example, a director or managing director will commit an offence if they release confidential information. The Bill will give power to the harbour police to arrest the managing director of the company. This is unacceptable and nobody could agree with giving such powers to what is effectively a private police force.

It was never intended that the harbour police would be involved in such activities. Their role involves security and the provision will create a situation where the force will run the harbour. The Garda Síochána should be in charge at all times. What type of training will the harbour police receive? According to the Bill, it will be the appropriate training considered necessary by the company, but how does the company know how to train a policeman? This aspect makes one's mind boggle. The Bill hands this matter over to the company. It will employ harbour police and must come up with its own way of training them. It is a dangerous job and these people should be properly trained by the Garda Síochána. I ask the Minister to seriously examine this provision. Such extensive powers should not be given to the harbour police.

Regarding section 77 and pilotage, does the master of a ship have the right to refuse to allow a pilot to take charge of a ship if in his opinion the pilot is under the influence of drink or drugs? On the other hand, can the master of a ship be charged on the basis of evidence from a pilot that he was drunk while in charge of a ship? No section covers this aspect.

There is nothing in the Bill under which a director may be disqualified for non attendance. At times, their attendance is bad. The Bill should contain a provision to cover this area. People may be disqualified for other reasons but not non attendance. I am trying to cover as many matters as possible as my time is running out.

There is nothing in the Bill regarding the granting of licences by companies for small boats to ferry passengers. The company in Dingle issues such licences in the interest of safety and all companies should do likewise. Section 53 of the 1946 Act, which clearly sets out situations where a harbour authority may grant licences, should be included in the Bill. There is no provision in the Bill for a helicopter pad or facilities for rescue services and such provisions should be included to improve the Bill.

I want to deal with Dingle. I have waited four years to have Dingle designated as a fishery harbour centre. We are waiting for a review of the matter from the Department. We try to do our best in Dingle. I have given 21 years' voluntary service on the harbour board and I want better treatment from the Department.

I had an Údarás na Gaeltachta engineer draw up a plan to regulate the development of Dingle Harbour and I sent it to the Secretary of the Department of the Marine on 21 April. I received a reply a week ago apologising for the delay in replying. The cheek of it; it has me fuming. We spent many hours meeting and discussing and, despite three other letters, the Secretary took over seven months to reply to our correspondence. We are trying to develop Dingle and help the Department of the Marine. If we are to be treated thus I will put in the boot; I am sick and tired of the way we are being treated. The letter tells us that we did not cost the plan. No costing is necessary; it is only an attempt to regulate the development of the harbour.

We will have more hard words to say but they are not directed personally at the Minister of State or his staff. However, we will have a long session on Committee Stage. I have not touched on a number of matters due to time constraints; I should have asked for another half an hour to deal with other matters and representations I have received. I will get my colleagues to deal with those matters.

I had to publicly express my anger of the Department's treatment of Dingle. I will not take it lying down. Four years ago the then Minister for the Marine, Deputy Woods, nominated a person in his Department to liaise with us to ensure a smooth take-over of Dingle Harbour. Nothing has happened since. Dingle has the fourth highest level of landings in Ireland. There will be many amendments to the Bill put forward on Committee Stage, some of which I hope will be accepted.

I welcome the improvements and efficiencies which the Bill will provide for harbours. The main provision which sets out the establishment of 12 commercial companies is a positive approach. It is important that ports and harbours are exposed to the same economic activity as industry and commerce. Such exposure will ensure harbours will be operated as effectively and efficiently as possible. They will be required to do so just to survive.

In recent years harbours have been neglected in favour of airports and national primary routes, and there has been less emphasis on the development of harbours. More goods are exported by sea than by air or road. A new Harbours Bill is long overdue. It is 50 years since the last legislation was enacted. More money needs to be directed to harbours and to the shipping industry in general. There should be greater State aid and encouragement for individuals and companies involved in the shipping industry.

There is no agency from which a person can get State aid to put a ship on the seas and thereby create employment. In the case of other industries there are various agencies from which assistance may be sought. There is a belief that those who fund shipping are extremely wealthy, have no difficulty providing the necessary finances and do not need State aid. Every industry needs State aid at present.

We are the last island nation in Europe since the advent of the Channel Tunnel. We must ensure there is increasing investment in the shipping industry and in modernising harbours. Ports have operated under the Harbours Act, 1946, with some minor amendments — a worthwhile Act which stood the test of time. It was introduced immediately after the Second World War when sailing ships were the norm in many ports. Many of its provisions deal with sailing ships which then had precedence over mechanically powered ships between harbours. Parts II, IV and V of the new Bill are welcome and take account of changes which have occurred in the type of vessel used in ports and the modern communications systems in use. Such changes were not anticipated by the legislation enacted 50 years ago.

Attempts made in the past to modernise the Harbours Act were unsuccessful. This Bill arises from the recommendations of the harbours review group set up in October 1990 whose task was to identify those aspects of existing legislation which constrained the modern port. The structure of harbour boards was examined as was the extent of ministerial and departmental control of the activities of ports.

The group's main findings were that Ireland of all countries in the EU was probably the most heavily dependent on external trade for its future prosperity; the crucial importance of seaports to the economy was highlighted by the fact that in 1990 80 per cent by volume and almost 55 per cent by value of the total external trade of the State passed through seaports; having regard to Ireland's remoteness from the main European and world markets, there was an urgent need to bring the overall performance of Irish ports up to the best international standards. The key recommendation of the review group was to facilitate commercialisation and that commercial State companies should be set up to manage certain ports. The group also recommended that the commercial mandate under which the new port companies would operate should give them flexibility to operate as a truly commercial enterprise. The Bill is based on the main recommendations of the review group.

I agree with Senator Fitzgerald's comments on the position of harbour masters and I urge the Minister to look closely at discussions on this matter. Reference is made to the two positions which must be filled in each port company, the chief executive and the harbour master. The chief executive's role is defined and regulated, but the harbour master's role is unique in the new port companies and is not correctly legislated for.

A large section of the Bill is devoted to pilotage and the same emphasis should be placed on harbour masters. Confidence in the new management techniques should mean more flexibility in controlling pilotage and less control from central authorities. If harbours share pilotage, it should be done by agreement and understanding and commonsense should prevail.

