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.