Harbour masters were recently named in safety and environmental legislation as the competent local authority responsible for the administration of such legislation. The responsibility of this mix of statutory and commercial obligation is not reflected in the harbour master's representation at board level under the proposed legislation. Under the pilotage section of the Bill the harbour masters are expected to regulate and control pilots, but they do not have representation on a board of inquiry under section 73. The right of the harbour masters to attend board meetings and to enter into discussions should be enshrined in the legislation to ensure that board policy will not be in conflict with the statutory obligations of port companies. Harbour masters should not be on the board because they would compromise their situation, especially their statutory role.

It is vital that the harbour master is privy to the board's discussions and is available to the board for consultation during discussions at harbour meetings. The harbour master has a right to attend board meetings and to take part in the discussions. The core business of a port is the safe arrival, stay and dispatch of vessels to and from the waters of every port and the safe handling, storage and dispatch of goods to and from ports. The commercial and technical qualifications and experience of the harbour master is vital to the safe running of the ports. The training, expertise and technical knowledge of the harbour master should be identified and enshrined in legislation to ensure that harbour masters have a basic standard of qualification. They should attend board meetings because the role of the harbour master is widening, particularly where staff numbers are falling, and every decision made at board level will eventually impinge on some important aspect of the harbour master's role in the port.

As a member of Foynes Harbour Trustees for ten years I welcome the decision announced by the Minister for the Marine to extend the jurisdiction of the limits of Foynes Harbour. I commend Mr. Patrick J. Murphy for the work he has done in this regard. It is important to put on the record the main recommendations which the Minister has taken on board. Mr. Murphy recommended that increased jurisdiction be granted to Foynes Harbour Trustees as follows:

The limit to the east, consisting of the entire area below high water mark lying between an imaginary line drawn from Dernish Point to Gammarel Point, should remain unchanged.

The limit to the west, consisting of the entire area below high water mark lying between an imaginary line drawn from Battery Point on Foynes Island and a point in the Estuary North of the White River at Loghill, being 7.4 cables South of the County Clare Coast, ... should be granted to Foynes Harbour Trustees by way of increased jurisdiction, to enable them to expand logically and to cater efficiently for expected future imports and exports.

This proposal extends the present western limit of Foynes Harbour which is bounded by an imaginary straight line drawn from a point 168 metres west-north-west of Foynes Rock to a point due north thereof in the townland of Foynes Island.

The proposed new area of jurisdiction is bounded by a line 4.0 cables west of Battery Point to a point in the Estuary from which a line is drawn south-west to a point 2.8 cables north of the Limerick coast between Poultallin Point and Mount Trenchard Point, from which point the line proceeds south-west to a point 2.8 cables north of Mount Trenchard Point, from which it continues south-west to the point north of Loghill, which is 7.4 cables south of the County Clare Coast, and meridian 9 degrees 12 minutes west of Greenwich, where it is bounded to the south-west by a line passing south through the mouth of the White River at Loghill.

Limerick Harbour Commissioners would continue to have Estuarial responsibility for safety, lighting and other services and I am satisfied that my proposal would not pose any safety risks for incoming and outgoing ships navigating the Estuarial Channel for destinations other than Foynes Harbour.

Foynes Harbour is one of the great success stories in Limerick. The Foynes Harbour Trustees were established in 1890 under the Foynes Harbour Order, 1890. It laid down the existing jurisdiction of Foynes, which consists of one mile of water on the southern bank of the Shannon Estuary. This area of jurisdiction was confirmed in the Foynes Harbour Order, 1932, and has remained unchanged for over 100 years. It should be understood that in 1890, when the jurisdiction of the harbour was set out, the average size of a vessel was 250 cwt. The amount of water in 1890 was adequate for the size of vessel to be safely anchored in the area.

The port of Foynes has been developed extensively over the past 30 years. Foynes port is on a par with Dublin and Cork in relation to the size of vessel which can be accommodated, approximately 36,000 cwt. No other port in the State can facilitate this size of vessel. Foynes Harbour Trustees have increased trade through the port from 41,000 tonnes in 1963 to 1,414,000 for the year ended 31 March 1995. The number of trading vessels for the same period has increased from 32 to 300 and the net register tonnage of vessels has increased from 20,000 tonnes to 850,000 tonnes. Over the past 25 years Foynes Harbour Trustees have spent £12.5 million on improving marine and onshore facilities and have received £1.3 million from State and EU grants, which represents 10.4 per cent of the total capital expenditure.

I will now outline on what the money was spent. A deep water jetty was built in 1968 at a cost of £0.5 million and another was built in 1985 at a cost of £3.3 million. Mooring dolphin cranes were built in 1990 at a cost of £1.2 million. Capital dredging in 1981 and 1990 cost £2 million. Acquisition of port handling equipment cost £1.3 million and acquisition and development of 150 acres of land from 1987 to 1991 cost £1.6 million. I was involved in the heart-searching about purchasing the land at that time, which is now a hive of activity that has created employment in the area. The erection of warehouses and weighbridges and the acquisition of office accommodation cost £1.2 million. Installation of essential services, such as roadways, fresh and fire water, main sewer, Telecom, ESB, etc., came to almost £1 million.

Foynes Harbour is still one of the most competitive ports from an economic and industrial relations viewpoint. It has lost only seven working days due to industrial action in the past 50 years. It is the sole port on the west coast with a direct rail link to the national rail system and it is directly adjacent to the N69 national route. Employment in the port has increased from 60 persons in 1963 to 400 at present. The development of Foynes over the past 30 years has been phenomenal and the trustees have achieved this level of trade and development mostly from revenues generated from the port itself.

The port has now reached its maximum potential within the existing limits. Further expansion and development after the present development plan, which is updating the present facilities, has been completed can only be achieved by utilising the adjacent deep water. I am glad the Minister is convinced of this case. It should also be noted that no other authority has any plans for the utilisation of waters included in the proposed expansion of the jurisdiction of Foynes. It is fair to say the development of the deep water immediately adjacent to Foynes, including the potential berths at Foynes Island, Mount Trenchard and Coalhill Point, can only take place by using existing Foynes Harbour facilities. When making the application for the extension of jurisdiction over the adjacent waters, the Foynes Harbour Trustees were careful to select limits which were the minimum necessary with the use of the immediately adjacent deep water and would cause the least interference with the existing use or potential development of any other area by any other enterprise or harbour authority on the Shannon.

The occupancy in utilisation of berths in Foynes is high. The trustees have completed plans to extend the west jetty up to a length of 300 metres next year to enable this berth to accommodate two large vessels simultaneously. This facility will lead to a reduction in traffic congestion in the immediate future, but it is confidently predicted that the extra facility will be utilised to its maximum within a short period, thereby increasing the overall traffic and throughput by approximately 50 per cent. This additional facility will only alleviate existing shipping congestion and will not cater for future trade.

It is important that Foynes Harbour Trustees have the facility to extend areas where there are deep water sites which are located at Mount Trenchard. Foynes would be capable of handling super-Panamax type vessels in the Mount Tranchard area, so this is an obvious step. The development of proper jetty facilities in this location would substantially reduce the cost to Irish importers and exporters and the savings of freight cost for port users who use the Panamax size vessel could be as high as £3 per tonne. The construction of a deep water jetty in the area of the proposed extension to the jurisdiction was identified by An Foras Forbatha in 1983 as one of the most suitable sites on the Shannon Estuary for development, which would also eliminate the existing restrictions on vessels in excess of 20,000 DWT berthing or un-berthing during the dark time period, which can apply at various intervals from 1 November each year to the following 15 February. The provision of a berth at this location would also release the berthage in the inner harbour of Foynes and substantially reduce the risk of congestion and eliminate demurrage cost to the Irish importers and exporters.

I thank the Government for its positive response to the Foynes Harbour development plan, which costs £10 million and will substantially improve the present facilities. I especially commend the present Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, and the previous Minister, Deputy Coveney, for their response to Foynes when the application was initially placed before them.

The State grant of £5 million is the biggest received in the 100 year life of the harbour. This development will be completed in a short time; it is due to commence early next year, possibly April or May, and finish as quickly as possible. In conjunction with this it is vital that we draw up plans for the development of the deep port. At the same time the Department and the EU should look at the funding implications, the cost/benefit factor and the opportunity for Ireland of having such a port on the west coast. We would not wish to wait until the development on hand was completed. We must immediately make plans and look forward to the response from the Department and the relevant EU authorities about this exciting development.

There are two difficulties which may slow or delay the development of the level of commercial business at Foynes. These two issues must be tackled in conjunction with future developments. Undoubtedly Foynes has a bright future and will contribute in an exciting and progressive way to the economy and the State. The two inhibitors to the expansion are the condition of the N69 road serving the port of Foynes and the work practices on the docks.

I request the Minister to immediately discuss the improvement of the N69 with his colleague, the Minister for the Environment. This road serves Foynes Harbour from Limerick city and the national primary network. It is in extremely bad condition and has been commented on by many potential businesses who examined Foynes and Askeaton for industrial development purposes. I raised this issue in the House on numerous occasions and again call on the Government to develop immediately a programme for this road to complement and enable the development of Foynes and areas between Limerick and Tarbert. There is also great potential for tourism development on this excellent scenic route and the economic return from both the commercial and tourist aspects of the road would be enormous. Over the past ten years Limerick County Council has fully backed these proposals and made unanimous recommendations to Governments in office over that period concerning the opportunity for development of port industries along the southern side of the Shannon Estuary if the road is improved.

The second area of concern is the work practices. A review and re-organisation of labour management on the docks should be introduced. No one acknowledges that he or his company is employing the dockers and I am concerned that the employee's rights and the transparency of employment should be clarified in the port. The stevedores have no role in the selection of dockers. The selection is completed by the SIPTU committee of 12 people and the stevedores go to the union, which provides a gang to work on certain boats. When work is available it should be and should be seen to be allocated on an equitable basis.

In a confidential report to the Minister for the Marine on the harbour authorities throughout the country, completed by the Labour Relations Commission, reference to Foynes was made:

All dock labour on Foynes port is casual. There is a hard core — i.e., first call — of 33 who work an average of 90 per cent of the working week. In addition 60 to 70 work 75 per cent of the time. The hiring of dockers on behalf of the stevedores is done by the local SIPTU part time official, who selects and books out gangs.

On 24 August I wrote to the president of SIPTU, Mr. Ed Browne, regarding the concerns of many people about this problem. A reply was received on 11 October; it was totally inadequate and only conceded on one issue, that non-regular dockers would be allowed on the selection committee. There must be transparent, open and fair procedures in the selection and allocation of work in Foynes. I am also concerned at reports that the practice known as "ghosting", which allows a small group of SIPTU members to be paid for several shifts at one time.

There must be proper pension arrangements and retirement policies in the docks. It is not right in 1995 that people work well into their seventies while others wait for the occasional mail boat. The problem of work practices and management of labour on the docks must be examined to ensure Foynes fully benefits from the future the arbitrator's report recommended.

I wish to deal now with New Ross harbour. I was visited by a delegation from New Ross who outlined to me the issues mentioned by Senator Fitzgerald. I am aware from the Minister's speech that on 6 November 1995 it was agreed at a meeting that a review of the entire pilotage operation on that estuary should be undertaken. It was further agreed that a review group would be set up by the Department of the Marine to examine the pilotage issue in detail, which I welcome.

The New Ross Harbour Board is concerned about the light dues, as dealt with under section 13. Ships bound for the port of New Ross must pass through the port of Waterford Harbour. At present, these ships are charged light dues at the same rate as vessels which are proceeding to Waterford, in spite of the fact that the New Ross ships use less than half the lights of the estuary. Waterford Harbour Commissioners collect £45,000 per annum in light dues from New Ross ships. The charge is not related to the cost of providing the lights and is, in the view of the harbour board, making New Ross uncompetitive. I understand that an amendment on Report Stage allows for the continuation of this inequitable situation — some thinking was done on this on Committee Stage but it was reversed on Report Stage. Will the Minister outline his thinking on why a decision to accept this was reversed at a later stage?

The harbour board accepts that if Waterford port provides facilities or services which are of benefit to ships going to New Ross it should be able to recover a fair proportion of the capital and operational costs of providing those facilities or services. However, those costs should be recovered from the other port company rather than a levy on each ship. This would result in an equitable and transparent situation between the two ports. If the present proposals continue, the principal competitor of New Ross Harbour will be in a position to levy charges on it. The cost of recovery should be on a transparent basis and a realistic assessment of the cost of the services given by Waterford Harbour Board.

I welcome the Minister's statement on pension schemes. There is concern in many ports in regard to this; the Minister mentioned Dublin Port where there is great concern because of the situation they are experiencing. Various unfunded superannuation schemes were established over the years which were subject to sanction and approval by the responsible Minister. The latest of these, in the case of Dublin Port, was sanctioned in 1990. These schemes permitted contributions to be deducted from staff without the necessity of forming a pension fund. These moneys were invested in the expansion and development of the port in the absence of any State or other funding.

The Pensions Act, 1990, and the Harbours Bill, 1995, require the board to establish a fund to cater for all pensions liabilities, past and present. The requirement to retrospectively provide a fund, which in the case of Dublin will be £60 million, is not equitable or justifiable in view of the fact that the board fully complies with all obligations set out in the Harbours Act, 1946, nor is it possible to so do. At present, the turnover of Dublin Port is in the region of £23 million, £3.5 million of which goes towards pension funding. Difficulties will arise if £60 million extra is required. I appreciate that the Minister said he has set up a mechanism to overcome this and to allow for some derogation. Perhaps he would look at a derogation in this instance of between 25 and 30 years to allow Dublin Port to build up the necessary funding to accommodate its pension situation. I know there is a provision that some funding would be provided by the Government. Will the Minister explain in full his proposals for State funding of harbours which have a turnover of £23 million and are now required to produce £60 million to fund a pension scheme?

The whole area of pilotage was discussed and forms a very large part of the Bill. There is a dramatic change in the present pilotage laws. The making of harbour by-laws under section 42 is straightforward but is in contrast with the requirements of section 71 in relation to the making of pilotage by-laws. The Bill should be amended to include in section 22 the making of by-laws with regard to pilotage.

Senator Fitzgerald referred to harbour police. I agree with him that if such a police force is needed, I do not see why it cannot be the Garda. I am also concerned about their training. The requirement that a board must have a harbour police force surely puts it in an uncompetitive position in regard to trading relations. A board would be disadvantaged by having to maintain a police force and should have the discretion to decide whether to have such a police force. Provision should be made to enable routine security duties, such as gate security, to be carried out by people other than policemen — for example, a security firm.

We have all been contacted by the Irish Shipping Agents Association. A bond is now required to be lodged with the harbour company to cover payment of harbour charges. The Irish Shipping Agents Association has asked whether the procedure of compelling the agent to pay his principal liability by direct cash or an extraction from his bond contravenes the law of agency, to which Senator Fitzgerald referred. Will the Minister comment on the bonds issue? I am sure this will be discussed throughout the debate because our attention has been drawn to it.

As the review group stated, Ireland is the most heavily dependent of any EU country on external trade for its future economic development. Eighty per cent, in terms of volume, and over 50 per cent, in terms of value, of the total external trade of this State passes through Irish seaports. Ireland is the last remaining island country in the EU. It is of vital importance that the overall performance of Irish seaports should be on a par with the best international standards. The handling efficiencies and techniques of 1995 have no relationship to those of 1946 when the Harbours Act was introduced; new legislation is necessary to deal with modern cargo handling. The restructuring of seaports and the updating of legislation is taking place in many countries and it is important that Ireland is not left behind. The new legislation is designed to ensure that ports will be enabled to operate as truly commercial and self-sufficient enterprises, free from undue control. As the Minister said, the reorganisation of the commercial seaports, together with a continuation of EU aid for port development, will give the ports the flexibility they need to operate as truly commercial enterprises and will greatly improve their efficiency and effectiveness to the benefit of exporters, the agricultural and industrial sectors and our tourism trade.

The main thrust of the new legislation will be to relax ministerial control while increasing accountability for operational and financial performance. I welcome the significant investment in portal development which will take place between now and 1999. It is important that investment be made to facilitate the expansion of industry, agriculture, tourism and regional development. The importance of our ports to the Irish economy cannot be over-emphasised.

I thank the Minister of State for his presence in the House and his response to the Foynes Harbour issue. I have been a member of the board of Foynes Harbour for ten years. I also thank the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, for his response in this regard. I particularly thank the review group and those who are most often forgotten, the civil servants. These people contact harbour boards daily and are annoyed and hassled for the privilege. On occasion, the chief executives of harbour boards are instructed to lay it on the line to civil servants. I thank Noreen O'Mahony and her staff for their excellent work throughout the years. With the advent of this Bill, these people are moving into a new and exciting area. The harbour boards look forward to close co-operation with them.

I will not be a member of the new board for Foynes Harbour because I am a serving Member of this House. I do not have any hang-ups in that regard. I do not know if Members of the Oireachtas should serve on the boards of semi-State bodies. However, many colleagues are of the opinion that we should. I hope to be in a position to contribute to the port in my area. I look forward to friendly, co-operative, developmental and complementary relations with our partners and neighbouring ports in County Limerick.

I welcome the Minister of State. I concur with Senator Neville in congratulating the Minister for engaging in the arduous task of producing this Bill. This Bill is a long overdue effort to introduce modern commercial reality to our ports.

The failure to modernise our ports has been an amazing oversight, given the dependence of our economy on the export trade. Senator Neville quoted figures which remind us how important that trade is to the country. Great effort and investment have been made over many years to develop that trade but some Irish ports have proved to be a bottleneck in the export process. They have tended to hinder rather than help Ireland's export development. The situation is summed up by the extent to which the port of Larne in County Antrim has developed as an outlet for the export of goods from the Twenty-six Counties at the expense of other ports which are much nearer to the eventual destination of such goods.

I attended the opening of the H.J. Heinz Company factory in Dundalk two years ago at which Dr. Tony O'Reilly spoke. He explained that one of the reasons Dundalk had been selected for the establishment of that factory, which provides great employment opportunities in the area, was the availability of ports and he specifically mentioned Larne in that regard. If one looks at a map of Ireland one sees how far Larne is from Dundalk; this reflects on our ability to run our ports.

I passed through Belfast yesterday and drove, via the M1 and M2, on to the Larne road. I realised the difficulties faced by anyone attempting to export from Dundalk via Larne. They must travel further and they experience many extra problems. However, that was the specific reason the H.J. Heinz Company built their factory in Dundalk. It seems to be a startling reflection on our ability to ensure that our ports are capable of handling such business.

The main problem in the past was that our ports were slow to come to terms with the realities and needs of today's business world. As a result our ports have been bedevilled by restrictive practices, excessive charges to customers and times of opening which suited the people working the ports rather than those using them. Hopefully all this will soon be a thing of the past. This enabling legislation will help us to bring the ports in our distribution chain into line with the rest of what is done in relation to foreign trade.

Last month I received a visit from a group of North Americans planning to open a factory in Ireland. I put them in touch with the IDA, with which they were very impressed, and brought them to the House where they met the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. During our discussions I inquired about their main concern to establish a plant in Ireland — their business involves grocery, not food, products which are not short-life products. The chief executive stated that their main concern is that Ireland is on the periphery of Europe. The group had contacted one of their largest customers, based in Milan, and asked what they required from a supplier of grocery products. The customer in Milan, who runs a chain of supermarkets, stated that their business operates on a "just in time" delivery system and that they do not want to store goods any longer than necessary. When they order goods, they require delivery within four days.

It is clear from this that the American company is already at a disadvantage. If they base their operation on the periphery of the periphery — the west of Ireland — a number of extra hours will be added to the difficulty of delivering their products to that wholesale distribution centre in Milan. When this is taken into account, we realise how important are our ports and the work carried out there and that it is imperative we have efficient ports. We must be able to provide efficient service to customers establishing factories in Ireland which will provide jobs and develop industry.

I must confess, however, to having a major reservation about the provisions in this Bill in so far as they determine the composition of the new harbour boards. I hope the Minister will give a commitment to address my reservation. I hope he will do so by way of a Government amendment on Committee Stage. The Bill provides that the Minister appoint the members of the new boards and that some board seats be reserved for worker directors, which is in line with current practice. In addition, it provides for representation by members of the local authority. I have no problem with any of these provisions. My problem is that these provisions represent the beginning and end of what the Bill states regarding the composition of the new boards. Workers and local authorities are to have entrenched representation, but no mention is made of representation for other interested parties.

The Bill contains no requirement to appoint representatives of local business interests. This is an amazing oversight given that the underlying purpose of the legislation is to bring the ports into the commercial world. I recently spoke to someone who has decided to use the port of Warrenpoint, County Down. The reason for doing so is that the port authorities there are commercially minded and customer oriented. If a ship arrives a number of hours late, the people who work at the port will come in at 3 a.m. to load or unload that ship. That is very different to what used to take place in our ports. The challenge with which the Minister is faced is how to put our ports into a position to challenge traditional ways of doing things so that we might compete. If we are to compete we must be driven by the customer's needs, in this case the person importing or exporting goods.

I welcome the Minister for the Marine who has taken over from the Minister of State. I am sure he will appoint representatives of local business interests to the harbours boards. This legislation will be on the Statute Book for a long time and I believe that, if workers and local authorities are represented, customers — in this case local business interests — should be represented. If we are to specify that workers and local authorities must be represented, then surely we should also specify that business interests are also represented. To omit this requirement is to send a bad signal about the overall intention of the Bill. It calls into question the depth of commitment to create a commercial regime for our ports and I find it hard to accept.

No doubt it will be said no Minister in his right mind would ever appoint a harbour board without including business people on it. I am sure this is so, but it is not the point. The point is that this legislation should signal clearly what it is trying to do. It is not giving the right signal by entrenching the representation of workers and local authorities while refusing to do the same for the customers, that is, the business interests. On the contrary, it is giving entirely the wrong signal.

Let us remember what we are trying to do here. We are trying to drag our ports into the modern commercial world so they become a springboard for export growth rather than an inhibitor of it. Who in his right mind could argue that with such an objective, we should fail to specify in the legislation that business interests are represented fully? That is what the Minister is striving to achieve — healthy, viable ports which will be responsive to the customers who import and export. I am very concerned about this. I believe the Minister has not given sufficient attention to this and to the case made in the other House. This is the opportunity to do something about it.

I wish to touch on some other issues. I congratulate the Minister on the steps he has taken with regard to Foynes. He was not in the House a few minutes ago when Senator Neville congratulated him on these measures. It seems this development is exactly the sort of step which is creating competitiveness in the ports area. This is the right way to go and the Minister is to be congratulated for it. I know he is taking this step in the knowledge that it will be to the benefit of the economy as a whole as well as to the port of Foynes.

I am not quite sure I understand the steps which are being taken in regard to New Ross, but I know that will be debated on Committee Stage. I can only add that in regard to both Foynes and New Ross and the question of representation on the board, we aim to ensure there is fairness and competitiveness. I believe the Minister is behind that, I know his heart is in it and that when he hears the case being made here with regard to the various arguments which are to be advanced on Committee Stage, I am sure he will come to this House with an open mind to ensure our ports will be the healthy viable ports for which we all strive.

I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and wish him well.

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore, who was here earlier.

I welcome the Harbours Bill, 1995. When we recall it has been 50 years since we had major legislation in this country to deal with our harbours, we should be ashamed of ourselves as an island country. We are acting more like Switzerland or Austria than an island in the Atlantic off the European Continent.

The Department of the Marine plays a big role in the development of our coast. It is a relatively new Department. The fact that there was no Department of Fisheries until the 70's and that it then formed part of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries shows how neglectful we were of the sea and the land bordering the sea. Later, there was a Department of Fisheries and Forestry and, finally, the Department of the Marine.

Our approach to the sea, harbours and islands over the years has left a lot to be desired. This new Department needs a lot of finance and I hope the Minister will be able to get it because there is huge potential for development along our coasts. There is mariculture, aquaculture, tourism, sailing, yachting, angling, the commercial aspect, landing facilities and, most importantly, the servicing of our islands.

I served as a member of the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Board from 1974 to 1979. When I first went to a board meeting I was completely disillusioned with what I found. There were a number of people working with great dedication on a voluntary basis to try to keep the harbour board going and that is the way it has been since. There was really no money, and a board cannot function without money.

The Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Board is constrained in its work. There were local authority members on the board — I was one of them; there were ministerial appointments; there was a union, commercial interests and others. But the board lacked the finance for the proper management, control, operation and development of the harbour and its approaches. Whatever is to happen with boards in future, they must have finance or ways to raise finance in order to function properly.

Other speakers have dealt with the broader national issue of harbours, but I want to confine myself to the smaller ones. People have spoken about Foynes, New Ross, Dublin, Cork and so on, but I want to talk about the coast in my constituency, which stretches from Kinsale to the Dursey Sound. It is a very long stretch of coastline. First, I will address the Kinsale Harbour Board. It has the same functions as the other boards and is constrained by its financial situation in the same way. Kinsale has great commercial prospects for landing goods, it is developing fishing and it has a leisure centre already. With a properly financed board, I can see great developments there.

I mentioned already that I have been a member of the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Board and I attended one of their recent meetings. In a letter from the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Board dated 18 November, the board's secretary states that the harbour commissioners are totally against the abolition of certain harbour boards and the transfer of their responsibilities to anybody else. He added that they wished to express "in the strongest possible terms" their opposition to any suggestion of that happening to the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Board. The board feels this would be a retrograde step and would take the running of the harbour out of the hands of those people who have a detailed knowledge and expertise of the area, which could cause problems in the future.

Over the years Baltimore has developed well as a leisure centre, fishing and commercial port and it plays an important part in the servicing of Sherkin Island and Oileáin Cléire, which is a Gaeltacht island. The board needs the support of the Government and the local people. Under the present circumstances they are doing a very good job on a tight budget.

The Bantry Harbour Board further west is a newer board. It was set up only quite recently. Bantry has a fine harbour; it is one of the finest, if not the finest, in western Europe. However, again, financial constraints have led to poor development of the bay. There are huge commercial and fishing interests in Bantry. One thing about all of the ports, and of Bantry in particular, is the amount of aquaculture and mariculture which is being undertaken. This is often unplanned. I feel the board's role in the control of aquaculture and its proper development for the people who are doing a fine job and giving great employment there should be comprehensive.

The INPC Whiddy terminal is also in Bantry, from which boats will go out to the developing project. We hope that oil will flow and that we will have good employment like that which existed in the past. Only a proper harbour board with proper finance can fulfil that role.

I am glad the Bill includes the powers, functions and operational areas, which are extremely important. Section 91 deals with the local authority area. A board in a village or town which is not given the scope to develop into its harbour and sea area is no good. Aquaculture and mariculture, if developed properly, can provide great employment in a constituency like my own where there is little other employment at present.

Harbour boards can cause terrific development in tourism. Places such as Baltimore, Kinsale and Bantry have sailing clubs and diving clubs and are developing marinas. Such facilities are important to attract foreign tourists. Dredging costs hundreds of thousands of pounds and is completely beyond the resources of local harbour boards, which cannot even consider it. Approaches to harbours must be marked and this also costs money. Safety at sea is paramount. Any loss of life is tragic. We must always watch for loss of life at sea resulting from a lack of proper facilities. Harbour boards must also be vigilant in the area of drug trafficking, which is the scourge of our country.

The greater part of the bill deals with the 12 major commercial harbours, but I want to talk about the other 13, including the three in west Cork which I mentioned. They are covered by sections 87 and 88. The Minister mentioned that they have an option to continue to operate under the Harbours Act, 1946, but they will still need finance. An alternative is to set up a commercial State company to manage the small port and that must be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Another option is to transfer the power of a board to a local authority with the approval of the Department of the Environment.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that this will be done on a port by port basis with consultation. Those words are of extreme importance because one is on to a loser if one tries to foist an authority on an area. The local fishermen, commercial marine interest, those involved in aquaculture or mariculture, local authority members, local shopkeepers and others working along the coast know what is wanted. At times there will be an element of individual greed; but if all the points are taken and worked out properly, the right solution can be found for the smaller ports. Some of them would function better under a local authority while others would be better as they are but with proper financing. Others may be better operating as registered companies. Consultation and assessment on a port by port basis is important and I am glad to see it included in the Minister's speech.

Frequently, we see projects fail because they fall between two Departments — the Department of the Environment on one side and the Department of the Marine on the other. The high water mark is the border line and while the local authority may be inclined to say a problem is within the remit of the Department of the Marine, the Department of the Marine will say it comes within the functions of the local authority. There are two such examples in west Cork.

The first is the proposed building of a barrage on Clonakilty Bay to protect the housing in the Faxbridge and lower Clonakilty areas from flooding. There is hassle between the Department of the Marine and the Department of the Environment as to what will happen to this project. The other concerns a stone shelter in Roaring Water Bay, where moneys were granted in the past and difficulties have arisen between the county council and the Department of the Marine about safety and insurance. Fishermen are dragging products up slippery stones to try to sell them abroad. This results in danger to life and limb. Provision of funds would eliminate the extreme hardship being encountered by the fishermen.

Castetownbere is not mentioned in the Bill because it is a fishery port and is in a separate category. There are great developments in Union Hall. Is there any possibility that another board might be established to deal with that development which includes a fine new pier? I must praise the initiatives of the local people including the fishermen's organisations, for the work they have done and the manner in which they have promoted and fought for it.

We cannot overlook the tremendous tourist facilities in Courtmacsherry and Schull which do not have harbour boards. Local participation is an important part of the future development of smaller ports. While dealing with the 12 larger harbours and 13 smaller ones, we cannot forget the hundreds of small piers and slipways around our coast which are the responsibility of local authorities who have no money to maintain them. We must examine them in the context of the future development of the fishing industry. A small boat can come into its local pier, land its catch, make money for people in the locality, keep them employed and give them some dignity. These small piers are a lifeline for work and need our support and that of the Department of the Marine.

There are seven inhabited islands and many uninhabited islands off the south west coast of County Cork. Two of the larger ones, Bere Island and Whiddy Island, are in Bantry Bay, while the Baltimore-Skibbereen Harbour Board area includes Cape Clear, Sherkin Island, Long Island and Hare Island. The harbour boards could play big part in the lives of people on these islands. The ferry to Cape Clear and Sherkin Island leaves from Baltimore. Proper management and development on the shore side will effect development on the islands. One of these islands is a Gaeltacht area to which hundreds of students go during the summer. Properly regulated tourism can be developed on those islands which need it badly. There is a large future role to be played by the Department of the Marine in coastal protection and coastal development. Much work is needed to combat the power of the Atlantic. I welcome the Bill. I would welcome more Bills from the Department of the Marine which would address the development of coastal areas, whether it be coastal protection, coastal management or otherwise. Cork County Council established a coastal management committee some years ago. Its function is to ascertain what can be done along the coast, but financial constraints are a big factor in its operation. When the high water mark is reached the committee no longer has any function.

In the past couple of years we established an islands committee; members from the islands meet with members from the local authority and exchange views. This committee deals mainly with west Cork because the inhabited islands are off the west Cork coast. The west Cork members of the county council are also the members of the island committee.

I accept that the Minister's intentions are the best but with the introduction of more Bills from the Department of the Marine we could have a very good coastline with the development of fishing, mariculture and agriculture, which will provide employment for our young people. This is vitally important in places such as west Cork where other sources of employment are not great.

The Bill has been threatened for the House for some time and has been the cause of at least three. general elections. I hope it will not cause another.

There are parts of the Bill which I welcome and which are long overdue because the powers of port users and port authorities are antiquated. We have not been able to move forward to the best of our ability. The Bill will enable ports to borrow more money and use their expertise in the commercial world for promotion and development.

Senator Quinn made some interesting points on the development of ports in the North over the past years, especially the ports of Larne and Warrenpoint, where the opportunity was seized to adopt, 24 hour roll-on roll-off operations. Many companies in the South use and have used the facilities of these ports, especially when VAT at the point of entry and various other measures hindered the kind of development that was required in this country.

Part of the legislation seeks to reconstruct the management framework of port authorities by establishing State commercial companies to manage the 12 bigger ports, in addition to the other 13 ports that have been mentioned. It is approximately 50 years since the Second Stage of a Harbour Bill was introduced to the House by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass. Many famous names contributed to the debate, including General Mulcahy, John A. Costelloe and Maurice Dockrell. I wonder what will be said about this debate 50 years from now. Will speakers concede that the right decisions were made, that we were advanced or restricted in our views?

Some of the recommendations of the 1992 report of the Commercial Harbour Review Group are antiquated and we must move forward from them. However, the Bill does not go far enough, especially in dealing with Ireland's remoteness from the main part of Europe. We are an island and depend totally on our exports by sea. We are the only part of the EU severed from the mainland, which provides the basis of a case for proper and adequate funding for the development of our ports. An enormous effort will have to be made to secure such funding. We have fallen behind over the past number of years because of the lack of funding and proper legislation which would give the ports powers to develop.

What does the Minister intend by the establishment of a State commercial company to manage and operate Dún Laoghaire Harbour, which is currently managed and operated by the Department of the Marine? Does he intend that privatisation will take place or is this the foot in the door towards the privatisation of all the ports around the country? I recently visited some ports in Scotland that are under State control and some that have been privatised. With regard to those that have been privatised, the numbers employed have been reduced, in some instances from approximately 300 to 400 people to approximately 25 or 30, with one person in the control room operating from a computer type system. Will the Minister indicate if he intends this is to be the way forward for our ports?

The Minister advises that the State will be the sole shareholder of each company. Will he clarify this point? He also advised that it is essential that thorough preparation is undertaken before the companies are established. Is it his intention, once the Bill is enacted, to proceed with this on a piecemeal basis, for example, by dealing with the easiest port first and seeing how it works out, or does he intend to deal with all the ports together?

With regard to the formation of the companies that the Minister intends to establish, I am disappointed that he will exclude Deputies, Senators and MEPs from the boards. While MEPs and Deputies may be too busy, I fail to see the logic in prohibiting Senators. I am a member of one such a board for the last 16 years, and am one of the most qualified members of the board as I am the only person living on the Shannon Estuary, which is included in the remit of the board. I know as much if not more about the estuary than most people. I know how it ticks and how, with the new powers to be given to the port authorities, it could be developed and expanded. By constrast, new appointees may have no interest in the boards they join having been appointed, for example, because of their expertise in company affairs and so on. People with local knowledge should be involved in the running of boards. Everybody knows what a port can mean to the livelihood of a town or village and this has been proven over the years. There are successful ports throughout the country.

The powers and duties of the new port companies will include promoting investment in harbours, utilising and managing the resources available to them and promoting leisure facilities. In the operation of ports I cannot see how leisure and port facilities can work hand in glove, particularly in the case of large ports in and out of which large ships travel. Sailing clubs may interfere with pilotage of large ships in estuaries. As far as the Shannon Estuary is concerned, designated areas for pleasure and recreation should be defined in advance and should not interfere with the shipping of goods in and out of the harbour.

With regard to the audited accounts, the Minister said that each port company will be empowered, with ministerial consent, to borrow up to 50 per cent of its fixed assets. Will this be with the consent of the Minister for the Marine or with the combined consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance? The Minister for the Marine might decide one thing but the Minister for Finance may say that money cannot be provided for this, even though the port authority may have put forward a viable economic plan. This is a weakness of the Bill and I would like some clarification on it. If the Minister for the Marine is responsible for the operation of ports. he should be empowered to give or withhold consent for borrowings by port authorities.

Under the Bill the Minister will be empowered to issue directions to companies relating to safety and harbour charges. We are setting up new authorities while at the same time the Minister will retain control of these matters. People who have been operating ports for a number of years know more than anybody else about the safety of rivers and ports in their areas. If the Minister is empowered to levy harbour charges, this will inhibit ports from attracting industry and development to their regions. This part of the Bill should be amended.

The Minister stated that each port company will be required to organise pilotage by employing pilots directly or by licensing self-employed pilots to undertake pilotage operations. Each port company will be empowered to make by-laws for the operation and organisation of pilotage services, qualifications for pilots, the grant of pilotage exemption certificates and other matters related to pilotage. I would like the Minister to clarify this.

During my years as a commissioner I have seen people being prohibited from operating on the Shannon Estuary, even though they had properly qualified people to operate on the river and all the necessary certificates. They were prohibited because they were interfering with a cosy arrangement which was operating in the estuary. Every obstacle one could think of was put in the way of the first registered operator. This man introduced a cheaper type of pilot boat system on the river which has been of benefit to this day. Harbours and the people who use pilots in the estuary have benefited greatly from this person's operations.

I will now deal with the limits of the jurisdiction of Foynes Harbour. The Minister appointed Mr. Patrick Murphy to act as an independent mediator between Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Foynes Harbour Trustes. I attended a number of these meetings during one of which Mr. Murphy met a delegation from Limerick Harbour Commissioners. The Minister stated that he has accepted Mr. Murphy's recommendations and that he will introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to put them into effect. Was Mr. Murphy acting as a mediator or an arbitrator? Will the limits of the harbour's jurisdiction be defined before the debate on the Bill is concluded?

The Minister stated that the Shannon Estuary is a wonderful natural resource. There is no question about this but it is being held back and has been interfered with. It has not been included among the four ports which may qualify for Cohesion funding, even though the tonnage passing through the Shannon Estuary, that is through both Limerick and Foynes harbours, is far greater than the tonnage which enters Dublin port.

I live in Tarbert, which is at the mouth of the Shannon Estuary and where there is and oil refinery. I should like to promote the establishment of a port in Tarbert. As a member of Kerry County Council I proposed this, but I do not know why the council did not apply for a licence for jurisdiction. We used to have a port in Tarbert but this was allowed to be replaced by Limerick Harbour Commissioners. Since 1968 or 1969 every penny has been taken from this region to operate a harbour 35 or 40 miles downriver. No development has taken place in my area while at the same time Arran Energy purchased 150 acres of land for a proposed oil refinery and the IDA purchased about 600 acres of land adjacent to this for the development of a smelter. Toyota also bought 100 acres for the importation and assembly of cars, but this work was subsequently lost to Wales.

This part of the estuary has the deepest port facilities and can turn around the biggest ships in the world, but it did not qualify for a single penny from the Cohesion Funds. There is a coal powered power station across the estuary in Moneypoint. This matter has been mentioned on numerous occasions and there have been umpteen meetings, but the development of the transhipment of commodities other than coal in that port has been prohibited. If proper funding was put in place and people were given a free hand, it is possible that another port in the region could be developed.

The Minister should reconsider the Shannon Estuary in its entirety.

The jurisdiction of the Foynes authority should be identified in the Bill. Foynes is a success story, involving a small number of people running a small port in a small town. It originally employed up to 20 people but as many 400 have been employed on a week on/week off or day on/day off basis. This created an unbelievable buzz around the town and credit is due to the operators for their achievements. The same could be done in other ports if a free hand was given. The Bill does not go far enough.

Senator Neville mentioned the N69, but this should involve the road all the way to Tralee and from there to Tarbert, Foynes and back to Limerick and the development of the entire estuary area. For years I have promoted the development of the north Kerry area in terms of transhipment, oil refinery and smelting, but the government has not given a commitment to install water facilities which are needed. Approximately £22 million was required to dam the Smeala River and we were told Cohesion Funds would be made available to install a proper water supply and link the facilities to the estuary. However, it was a chicken and egg situation: which came first?

Years ago, if and industry intended to set up an operation along the river, it was told the facilities would be made available. However, in the market today the services must already be in place. Places with successful roll-on roll-off facilities prove this point. Although it would be expensive, there is a need to run a natural gas line along the estuary. This would attract industry. The Smeala River also needs to be dammed and the infrastructure in the area needs to be updated. The N69 should be upgraded. If this is not done we may as well forget about the entire Shannon region. If the proper funding is not available, proper development will not occur.

The review group mentioned the names of the new ports, including the Shannon port. However, Limerick people are anxious that it is called the Shannon Estuary Authority. The report states that the arrangements suggested would not affect the autonomous stature of the Foynes and Kilrush authorities. While I agree with that point, I also agree that the establishment of a north Kerry or Kerry estuary authority should be considered. I will deal with the problems of the Waterford estuary, particularly regarding the New Ross Harbour, on Committee Stage. The Bill is totally unfair in that regard.

The Minister stated the main thrust of the Bill is to relax ministerial control while increasing accountability for operational and financial performance. While it is important an eye is kept on the ball regarding operational and financial performances, the Minister will be restricted in terms of examining borrowing requirements if this opening exists. A Fine Gael Party or Labour Party Minister will not always be in office and Ministers may differ. The Minister for the Marine should be responsible for decisions on applications from ports for developments, although I understand the Minister for the Marine may need to refer to the Minister for Finance.

The Minister mentioned the ports development policies and the establishment of four ports. He stated significant investment must be made in these ports by 1999. Apart from the four large ports, where will areas such as the Shannon Estuary come in? The removal of the béal bar has been discussed for many years. This would be hugely expensive but would allow the entry of the largest ships in the world. It also poses a difficulty in Money point, although the problem there has just about been surmounted. Will moneys be made available for the removal of the béal bar from the £135 million mentioned by the Minister? The Minister specifically mentioned the elimination of bottlenecks and this is definitely a bottleneck on the Shannon Estuary.

Senator Calnan mentioned the other provisions in the Bill, including the measure to put Tralee and Fenit under the control of Kerry County Council. Who will pay for this move? Will the local authority pay for the running of the authority? Will it be the port authority in Tralee? If the Minister is putting Kerry County Council in charge in Tralee, why not also in Dingle, Tarbert or Kilrush? Senator Calnan also mentioned the small ports along the Shannon Estuary. Who will be responsible for maintaining the small ports within the jurisdiction of the new company the Minister intends to establish?

A small pier was falling down in Tarbert for the last 30 years. It was in a dangerous condition. I made representations to the Department of the Marine, Kerry County Council, the Department of the Environment and others for funding to repair the pier, but everybody washed their hands of it. Eventually, the local people got together and raised approximately £45,000 to restore the old pier. It is located at the entrance to Kerry for the ferry and has enhanced and improved the entire area. However, this work would not have been done but for the local people. Who will be responsible for maintenance if another pier on the Shannon Estuary starts to fall apart? Who will finance the upkeep of these items, such as in Fenit? If Kerry County Council is to be given control, where will it get the money to do it?

The Minister mentioned designating Dingle harbour as a fishery harbour centre once the new legislation is in place. Could that be put in place in one form or another while the legislation is going through? The people of Dingle have sought this type of facility for many years.

I support change and the introduction of a new Bill. However, it is not strong enough and it contains inadequacies. More could have been given and there is a conflict of interest between the Minister and the Minister for Finance. Enough power has not been given to the new bodies. For example, the Minister intends to change the structure of the boards and increase the membership from eight to 12. Three members of local authorities will be allowed to sit on the boards and this is welcome. However, apart from the chief executive officer, from where will the other directors come since eight people may be appointed? Will the Minister appoint people from the chambers of commerce or business interests?

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share